Hacker News Reader

Comment by embwbam | Hacker News Reader

I'm American. I grew up in a conservative household so I think I understand where they are coming from. My understanding is that many consider the 2nd amendment to allow them to bear arms to protect themselves from their own oppressive government. The idea is that no government can become completely totalitarian without first disarming the population. And if they try, the people can revolt.

That may be an incorrect understanding, but I'm pretty sure that's what a lot of people are thinking when their guns get "taken away". You can see why new gun control laws might be alarming if you have this attitude.

View on HN

This is my take away too, and I think it is valuable, especially in an era of every politician going out of their way to fuck everyone else over for their own gain like we have right now.

I'm very unnerved by the prospect of the military being allowed to wield so much technology for the purposes of murder that citizens can't have already. It kind of stacks the cards against the people.

We are not in a perfect utopia, there will be conflict, and strife, and almost certainly (be it short or long term) there will be the turning of governments and rule. There has always been, and if you don't think it can happen in the modern era... the soviet union collapsed just over 20 years ago.

I would never own a gun, but I value my right to possess one in the eyes of the constitution in the event my government goes too far into the totalitarian deep end of the pond. It is a right few other nations can claim to have - if their governments turn on them, they really have no defense because they are never armed.

But I'm also not trying to say having guns would keep the US military from rolling over whoever they wanted in the country if the fed just decided to conquer their own nation. They still do have all the military hardware citizens aren't allowed to have, which wasn't kept in line with the purpose of the second amendment. Though I also don't think private ownership of nuclear arms would be the best thing ever, but that is the kind of thing nobody should have. I'd rather see nobody use weapons of war they wouldn't trust their citizens with.

As I said, it was a supposition ;)

I can understand having a license to own a gun (My dad owns a hunting rifle, and a handgun that was an inheritance from my grandpa which will possible pass down to me) but I was watching some news a couple weeks ago where they were showing a hearing on the senate (I think) and the people that went to talk there were defending that changing the laws to allow some guns but not others (automatic rifles I think) was wrong.

In exactly what case does a civilian need an automatic rifle? I sorta understand the afraid of the government thing, but let's be honest, if the government wants to be even more/fully totalitarian, an untrained militia carrying rifles won't stop them.

I'm American and the truth is we don't need automatic rifles, but there is a very strong history of firearms in this country and thus a very strong supportive lobbying group behind it fighting to strike down anything which has potential to weaken it financially. The protecting ourselves from 'the government' argument is pure nonsensical bullshit, as 'the government' already has more nefarious means of controlling the masses. Simply put, there are a lot of ignorant people in America supporting ignorant lobbying groups who care more about their money than morality.

> In exactly what case does a civilian need an automatic rifle?

Generally, suppression of negative freedoms are argued in terms of "what is the need of the collective to forcibly deny this freedom to citizens" rather than what need the citizen has to use the freedom. What is your exact need for freedom of the press extended to even obscene material? What is your exact need to be allowed to worship even satan? And my favourite: if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

> but let's be honest, if the government wants to be even more/fully totalitarian, an untrained militia carrying rifles won't stop them.

It's probably not going to help much against a slow slide, but it will make revolutions look a lot different.

The government really has no jurisdiction to determine how I exercise my RIGHT to keep and bear arms. I don't need to explain to you or anyone else for that matter why I want or think I need an AR-15.

Would you apply that same logic to a strategic nuclear weapon? If not, where is the dividing line between a nuke and an AR-15, and who and what determines it?

At a minimum, you want to have available weapons which provide a significant deterrent to government abuse of power. You want such abuses to be at the risk of a protracted deadly fight that threatens the stability of the power of the abusive government. Anything beyond that is unnecessary, and too much beyond that threatens the security of the people as a whole.

Practically speaking, I would allow everything up to .50 caliber machine guns with minimal regulation.

Automatic rifles have been illegal for a long time. It might have been "assault" rifles, which are semi-automatic, that were the subject of debate. To answer your question, the everyday life justification for firearm ownership is recreational use on a shooting range or in unpopulated wilderness where it is permitted. They are also useful in exceptional circumstances (like a fire extinguisher is useful despite having a fire department), and some people just collect them as a hobby, like any other collection (like this dentist I knew once whose collection was kept in a code-locked room in his house).

I think a more interesting question is why there is so much focus on attacking rifles, when the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns.

But the problem with this is that a government can become completely totalitarian without disarming its subjects. Imagine the Soviet Union, but this time you're allowed to bear arms. Or even better, imagine the USA. Sure, you can bear arms, so in the letter you still can fight for your rights. But in practice, the second you try to pull that shit, a F117 Nighthawk is going to blow your terrorist ass to pieces.

Practice is everything. Damn, the (letter of the) constitution of the Soviet Union actually gave their citizens the right to form political parties and run from office. You were provided by the government a party newspaper, headquarters... of course, if you tried to, you were hanged for treason.

And the problem with that is that it's not that simple as Iraq and Afghanistan has taught us. Guns, of course, are only part of the equation, but I'm pretty sure both wars would have looked a lot different had the population been generally unarmed.

Also, the evacuation of the jews of nazi Germany would have looked a lot different had the jews been armed.

The Nazis overran nation states with mobilized armies. A small segment of the populace with guns would have been irrelevant.

The French Resistance and Warsaw Uprising were not entirely irrelevant, even if they were defeated.

It's one sentence, please read it. I'm talking about the evacuation of jews from Germany, not the general war effort, which was gainst countries with armies.

I know. What I'm saying is that if armies couldn't stop Hitler from marching in, jews with weapons weren't going to stop Hitler from doing what he wanted to them either.

[EDIT: anyway, I actually agree with your main point that a lot of private guns will be useful as a deterrent and in practice against professional armies]

That's all well and good, except no gun you have is going to make a difference. If you're worried about a tyrannical government, you better start investing in drones, nukes, tanks, etc. Otherwise, you're just fooling yourself thinking you stand a chance.

All you have to do is look around at other countries where they don't love their guns. In Canada, a gun is like a hammer, or any tool for that matter. If you start worshipping a tool, polishing it, in hopes of being the lone ranger, you have some problems.

Give teachers/everyone guns! – by far the most ridiculous notion, as if the already burdened education system would be able to deal with another cost.

"Lock up the guns for safety" seems to be another point that makes no sense when you start to analyze real life scenarios. How exactly do you get to a gun in time when someone is firing off rounds in seconds? And the idea that a teacher or even police officer is immune to mental illness is an abhorrent disconnection with reality.

The 2nd amendment is just that – an amendment. Crafted in a time where AK-47s and AR-15s didn't exist. Under the interpretation of the 2nd amendment, people have convinced themselves they are entitled to fit their family with military weapons. Something other gun-free societies just can't understand.

"hat's all well and good, except no gun you have is going to make a difference. If you're worried about a tyrannical government, you better start investing in drones, nukes, tanks"

Nukes and tanks are useless in a guerrilla war.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com