7 ms·

Its because buying a gun is a civil right. Smoking is not. That said, the 21yo requirement may be unconstitutional as well.

tomrod 4y ago
I've noticed your eight comments in this thread to date are fairly declarative but aren't well founded or sourced, simply assertions and often appear to be incorrect as responding comments have shown. Clearly, you and I both support the second amendment. However, we should recognize when our support of certain associate claims aren't well founded. Bearing arms and being part of a well-regulated militia are American civil rights granted by the Bill of Rights. Purchasing those arms isn't a civil right.[0] [0] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/second-amendment-does-not-guarantee-right-own-gun-gun-control-p-99 https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/second-a...
- zozin 4y ago
  Oh wise HN poster waving away hundreds of years of jurisprudence and constitutional interpretation with one link!
  - tomrod 4y ago
    Former Supreme Court justice waving the hands even!
    - zozin 4y ago
      Get five to agree and get back to me ;-)
      - tomrod 4y ago
        Got dozens of countries already light years ahead on this and they are operating perfectly fine without loads of gun violence despite similar rates of mental health issues.
        throwaway09223 4y ago
        Those other countries do not have similar rates of mental health issues, or similar social situations at all. If you ignore guns entirely, the US still stands out from other countries with an extraordinarily high rate of non-gun violence. It's more accurate to say that the US has a violence problem in general. If you're truly interested in solving the violence problem, perhaps examine why the US is such a statistical outlier. And also, perhaps, why other countries like Switzerland have such different outcomes while still having extremely high rates of private gun ownership.
        tomrod 4y ago
        Topic today isn't boiling the ocean. Gun violence has two elements, access to guns and motivation. Working on either and both are key.
        throwaway09223 4y ago
        The data doesn't support these assertions.
        squarefoot 4y ago
        Switzerland rules for firearms ownership are a lot more restrictive than the US (background check for everyone, no automatic weapons, etc), and although the percentage of guns per 100 people is higher than other countries, still is about 1/4 of the US where there are roughly 5 firearms every 4 people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzerland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzer... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...
- Acrobatic_Road 4y ago
  >Purchasing those arms isn't a civil right. A ban on the purchasing of arms would definitely infringe on people's individual right to keep and bear them. Yes, an individual right, which is how 18th-19th century courts and political commentators viewed the 2nd before the 20th century "militia only" narrative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Early_commentary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...
  - tomrod 4y ago
    Now go read the listed article ;-)
    - Acrobatic_Road 4y ago
      As far as I can tell the author is just making the tired militia argument while pretending to support an individual right. "Americans have a right to defend their homes". Defend their homes with what exactly? He immediately moves on to hunting weapons and the right to hunt. So according to the author, we have the right to own fudd guns, and the right to self defense (but not with guns, and not outside our home). Yawn!
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    This is the problem. When it comes to abortion, there's a notable portion of the populace (including Supreme Court Justices) that say "well it doesn't literally and explicitly call that out in the Consitution so no, it's not a guaranteed right". ... then when it comes to guns... "Well, of course it includes _purchasing_ those arms, even if it doesn't explicitly and literally say so, because it'd be hard to bear them otherwise, so it somehow _must_ guarantee that, too!"
- YATA2 4y ago
  >Bearing arms and being part of a well-regulated militia are American civil rights granted by the Bill of Rights. Purchasing those arms isn't a civil right. "Voting in elections is a civil right granted by the Bill of Rights. Access to a polling station isn't a civil right." That's effectively what you're saying. Rights enshrine access. Things like poll taxes, voter ID, etc. have all been declared unconstitutional because they infringe upon your right. Banning purchasing arms falls in the exact same category.
