9 ms·

One of these things is very much not like the others. Red flag laws have been associated with huge reductions in gun-related suicides. The confiscation orders a

• deogeo 7y ago
  > Red flag laws have been associated with huge reductions in gun-related suicides. I upvoted your comment, because you implicitly raise a very popular, and I believe very dangerous point: That results justify taking away rights. Dangerous, because the 2nd amendment is not the only one that can be sacrificed for safety.
  • mantap 7y ago
    The 2nd amendment has become an absurd right because due to technological advancement it must necessarily be severely limited for the good of society - you can't carry an RPG or a machine gun or most kinds of arms that have been invented subsequently to it's introduction. Retaining a right but in a defunct state is itself dangerous as it makes it possible to contemplate broad limitations to other rights.
    • tkifnn 7y ago
      The significant limitations on the second amendment are not the ones banning new technology. Laws preventing open carry or conceal carry, requiring permits, red flag laws... They all erode the ability of citizens to defend themselves.
    • deogeo 7y ago
      Perhaps. But restricting it must be done carefully, or you will end up with a disarmed populace, against well armed corporate security.
      • wlll 7y ago
        Aren't corporations just the populace too?
        • deogeo 7y ago
          Exactly - so they shouldn't be able to buy themselves more rights by hiring "registered/official" security. Sure it's technically available to everyone, but they can choose their clients, they have to jump through regulatory hoops (and, realistically, political connections), and are unaffordable to most. The end result is a widened power gap.
    • u801e 7y ago
      Could this line of reasoning be applied to other amendments of the US constitution? For example, could one claim that the right to free speech is only limited to forms of communication that existed at the time the amendment was ratified, which would exclude video or online communication? What about the fourth amendment and what it covers? Should we exclude forms of stored information that weren't available in the 18th century?
      • deogeo 7y ago
        I think the poster wasn't making a principled argument that rights granted by the constitution only apply to 18th century technology, but that, at some point, pragmatism must be considered. I know I railed against pragmatism in my post, but that was aimed at over-reliance on it - it doesn't mean it should be (or even could be!) ignored. While there's a gray area where there can be disagreement as to whether it is sufficient justification, after a certain point, pragmatism must prevail. Using the 2nd amendment as example, lets say we allow guns and rifles. And grenades? RPGs? Tanks? Chemical weapons (nerve gas, not pepper spray)? Biological weapons (smallpox, not guard dogs)? The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a bioengineered plague, is a good guy with a bioengineered plague?
        • homonculus1 7y ago
          It's not that difficult. Conventional arms serve the political autonomy and self-defense of the individual. Weapons of mass destruction and untargetable contagions do not.
          • deogeo 7y ago
            That sounds more like a post-hoc justification, and I'm sure you could find similar ones for other rights - I gave just one out of many possible examples. Private property is great, until you're faced with a monopoly or environmental damage, free speech is wonderful, until you run into libel and threats, being "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" likewise only applies as long as is "reasonable".
    • tomatotomato37 7y ago
      Private militarized ships were a thing when the Bill of Rights was written, so private citizens did have the technological capability to level entire villages or sink commerce ships full of unarmed citizens if they felt; hell with a letter of Marque there were endorsed by the government to do so. Beside the original intention of the amendment was a failsafe against government tyranny, which makes it necessary to keep up with their level of technology.
      • moate 7y ago
        >>the original intention of the amendment was a fail-safe against government tyranny Citation needed. There's a constant debate about what the "framers' intent" of any part of Bill of Rights actually were. You say it was to prevent government tyranny (presumably including a future tyrannical U.S. government). I say it was specifically to ensure access to a fighting force specifically to fight the British and foreign threats in order to establish a new government.
        • sb057 7y ago
          The framers were obviously varied in their opinions and intentions, but some of them were quite clear: >"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, father of the Bill of Rights >"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Elbridge Gerry, contributor to the Bill of Rights >"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton >"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, delegate to the Continental Congress
    • dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      I totally disagree. The people have the right to own whatever they want. It's not about "the good of society" it's about ensuring the populace maintains the ability to check tyranny if tyranny arises. Of course this is gonna have trade-offs.
      • SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
        The populace isn't allowed to own tanks, military fighter jets, bombers, bombs, and especially not nuclear weapons. The most effective ways of fighting a modern military are bombs (IEDs), air superiority, and nuclear deterrence.
        • CompanionCuuube 7y ago
          > The populace isn't allowed to own tanks, military fighter jets, bombers, bombs This really isn't true. Look up Destructive Devices and the sale listings for tanks and jets.
