Comment by abraininavat | Hacker News Reader

Comment by abraininavat | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

1) I agree you'd have to include that in the weighing of pros vs cons. I think many people who argue that this weapon should be illegal for the average person would concede that it would make sense to legalize it for people with a disability.

2) Come on, seriously? You say "even every day items". It makes less sense to ban every day items than it does to ban extravagant items that very few people, if any, need or even want. I can kill someone with a fork. More people have been killed with forks than with this weapon. Are you willing to (digitally) stand here and suggest to all of us that it doesn't make sense to ban this rifle until we ban forks?

And where is your line? Every rational person has a line at which they say "X weapon clearly should be illegal for every day people to own." So where's yours? Do you not feel high explosives should be regulated? If farmers decided sarin gas (since it was mentioned elsewhere in this conversation) was a good pesticide, would you be all for it? Wherever you draw your line, it's just as arbitrary as anyone else's.

3) I'm simply not seeing any novel technology here. Motion tracking? It's been done. Servos being controlled by a microprocessor? It's been done. Distance gauging? Trajectory adjustment? Where is the new technology that we'd all miss out on?

Regarding the note about the bill of rights, what a horribly conceived piece of writing is the second amendment. It asserts the right to "bear arms" but doesn't give any hint as to the definition of "arms". An H-bomb classifies as an "arm" just as perfectly as this firearm does. We've outgrown that short-sighted text.

You might feel that way, but I doubt if the Founders would, considering that the majority of firearms, munitions, warships and cannons used to win our independence were provided by civilians. In short though, I don't have to draw that line, as the Supreme Court has effectively already done so, as they define arms being man-portable and "in common use" as a protected class of firearms for the purposes of this debate, though as I recall, Atonin Scalia did make a casual reference to rocket launchers as being too exotic for protections to apply.

US v Miller, another landmark case regarding the second amendment, defines protected weapons as those being of use to a militia. Before we go down that rabbit hole, a milita is defined by 10 US Code § 311 as all men aged 17 to 45, and has been expanded by the Supreme Court to include women as well.

As for the tech, I agree that the individual components are nothing new, but the aggregate of the parts is something new and noteworthy. For what it's worth, I also consider the Gibson robot tuner as noteworthy, as well as the Raspberry Pi, though clearly neither was exactly groundbreaking on the grand order of things.

So, this firearm and its particular technology not being "in common use", it would then seem reasonable to argue that it should be illegal.

You may not think the automation this gun provides is exotic enough to warrant being illegal, but surely you can agree that reasonable people could interpret "in common use" in that way?

I acknowledge that it very well could be read that way, but Alan Gura (the attorney of record in DC v Heller) held in his argument (which was confirmed by SCOTUS) that it can't be circular reasoning -- e.g., you can't ban a weapon to take it out of common use, then argue that it is not in common use because of the ban to prevent it from being unbanned.

That was, effectively the case in Heller, because DC had banned all handguns completely, making them clearly NOT in common use, which they felt allowed them to perpetuate their ban. DC's law was overturned on that logic.

That said, how do you prevent the banning of every new type of gun/handgun/rifle/taser/whatever if the claim is that "Well, it's never been sold, so it's obviously not in common use, so it can't be bannable?" In reality, this isn't even really a gun at all, but a complicated aiming system. The gun it's attached to is the Surgeon equivalent of a Robot tuner on a Gibson guitar (which is why I brought it up elsewhere). According to the ATF, the lower receiver of a gun like this is the only part that is the 'gun'. What this means is that I can buy the lower receiver by itself, with no firing group, no barrel, no butt stock, etc., and that constitutes the sale of a firearm. As such, as it seems that all the tech for this thing is basically in the reticle (except for the trigger group, which is still not technically part of the gun), this is really just an accessory.

How do I prevent the banning of every new type of gun/handgun/rifle/taser/whatever? Easy. If I'm the dictator the first thing I do is throw out that sad excuse for an amendment. It's much too vague to be useful.

People hold up the Bill of Rights as if the amendments were etched in stone by God.

Whether any given weapon should or shouldn't be legal depends on a lot of things, including the state of the country at any given time. The idea that the right to bear firearms (some arbitrary invention) belongs on the same document as eternally useful rights like the right of free speech is silly and was a huge mistake.

And that's probably why we don't allow for dictatorships in this country.

I think that the fact that the right to bear arms IS on the same document means that it was intended to be. You don't have to appreciate all the rights of Americans, but I really wish you wouldn't try to curtail them, especially as there are plenty of other places you could move that have, aside from the second amendment, similarish rights to those of America. (Not suggesting you GTFO or anything, but y'know, if you hate it that much, there are places you could go).

You were arguing so well, but then you sunk so low. "if you hate it that much, there are places you could go." ? Who implied I hate this place? I've suggested we should change it, in my opinion for the better. You've fallen squarely in line with those who would call me unpatriotic for not blindly marching along with your worldview.

I think for myself. You get your marching orders from some parchment. It's people like me who made this country. It's people like you who bowed to King George.

I was speaking pragmatically of course. Maryland is on the precipice of banning "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines", and as a result, I'm looking in to moving to another state that respects my rights more.

I wasn't implying that hated 'the place', but you clearly seem to have issues with the second amendment. You're of course welcome to try to change things, and I would argue in fact that it is your patriotic responsibility to work for the government you want. That said, a big distinction between America and most other first world countries is wrapped up in the second amendment, so if I were in your shoes, I would likely consider moving. As I said, I'm not telling you to get out, and I'm not calling you unpatriotic, I'm just suggesting that voting with your feet is an option available to you. As there aren't any first world countries that respect the right to bear arms for me to go to, that regrettably isn't an option for me. I'm jealous of your position, if anything.