- nradov 4y ago
  The Bill of Rights didn't "grant" any rights. It merely recognized some of the natural rights held by all free people, and prevented the government from infringing on those rights.
- rswail 4y ago
  Please define "being part of a well-regulated militia" in terms of bearing arms in the current US situation. The entire premise of individuals owning weapons is based on that "well-regulated militia", yet no such entities actually exist in 2022.
  - oldcigarette 4y ago
    This has been discussed at great length many many times and courts nor anyone serious about this topic agrees with you. The right is not predicated on being part of a militia in any way. Anyone who says this is pretty much immediately ignored by gun owners because they are clearly not serious at all about the topic.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    Words change in meaning over time. The second amendment has been hit hard by that. In the time period: "Regulated" means up to a particular standard of strength. This is why British regulars were called "regulars," because they had a particular set of equipment. "Militia" referred to the pool of people who could be called to defend the country. In 1776, that meant men of fighting age (14-60). This is different than the voting population, who were specifically landed men, or the population of citizens. In other words, the second amendment called for a fighting-age male population that was as well-armed as the military. This is why DC vs Heller was decided in the way it was. The "well-regulated militia" before the comma meant something totally different than its current meaning. As an aside, I think that most modern military weapons should be banned, but that is actually not what the 2nd amendment calls for. The right solution to the problem is to amend the constitution, not try to pass gun control laws and see what a court will approve.
    - lliamander 4y ago
      I disagree with your policy preferences, but I respect and appreciate that you have a correct understanding of the constitution.
    - rubyist5eva 4y ago
      This is the best layman's explanation I've seen of the text of the second and it's meaning in context, thank you.
yardstick 4y ago
What limits, if any, does the 2nd amendment or the rest of the constitution place on the type of arms? Eg should you be allowed to use - pistols? - rifles? - machine guns? - explosive / armour piercing bullets? - grenades? - nuclear bombs? - chemical weapons? - biological weapons? Basically I’m asking where is the line drawn. Because I don’t think the constitution sets such limits, no distinction for weapons of mass destruction, etc yet the country has found ways to limit people holding chemical weapons and more serious ordinance.
- pokeymcsnatch 4y ago
  My thoughts on this... Considering the purpose and context of the 2nd, it essentially protects a contemporary citizen-soldier's "kit". The stuff he/she needs to join up in common defense with their community, which includes survival gear, protective gear, and of course, a weapon. Today's citizen-soldier would carry an AR-15 or variant. If there's one modern gun protected by the 2nd, that's the one.
  - runnerup 4y ago
    Still very fuzzy. Javelin missiles? Claymores? C4? Anti-personnel mines? Armored infantry transport vehicles with mounted machine gun? Armored infantry transport vehicles with small diameter turreted cannon? Counter-measures for their personal aircraft?
    - yardstick 4y ago
      All very appropriate for Ukrainian civilians and military right now, fighting for their lives.
      - quickthrower2 4y ago
        At war you could just allow anyone to declare they are a soldier. They even had (have?) an international visa for anyone wanting to come and fight.
    - 4y ago
pjc50 4y ago
> buying a gun is a civil right Yeah, this is the point of insanity; so long as people continue to believe this, there will be a school shooting in the US every few weeks. That's what people mean by "the US has chosen this".
- MockObject 4y ago
  Except, we've believed this for generations, but the mass shooting epidemic is rather new.
mrguyorama 4y ago
The 2nd amendment does not actually say anything about purchasing. It could be 100 % satisfied with all sorts of kooky schemes that meet the letter of the law.
- rubyist5eva 4y ago
  It's covered under the "shall not be infringed" part.