          • dsfyu404ed 7y ago
            >Mixing binary components together constitutes manufacturing explosives. Persons manufacturing explosives for their own personal, non-business use only (e.g., personal target practice) are not required to have a Federal explosives license or permit. i.e "the kind of explosives most non-experts in non-military settings are best served by are free to use for personal use (state law notwithstanding)" https://www.atf.gov/explosives/binary-explosives https://www.atf.gov/explosives/binary-explosives
    • rayiner 7y ago
      If it had become an “absurd” right you’d be able to secure enough public support to amend the constitution to get rid of it.
      • Invictus0 7y ago
        You're missing parent's point. Parent is merely pointing out that the right exists in a state of limbo because some arbitrary line is being drawn in our national debates that determines the degree of technological advancement that the right permits.
        • UnpossibleJim 7y ago
          I think the parent commenter is also living in a bit of a bubble and thinking that all of America lives in a monoculture. There are still points in this country that are patrolled by a single sheriff and a couple of deputies and can be more than 10 minutes out. This doesn't mean they need an arsenal at their disposal, but supposing that they they need NO guns for farm work, hunting or protection from animals or people is either disingenuous or unimaginative.
    • klagermkii 7y ago
      Wouldn't this line of thinking then apply to any rights that have their scope significantly changed by later disruptive technology, including commercial flight? e.g. Free movement across the US was fine while it was on foot, horseback, or even train, but once commercial flight allowed for coast-to-coast movement in a couple of hours one can't apply the same rights.
      • AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
        Well good news then, because Real ID is a thing.
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    • jki275 7y ago
      Sure you can. I see it's already been addressed, but private citizens owned warships, cannon, artillery pieces, and even semi-automatic rifles at the time the second amendment was written.
    • dragonwriter 7y ago
      > The 2nd amendment has become an absurd right because due to technological advancement it must necessarily be severely limited for the good of society No, it became absurd because it's underlying purpose was abandoned and the governments in the US at all levels adopted professional armed internal and external security services, and thebwholet point of having an RKBA to support the viability of well-regulated militias was so that those militias would be what states and the federal government would rely on exclusively, beyond very minimal cadres, for armed security services. The whole absurd mythology around the RKBA being to provide the ability for citizens to provide a reserve capacity to fight the professional Government forces in the event the government becomes tyrannical is a product of trying to rationalize the amendment once it's underlying premise has been abandoned. > you can't carry an RPG or a machine gun or most kinds of arms that have been invented subsequently to it's introduction. I'm not convinced there is a fundamental reason why bearing most modern heavy weapons within reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions is incompatible with public safety; clearly “carry everything everywhere” maximalism isn't, but then that's never been understood by the courts to be the scope of the RKBA even when it concerns whatever weapons the court felt were within it's coverage.
    • jandrewrogers 7y ago
      > you can't carry an RPG or a machine gun or most kinds of arms that have been invented subsequently to it's introduction You actually can, subject to local regulations, and it is permitted in some States. An American can own a ballistic missile if they register it and store it safely. Even in the 1990s, buying a truckload of high explosives was cash and carry. Most Americans are surprised to the extent this is true because, as a practical matter, it has never been evident in most of the country. Just because you legally can does not mean anyone exercises that right, outside of very rare outliers with money to burn.
  • krapp 7y ago
    Isn't the entire premise of the rule of law that results do sometimes justify taking away rights (albeit through a procedure and with due process?)
    • croon 7y ago
      Correct, with everything from speed limits, to smoke free areas, to dumping out toxic chemicals on your own land. I'll never understand how a significant amount of the population can entertain the idea that "gun rights" are central to liberty, or that unlimited liberty above long term survival of the species is somehow desirable.
      • galangalalgol 7y ago
        Because th long term survival of our species does not depend on gun control. Mass shootings kill few people relative to just about anything. All deaths by rifles and shotguns are still fewer than those by blunt object. We could allow hand grenades and rpgs and still survive as a species. We are harder to kill than roaches. All that said, I am in favor of limiting the number of gums per month that can be purchased to slow mule purhases. And expanding unrecorded background checks universally to the point I can/must do one on my phone if I want to do a private sale.
    • deogeo 7y ago
      It's only part of the premise, not its entirety. A large part is a sense of justice, or ideology, that tempers the pragmatism, and acts as an instictual signal that a law might be harmful in the long term. Compare it to the 'do no harm' in medicine: say a doctor kills a healthy patient, so that his organs can save five others. At first, many lives are saved, but when this becomes widespread, how long until no-one dares come near a hospital? Or how likely is a patient to admit to having suicidal thoughts, if it results in police going through their private home, confiscating guns, or even committing them for their own good? Absolutist, 'ideological' positions such as do no harm, and doctor/lawyer-patient/client confidentiality, are important guards against unwanted second-order effects.
    • rayiner 7y ago
• amundsentb 7y ago
  You don't respond to his claims, well intentioned, ripe for abuse, unconstitutional, requires due process to remove. Does this mean that you agree with them and are still willing to forego due process because of the purported benefits you list?
