Hacker News Reader

Comment by 6cxs2hd6 | Hacker News Reader

Well the 2nd amendment was written in a time of muskets and militias. If the spirit/intent were fully what some people say, why don't we each have a 2nd amendment right to an attack helicopter, nukes, chems, bios, and UAVs? (Because assault rifles instead of muskets doesn't add much to the equation.) Since that would be clearly insane, reductio ad absurdum. Right?

View on HN

I think you would find that there are a subset of people, myself included, that don't find that notion so insane. If you accept the idea that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the citizenry to overthrow their government then having the government restrict what citizens can and cannot purchase is somewhat nonsensical.

Historically speaking, government restriction on firearm ownership is a relatively new thing. "Weapons of war" like ships and artillery were privately owned in this country as recently as the civil war.

Believe it or not, the country didn't degrade into people waging private wars against each other, mass murder, etc...

To make sure I understand, you're saying we should have a constitutional right to own attack helicopters, armed UAVs, and nuclear, chemical and biological weapons?

(And since the SCOTUS has opted to interpret that corporations are people, too, presumably they would have this right as well?)

Although tyranny would be unquestionably bad, the proposed prophylactic for that hypothetical scenario is worse.

Possibly I'm biased because I live in Boston and recently saw first-hand what a homemade IED can do. I am not eager to see people have the right to upgrade that kind of musket to the pro version.

Cannot corporations already own heavy duty weaponry? Aren't these the companies we are "contracting" to fight our wars for us?

Regardless, being in favor of particular interpretations of the 2nd Amendment does not mean that you are automatically in favor of considering corporations people.

> recently saw first-hand what a homemade IED can do. I am not eager to see people have the right to upgrade that kind of musket to the pro version.

Weren't those bombs packed with the same stuff that you buy if you want to shoot your musket? There was a lot of misinformation going around at the time and I haven't kept up on that story so I honestly am not sure, but I am pretty sure the word is that they were pressure cookers with gunpowder (which you can buy "loose" to load your own rounds for modern guns, or use to load muskets). I am not sure that it makes sense for you, coming from your perspective, to be pushing something that would make buying loose gunpowder more mainstream.

I can't help myself on this one, but...

> Believe it or not, the country didn't degrade into people waging private wars against each other, mass murder, etc...

We did have a civil war (which is the end bound you placed on your time line). It wasn't a private war, it technically wasn't mass murder, but, it was a war.

Again, sorry, I couldn't help myself on this one.

What was happening to the Native Americans at this time?

They were spending their time being shot, primarily by the federal government.

Alas, you are right. At the time, muskets were the best infantry weapons, and the British soldiers were armed with them, and the colonials got cannons as soon as possible.

I don't think it would be clearly insane.

My assumption is that the US political landscape would look a lot different if the citizens of the United States were indeed allowed to own any weapon they chose and paid for. I don't know if things would be better; they would definitely be different.

Not necessarily. The power of the government stems not only from it's ability to inflict violence against groups (e.g. bombing a city) but also individuals (e.g. arresting a single person). Against the latter, ordinary weapons are still very effective. When police overstep their legal rights, it is even lawful in some states to use force to defend yourself.

I think the usual rebuttal by analogy is that the 1st amendment was written before the internet and most other electronic means of communication and therefore, analogically, should not be applicable there.

(A better rebuttal, from the substance, has already been offered in the rest of the thread.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com