tomrod 4y ago

I've noticed your eight comments in this thread to date are fairly declarative but aren't well founded or sourced, simply assertions and often appear to be incorrect as responding comments have shown. Clearly, you and I both support the second amendment. However, we should recognize when our support of certain associate claims aren't well founded. Bearing arms and being part of a well-regulated militia are American civil rights granted by the Bill of Rights. Purchasing those arms isn't a civil right.[0] [0] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/second-amendment-does-not-guarantee-right-own-gun-gun-control-p-99 https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/second-a...

zozin 4y ago
Oh wise HN poster waving away hundreds of years of jurisprudence and constitutional interpretation with one link!
- tomrod 4y ago
  Former Supreme Court justice waving the hands even!
  - zozin 4y ago
    Get five to agree and get back to me ;-)
    - tomrod 4y ago
      Got dozens of countries already light years ahead on this and they are operating perfectly fine without loads of gun violence despite similar rates of mental health issues.
      - throwaway09223 4y ago
        Those other countries do not have similar rates of mental health issues, or similar social situations at all. If you ignore guns entirely, the US still stands out from other countries with an extraordinarily high rate of non-gun violence. It's more accurate to say that the US has a violence problem in general. If you're truly interested in solving the violence problem, perhaps examine why the US is such a statistical outlier. And also, perhaps, why other countries like Switzerland have such different outcomes while still having extremely high rates of private gun ownership.
        tomrod 4y ago
        Topic today isn't boiling the ocean. Gun violence has two elements, access to guns and motivation. Working on either and both are key.
        throwaway09223 4y ago
        The data doesn't support these assertions.
        squarefoot 4y ago
        Switzerland rules for firearms ownership are a lot more restrictive than the US (background check for everyone, no automatic weapons, etc), and although the percentage of guns per 100 people is higher than other countries, still is about 1/4 of the US where there are roughly 5 firearms every 4 people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzerland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzer... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...
Acrobatic_Road 4y ago
>Purchasing those arms isn't a civil right. A ban on the purchasing of arms would definitely infringe on people's individual right to keep and bear them. Yes, an individual right, which is how 18th-19th century courts and political commentators viewed the 2nd before the 20th century "militia only" narrative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Early_commentary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...
- tomrod 4y ago
  Now go read the listed article ;-)
  - Acrobatic_Road 4y ago
    As far as I can tell the author is just making the tired militia argument while pretending to support an individual right. "Americans have a right to defend their homes". Defend their homes with what exactly? He immediately moves on to hunting weapons and the right to hunt. So according to the author, we have the right to own fudd guns, and the right to self defense (but not with guns, and not outside our home). Yawn!
- FireBeyond 4y ago
  This is the problem. When it comes to abortion, there's a notable portion of the populace (including Supreme Court Justices) that say "well it doesn't literally and explicitly call that out in the Consitution so no, it's not a guaranteed right". ... then when it comes to guns... "Well, of course it includes _purchasing_ those arms, even if it doesn't explicitly and literally say so, because it'd be hard to bear them otherwise, so it somehow _must_ guarantee that, too!"
YATA2 4y ago
>Bearing arms and being part of a well-regulated militia are American civil rights granted by the Bill of Rights. Purchasing those arms isn't a civil right. "Voting in elections is a civil right granted by the Bill of Rights. Access to a polling station isn't a civil right." That's effectively what you're saying. Rights enshrine access. Things like poll taxes, voter ID, etc. have all been declared unconstitutional because they infringe upon your right. Banning purchasing arms falls in the exact same category.
nradov 4y ago
The Bill of Rights didn't "grant" any rights. It merely recognized some of the natural rights held by all free people, and prevented the government from infringing on those rights.
rswail 4y ago
Please define "being part of a well-regulated militia" in terms of bearing arms in the current US situation. The entire premise of individuals owning weapons is based on that "well-regulated militia", yet no such entities actually exist in 2022.
- oldcigarette 4y ago
  This has been discussed at great length many many times and courts nor anyone serious about this topic agrees with you. The right is not predicated on being part of a militia in any way. Anyone who says this is pretty much immediately ignored by gun owners because they are clearly not serious at all about the topic.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  Words change in meaning over time. The second amendment has been hit hard by that. In the time period: "Regulated" means up to a particular standard of strength. This is why British regulars were called "regulars," because they had a particular set of equipment. "Militia" referred to the pool of people who could be called to defend the country. In 1776, that meant men of fighting age (14-60). This is different than the voting population, who were specifically landed men, or the population of citizens. In other words, the second amendment called for a fighting-age male population that was as well-armed as the military. This is why DC vs Heller was decided in the way it was. The "well-regulated militia" before the comma meant something totally different than its current meaning. As an aside, I think that most modern military weapons should be banned, but that is actually not what the 2nd amendment calls for. The right solution to the problem is to amend the constitution, not try to pass gun control laws and see what a court will approve.
  - lliamander 4y ago
    I disagree with your policy preferences, but I respect and appreciate that you have a correct understanding of the constitution.
  - rubyist5eva 4y ago
    This is the best layman's explanation I've seen of the text of the second and it's meaning in context, thank you.

yardstick 4y ago

What limits, if any, does the 2nd amendment or the rest of the constitution place on the type of arms? Eg should you be allowed to use - pistols? - rifles? - machine guns? - explosive / armour piercing bullets? - grenades? - nuclear bombs? - chemical weapons? - biological weapons? Basically I’m asking where is the line drawn. Because I don’t think the constitution sets such limits, no distinction for weapons of mass destruction, etc yet the country has found ways to limit people holding chemical weapons and more serious ordinance.

pokeymcsnatch 4y ago
My thoughts on this... Considering the purpose and context of the 2nd, it essentially protects a contemporary citizen-soldier's "kit". The stuff he/she needs to join up in common defense with their community, which includes survival gear, protective gear, and of course, a weapon. Today's citizen-soldier would carry an AR-15 or variant. If there's one modern gun protected by the 2nd, that's the one.
- runnerup 4y ago
  Still very fuzzy. Javelin missiles? Claymores? C4? Anti-personnel mines? Armored infantry transport vehicles with mounted machine gun? Armored infantry transport vehicles with small diameter turreted cannon? Counter-measures for their personal aircraft?
  - yardstick 4y ago
    All very appropriate for Ukrainian civilians and military right now, fighting for their lives.
    - quickthrower2 4y ago
      At war you could just allow anyone to declare they are a soldier. They even had (have?) an international visa for anyone wanting to come and fight.
  - 4y ago

pjc50 4y ago

> buying a gun is a civil right Yeah, this is the point of insanity; so long as people continue to believe this, there will be a school shooting in the US every few weeks. That's what people mean by "the US has chosen this".

MockObject 4y ago
Except, we've believed this for generations, but the mass shooting epidemic is rather new.

mrguyorama 4y ago

The 2nd amendment does not actually say anything about purchasing. It could be 100 % satisfied with all sorts of kooky schemes that meet the letter of the law.

rubyist5eva 4y ago
It's covered under the "shall not be infringed" part.