  • paggle 7y ago
    In the US, these absolutely don’t need due process to remove. You are only protected against deprivation of life, liberty, or property (without compensation) by the Fifth Amendment. Your right to enter the US or fly on a plane is not protected by due process.
    • rileymat2 7y ago
      What is the definition of liberty? It seems travel would fall under it?
      • paggle 7y ago
        No, it’s imprisonment.
        • JumpCrisscross 7y ago
          > it’s imprisonment This punts the question. What is imprisonment if not a restriction on free movement and association?
    • Sacho 7y ago
      All of these cases sounds like "administrative proceedings", which according to Cornell LII, have a (somewhat controversial) history of limitation due to the 5th? https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/administrative-proceedings-a-fair-hearing https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/a...
    • deathanatos 7y ago
      It is not an explicitly enumerated right, but it is a right. It is or was considered so basic that it need not be explicitly enumerated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saenz_v._Roe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saenz_v._Roe > Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, found that although the "right to travel" was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the concept was "firmly embedded in our jurisprudence." As evidence of how these can be so easily abused, I present that time the government prevented an American citizen from entering the country to testify in a trial involving her mother against the Government about being on the No Fly list!: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131208/00164525497/witness-no-fly-list-trial-who-was-blocked-flying-to-trial-shows-that-doj-flat-out-lied-court.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131208/00164525497/witne... or https://papersplease.org/wp/2013/12/07/no-fly-trial-day-5-part-2-what-happened-to-the-plaintiffs-daughter/ https://papersplease.org/wp/2013/12/07/no-fly-trial-day-5-pa... or https://www.courthousenews.com/government-secrecy-vexes-judgein-long-awaited-no-fly-list-trial/ https://www.courthousenews.com/government-secrecy-vexes-judg...
• dang 7y ago
  > You are being disingenuous No personal swipes in HN comments, please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  • pmiller2 7y ago
    This is not a personal swipe. Conflating terror watch lists, no fly lists, and red flag laws is so prima facie absurd, there’s no other way to put it. I have described the behavior, not attacked the person.
    • Gibbon1 7y ago
      You used a naughty word which is why you're getting threatened.
    • marshray 7y ago
      "disingenuous" - Adjective. not candid or sincere ... Synonyms: dishonest deceitful underhand underhanded duplicitous double-dealing two-faced... You get the idea. (https://www.bing.com/search?q=disingenuous https://www.bing.com/search?q=disingenuous )
      • Retric 7y ago
        Being descriptive about behavior is not a personal attack even if it puts someone in a negative light. “You’re a mass murder” can be a purely descriptive statement even if it says bad things about the individual.
        • marshray 7y ago
          It's entirely possible to disagree with someone without accusing them personally of being dishonest. This is not controversial. The circumstances of the discussion are not comparable in any way to interviewing a mass murderer about his recent autobiography.
          • 7y ago
• mises 7y ago
  The whole point of constitutional rights is they can't be abridged without due process (and a good reason), even if it is especially convenient. I bet you appreciated this when Pres. Trump tried to pull all those shenanigans around birthright citizenship, and every one reminded him he'd actually need an amendment, and couldn't just "do" it. If you want one thing protected because it's a constitutional right, you sort of have to support all of them. You can't really pick and chiose with respect to their sanctity. I've found it to be a good position because it annoys both the left and the right on a regular basis. In reigns in both sides a little, and I think that's a good thing.
• Lazare 7y ago
  > Red flag laws have been associated with huge reductions in gun-related suicides. The constitutionality of a law does not hinge on it's effectiveness. I haven't formed an opinion as to whether red flag laws are constitutional or whether they are or are not similar to watch lists, but that's a terrible reason to suggest they are dissimilar.
  • mfer 7y ago
    If I read it right, red flag laws go through a judge who signs off on individual cases. This is different from the others where the judicial branch is out of the loop.
    • Lazare 7y ago
      Sure, there's a solid argument that red flag laws have a 1) a lot more due process than no fly lists and 2) enough due process to make them constitutional. As I said, I don't know the details of the different red flag laws, and haven't formed an opinion on that. But the comment I was replying to made a very different and I think highly indefensible argument: That the difference between red flag laws and no fly lists was the former was more effective.
    • flyingfences 7y ago
      They go through a judge at some point after they are executed. There is no due process before the person's rights are stripped away.
    • sigzero 7y ago
      If the individual isn't involved, it isn't "due process".
      • dragonwriter 7y ago
        Warrants aren't due process? It's pretty clearly the case that a process where the individual is not involved up front but retains the ability to challenge an unfavorable outcome can, for some things, be the process that is Constitutionally due. It's less clear exactly what the boundaries are for that, because the Constitution doesn't really explicit provide rules for determining what process is due for any particular action, leaving it in practice for courts to evolve standards.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]