5 ms·

Keep an eye on that Second Amendment of yours. Odds on anyone wanting to try something like this would want to disarm you first.

jknoepfler 9y ago
I've never really understood liberal opposition to the possession of firearms in the United States, given the country's founding principles. That said, I'd be more concerned about the right to vote, the right of the free press, the 10th amendment (which why aren't people more angry about?), the right to privacy as currently understood by the courts, and the fact that class-action lawsuits on behalf of people harmed unlawfully by such a system would cripple any corporate version of it. I don't really understand the political spectrum in the United States, tbh. Obviously you need to be willing to take up arms against an oppressive federal government, should such a thing happen (and who would be deluded enough to think that a military coup would be categorically impossible in any country - if not now, what about a century from now?)
- vermilingua 9y ago
  If you can’t fault the US for it’s gun laws based on its founding (which was violent revolution), then you surely can’t fault China’s human right abuses, because they are similarly a product of its founding.
  - sakuronto 9y ago
    Pardon the ignorance, but how exactly are human rights abuses part of China's foundation?
- tdb7893 9y ago
  You need to be willing to take up arms against a government if the need arises but there's a line in how much harm you are willing to inflict now to make that happen. For an absurd example chemical weapons would help to fight an oppressive government but even if they weren't against international law it would be a little silly if they were legal for normal citizens to own.
- bsder 9y ago
  > I've never really understood liberal opposition to the possession of firearms in the United States, given the country's founding principles. You are making an unjustified leap in assuming that "liberals" are in opposition to owning firearms. Most liberals have no real problem with people owning guns. You don't hear the vast majority of people clamoring to ban hunting rifles or shotguns. What most people (liberal and conservative) want are sensible regulations to prevent the genuinely mentally ill or disturbed from getting guns and ammo. The problem is that the NRA plays outrage politics in order generate funding for itself and this short circuits any useful discussion. Although, it is looking like the NRA has just been functioning as a Russian stooge for quite a while now. As for opposing a coup? That's gonna be tough. The US is BIG. No amount of firearms in Arizona is going to help opposition in Washington DC to fight off a coup.
dang 9y ago
Please don't break the HN guidelines by introducing flamewar topics. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- duncan_bayne 9y ago
  It's _highly_ relevant to this issue. Perhaps I should have been more explicit, but: it's my opinion (one widely shared) that one of the reasons this sort of programme hasn't taken root in the USA already is that your Constitution effectively prohibits it. In principle with the entire document, and in practice with the 2nd. Furthermore, I think that both the 1st and 2nd Amendments act as handy mineshaft canaries. You should mistrust the motivations of anyone who seeks to abrogate either.
  - ybrah 9y ago
    why do some comments look invisible :thinking emoji:
  - nrb 9y ago
    Not sure what you're talking about... nothing in our Constitution prevents this outright. This is already in action to some degree in the US: employers are already able to use criminal background, public records, and (in many places) credit checks to make hiring decisions. The difference is that it's primarily private companies doing this research/scoring and some states have protections in place for prospective employees. The 2nd amendment does nothing about these private companies using your information to limit your career options (indirectly restricting your free movement.) Anyone taking arms to protest this would rightly be considered a terrorist in the eyes of the law.
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  I don't think he's introduced a new topic - clearly relevant. And I'm on the other side, mind. I'm not from the U.S., I don't agree with Jefferson that guns are necessary for liberty, don't own a gun and likely never will... but I understand that Jefferson would and did point to the ease of armed revolution as being necessary to avoid such oppressive govt behavior. It's not off-topic, and it was a new thought to me: I hadn't made the connection, perhaps only because I'm not an American.

jknoepfler 9y ago

I've never really understood liberal opposition to the possession of firearms in the United States, given the country's founding principles. That said, I'd be more concerned about the right to vote, the right of the free press, the 10th amendment (which why aren't people more angry about?), the right to privacy as currently understood by the courts, and the fact that class-action lawsuits on behalf of people harmed unlawfully by such a system would cripple any corporate version of it. I don't really understand the political spectrum in the United States, tbh. Obviously you need to be willing to take up arms against an oppressive federal government, should such a thing happen (and who would be deluded enough to think that a military coup would be categorically impossible in any country - if not now, what about a century from now?)

vermilingua 9y ago
If you can’t fault the US for it’s gun laws based on its founding (which was violent revolution), then you surely can’t fault China’s human right abuses, because they are similarly a product of its founding.
- sakuronto 9y ago
  Pardon the ignorance, but how exactly are human rights abuses part of China's foundation?
tdb7893 9y ago
You need to be willing to take up arms against a government if the need arises but there's a line in how much harm you are willing to inflict now to make that happen. For an absurd example chemical weapons would help to fight an oppressive government but even if they weren't against international law it would be a little silly if they were legal for normal citizens to own.
bsder 9y ago
> I've never really understood liberal opposition to the possession of firearms in the United States, given the country's founding principles. You are making an unjustified leap in assuming that "liberals" are in opposition to owning firearms. Most liberals have no real problem with people owning guns. You don't hear the vast majority of people clamoring to ban hunting rifles or shotguns. What most people (liberal and conservative) want are sensible regulations to prevent the genuinely mentally ill or disturbed from getting guns and ammo. The problem is that the NRA plays outrage politics in order generate funding for itself and this short circuits any useful discussion. Although, it is looking like the NRA has just been functioning as a Russian stooge for quite a while now. As for opposing a coup? That's gonna be tough. The US is BIG. No amount of firearms in Arizona is going to help opposition in Washington DC to fight off a coup.

dang 9y ago

Please don't break the HN guidelines by introducing flamewar topics. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

duncan_bayne 9y ago
It's _highly_ relevant to this issue. Perhaps I should have been more explicit, but: it's my opinion (one widely shared) that one of the reasons this sort of programme hasn't taken root in the USA already is that your Constitution effectively prohibits it. In principle with the entire document, and in practice with the 2nd. Furthermore, I think that both the 1st and 2nd Amendments act as handy mineshaft canaries. You should mistrust the motivations of anyone who seeks to abrogate either.
- ybrah 9y ago
  why do some comments look invisible :thinking emoji:
- nrb 9y ago
  Not sure what you're talking about... nothing in our Constitution prevents this outright. This is already in action to some degree in the US: employers are already able to use criminal background, public records, and (in many places) credit checks to make hiring decisions. The difference is that it's primarily private companies doing this research/scoring and some states have protections in place for prospective employees. The 2nd amendment does nothing about these private companies using your information to limit your career options (indirectly restricting your free movement.) Anyone taking arms to protest this would rightly be considered a terrorist in the eyes of the law.
Nomentatus 9y ago
I don't think he's introduced a new topic - clearly relevant. And I'm on the other side, mind. I'm not from the U.S., I don't agree with Jefferson that guns are necessary for liberty, don't own a gun and likely never will... but I understand that Jefferson would and did point to the ease of armed revolution as being necessary to avoid such oppressive govt behavior. It's not off-topic, and it was a new thought to me: I hadn't made the connection, perhaps only because I'm not an American.