6 ms·
This seems rather silly. But I haven't looked into it. Am I missing something? What's the perspective where this makes sense?
by arikr 7y ago
This seems rather silly. But I haven't looked into it. Am I missing something? What's the perspective where this makes sense?
- mcpherrinm 7y agoContext of this is: There was a visible mass shooting in Gilroy very recently, and a lot of people are upset. The gunman used a semiautomatic rifle which is illegal in California, but was legally purchased in Nevada. The NRA has continually fought to ensure people have access to the tools to commit these atrocities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilroy_Garlic_Festival_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilroy_Garlic_Festival_shootin...
- mieseratte 7y agoHow awful of the NRA to fight for a constitutional right to bear arms.
- ivalm 7y agoThe current interpretation is different from historical. Historically it really did apply to "well regulated militia".
- cm2187 7y agoIt applies to “the people”. I believe the current legal interpretation in vigueur is in the area of “because a well regulated militia is necessary, ...”
- danaris 7y agoBut functionally, the "well-regulated militia" of today is the US Armed Forces. I challenge you to show any way in which hundreds of millions of random citizens with handguns and zero training to fight together qualifies as well-regulated, or meaningfully as a militia to defend our country against an invasion.
- cm2187 7y agoI am no constitutional expert, but my understanding is that the amendment protects the ability to form a militia. And I believe it is not meant to defend against invasion so much than to defend against tyranny (whether internal or external). And it is still true today that no army, even the US army, can control a hostile population that has a wide access to weapons. It is why the colonial wars were futile, and why no major power has ever successfully won a guerrilla war.
- herostratus101 7y agoThe issue with this argument is that "militia" had a different meaning when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1811: “[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms.”
- rhino369 7y agoIt was never interpreted by the supreme court to only apply to a well-regulated militia. At most, you could say the right was interpreted to only apply to guns used by a well-regulated militia in the 1930s. But before that there were no federal gun control laws, so the issue never came up.
- Cthulhu_ 7y agoJust because it's a right doesn't mean it needs an organization to advocate it. I mean you have the right to smoke, but any organization promoting it has been squashed by legislation, banning advertisements and glorifying it. Why? Because smoking causes cancer and will kill you and your kids. Why should that not apply to guns, which are built to kill? It's a weird double standard. Sure you have the right to have a gun, but it doesn't mean it has to be advocated by an organization. It does make me wonder though, how come the NRA is successful where the multi-billion dollar tobacco industry failed?
- ch_123 7y ago> mean you have the right to smoke, but any organization promoting it has been squashed by legislation, banning advertisements and glorifying it. Why? Because smoking causes cancer and will kill you and your kids. FWIW, I know of at least one pro smoking body with some prominent supporters in the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOREST https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOREST)
- trampypizza 7y agoI wonder if it is because the tobacco industry was fighting a war against the very direct link between smoking and cancer. Ultimately the science proved that smoking is damaging to your body, and that damage is expensive to fix, and the cost is somewhat paid for by society. Guns are a 'tool' I suppose, and therefore will always require a user. Not every gun owner is going to use it to kill people. It's harder then to make the argument that guns are inherently bad, it's the people using them incorrectly that is the problem. I certainly think that there are other factors in American society which contribute and to these horrible events, such as mental health and education. I think this because there are other countries, such as Canada, where many people have weapons but these tragedies occur a lot less often. As a Brit, I think some of the gun stuff in the States is bananas, but I do recognise that there is a significant cultural difference that means I probably wont get why people are so keen to protect gun ownership to the extent that they do. I don't mean to suggest that either way is right or wrong, but I do feel that the use-case for an AR-15 is limited. Surely that's a bit over the top for hunting? And defending your home may be easier with a handgun. I am no expert though, and would be interested to hear some other views. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081 Edit: I should also say that I recognise that mass shootings make up a tiny percentage of gun-deaths and that they receive a disproportionate amount of media attention.
- mikejb 7y agoMaybe the silliness of your argument can be highlighted with a small modification: > How awful of the Confederacy to fight for a right to slaves. Societies change and evolve. The desperate clinging to ancient, outdated concepts won't hinder that progress.
- nailer 7y agoHow does that make NRA terrorists though? Replying to comment below: please see the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. I read the article too. The article doesn't answer the question. - What evidence is there that the NRA exists to arm terrorists? - Which terrorist groups are the NRA arming? - If the NRA does exist to arm terrorist groups how does that make the NRA themselves terrorists?