I don't know how either of us "made this country", and surely neither of us are old enough to have bowed to any King, so I'm not really sure what your point is with your last sentence.

> I think for myself. You get your marching orders from some parchment. It's people like me who made this country. It's people like you who bowed to King George.

I won't speak for bmelton but it's disingenuous to label second amendment supporters as folks who "get [their] marching orders from some parchment". Most I know recognize the right to self-defense as merely being guaranteed by the constitution rather than granted by it. The confusion I suspect is from the "parchment" often being used as a convenient argument - many in this country take for granted uniform agreement that the document does in fact bind the government; ergo to them the argument is trivially won by quoting it.

They do not always realize that those they argue against view the constitution as a "living" document subject to interpretation, and may summarily discard arguments that appeal to it's guarantees. It is also damaging to their argument that so many are willing to to support the government's disregard of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th amendments while fervently supporting the 2nd.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I think that's kind of polarizing. I am (obviously) a supporter of the second amendment, but I and all my liberty-minded peers support the entirety of the Bill of Rights, even where we don't necessarily agree with it.

The main thing that's polarizing it though, is that the ACLU supports all of the bill of rights except for the second amendment, so those that support the second feel like they're the only ones that are.

To be clear, I was not referring to you in any way. I was just positing why the above poster may have concluded that those who speak out in support of the 2nd amendment are marching to the parchment.

Maybe it's polarizing, but there really are only two sides in this fight. There's no middle ground here - there is the ideal of freedom or there is "compromise". Not a compromise in the proper sense of the word, though. It is a pure loss, for you have less freedom than you started with and nothing in return. Votes cost nothing, so this compromise can be (and is) demanded over and over again. The end result is what we face in Maryland, never-ending iterations of legislation with no rational link to the real world, and thousands (like myself) who dream of moving to a state that is slightly more free.

Oh, I know. I thought your comments were poignant, and mine weren't meant as disagreement. I was just responding to the lsat part, "It is also damaging to their argument that so many are willing to to support the government's disregard of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th amendments while fervently supporting the 2nd."

It often seems like people that support the second amendment care about none of the others, and I'm sure in part that is true for a number of reasons, but that doesn't discount that there are many more "second amendment supporters" who are concerned with the broader spectrum of civil liberties, but whose views aren't necessarily represented because there are groups like the ACLU that represent "all civil rights except that one" and the like.

Are you also in Maryland? Have you considered (or are you already) joining Maryland Shall Issue?

I understand, and it's a good point. That statement was just a personal lament based on my observations of the community of 2nd amendment supporters over the last few years.

I am in Maryland, Carroll County specifically. I'm a member of MSI, SAF and the NRA and have been engaging as much as possible with our senators and delegates over the last few weeks.

I'll likely be retreating to Pennsylvania or Virginia in the next couple of years - I'm sure many others will be as well. In the meantime, keep your powder dry and perhaps we'll meet one day on the range. :)

>You might feel that way, but I doubt if the Founders would, considering that the majority of firearms, munitions, warships and cannons used to win our independence were provided by civilians.

If by civilians you mean the French, you would be accurate. The idea of a civilian warship or artillery piece is as ludicrous then as now. It's not like people have this stuff just lying around the farmhouse. France spent billions of livres fighting the British in that period, more than 1 billion directly on the American conflict. It is entirely accurate to describe the Revolutionary War as a proxy war.

From the NRA's magazine[0]: >The New Hampshire shipments equipped much of the Patriot army at Saratoga in October 1777, and, by 1778, the majority of Washington’s regiments had replaced their earlier disparate mix of arms with French ones.

There is a staggering amount of historical revisionism to minimize the role of France in this war, and to omit any context or ulterior motive for them doing so. France was the world's major military power, as well as the largest and most populous country in Europe, and had been for centuries. War between England and France was more often than not the case for nearly 500 years between 1337 and 1815. The American war was by no means the largest or most important of these conflicts.

There's a reason that the treaty ending the war was signed in Paris, and it's not because of their fabulous wine and cheese spread. Speeches from the British Parliament will attest that they knew their enemies were Bourbon, and not American. Which should surprise no one except, lamentably, most Americans.

[0] http://www.jaegerkorps.org/NRA/The%20Revolutionary%20Charlev...

Later on, yes, many of our weapons came from France and Spain. Before that though, almost all of the arms provided (including cannons and ships) were done so by either civilian owners or confiscation.

"Later on" being what? 1777 is year 2 of 8. All of the sources that I've been able to find give the number of foreign-supplied arms as being significantly greater than those of US manufacture. For example, the first shipment of French rifles was equal in number to more than half of the Kentucky Long Rifles ever produced, and I believe also greater than the number of rifles that the Continental Army possessed at the time. Perhaps you can supply some better numbers.

Few if any of the supplied ships were warships, fewer answered directly to the Continental Navy, and none were Ships of the Line, which meant their combat utility was, shall we say, limited. What I read here[0] about the supply of cannon is pretty dismal and does not really support your claim. It is rather abundantly clear that, to the degree that arms and equipment were contributed freely by private citizens, this happened very early in the war, and had no effect on the outcome. You may feel free to show otherwise.

[0] http://www.history.army.mil/books/RevWar/risch/chpt-12.htm

Downvoting well articulated arguments because they disagree with your own? Cowards.

All I can say is, wasn't me. And in fact, I've upvoted your arguments since the one accidental downvote.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com