- mcpherrinm 7y ago“The N.R.A. exists to spread pro-gun propaganda and put weapons in the hands of those who would harm and terrorize us,” Ms. Stefani said in a statement. “Nobody has done more to fan the flames of gun violence than the N.R.A.”
- mieseratte 7y agoHow terrible of them to spread the insidious ideology of gun safety by training RSOs and gun safety instructors!
- millstone 7y agoThe NRA is not attracting criticism for its gun safety and training.
- nailer 7y agoThe issue isn't whether the NRA are bad, the issue is whether they are a terrorist organisation. There has been no evidence in the article that the NRA exists to arm terrorists. I think people are hurt and appalled at gun violence and looking for solutions. Unfortunately expanding the definition of terrorism to include the NRA means they will unwittingly catch other groups they may support. Eg, the EFF promotes privacy, terrorists use privacy, therefore the same misguided logic could be used there. This won't help gun violence and will hurt other freedoms.
- casefields 7y agoAnd ACLU defend's the right to do this at a military funeral: https://mpinkeyes.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/godhatesfags.jpg?w=600 https://mpinkeyes.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/godhatesfags.j... Doesn't mean they're terrorists for advocating for your constitutional rights.
- herostratus101 7y agoHow would this argument not apply equally to anyone who supports the first amendment (because it can lead to hate speech that inspires atrocities)?
- millstone 7y agoBecause a gun is a tool for actually committing atrocities, and a blog post is not.
- herostratus101 7y agoThis argument would be persuasive if the NRA were literally a gun that kills people rather than an organization that lobbies for the robust protection of second amendment rights.
- cm2187 7y agoIt’s a fair point but the 1st amendment is also under pressure from the same people.
- herostratus101 7y agoWell then they should move to Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba, or one of the dozens of other countries where free speech is not a priority instead of trying to destroy one of the last places in the world that is.
- imustbeevil 7y agoOr they could participate in the democratic process of their home country until laws reflect the will of the people.
- igetspam 7y agoBecause the NRA isn't a 2nd amendment organization, they're a gun lobbying group. They oppose reasonable changes to background check laws, that their membership mostly supports, and application of existing laws. They serve more to fan the flames of fear than support a well regulated militia or the Constitution. I'll agree with people who say it's a publicity stunt but it's a good one, nonetheless. Full disclosure: I'm a life member. I'm no longer happy with that decision but it's true .
- _iyig 7y agoSemiautomatic rifles are, generally speaking, legal to own in California. They're also responsible for only a tiny fraction of all gun crime committed in the state. Only semiautomatic rifles with particular combinations of ergonomic features (pistol grip, folding stock, etc.) are illegal. The shooter's WASR fell under this category. The shooter's high-capacity magazines were also illegal in California.
- sonnyp 7y agoIf you did not read the article then yes you are missing something...
- noobermin 7y agoEven if it is silly, the resolution has no actual effect as far as I can tell.
- rhino369 7y agoYou aren't missing anything. Calling the NRA a terrorist organization is beyond absurd.
- oflannabhra 7y agoI think you are looking for sense where there isn’t any. However, I think the article has the best representation of the argument: > Ms. Stefani referred to the federal Justice Department’s definition of terrorist activity, which involves the use of a firearm, weapon or dangerous device to endanger the safety of individuals. The definition also includes members of organizations that provide funds, weapons or training to individuals who commit terrorist acts. I don’t think one can find the NRA ever advocating for the use of guns to harm innocent individuals. However, it would seem as if we’ve crossed a threshold where the mere existence of guns is seen as a threat, therefore anyone that advocates for gun ownership (or possesses one) is a threat.
- rhino369 7y ago>However, it would seem as if we’ve crossed a threshold where the mere existence of guns is seen as a threat, therefore anyone that advocates for gun ownership (or possesses one) is a threat. No offense but this is cowardly, and frankly, bad reasoning. First, guns kill fewer people than speeding, alcohol or junk food. So no we have't crossed some threshold. Second, you are just rationalizing the criminalization of anyone who disagrees with you on public policy. A facist would say "I don't think I've ever seen the democrats advocating for islamic terrorism. However, it would seem as if we've crossed a threshold were the mere existence of muslim immigrants is seen as a thread, therefore anyone that advocates for muslim immigration is a a threat. Therefore, I'm banning the democratic party from the next elections on the basis of being a terrorst group."
- oflannabhra 7y ago> you are just rationalizing the criminalization of anyone who disagrees with you on public policy. I’m merely trying to describe the position held by those that passed the resolution.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoThe perspective where this makes sense is the one where people try to score cheap political points by doing things that have exactly zero relevance to anything.