5 ms·

Step 1: repeal the Second Amendment. There's never going to be useful progress here until America unsticks from the idea that the right to arm yourself belongs

Step 1: repeal the Second Amendment. There's never going to be useful progress here until America unsticks from the idea that the right to arm yourself belongs in the same category as the right to free speech or due process.

tcspence 4y ago
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  How about because: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ... is no longer either a true or useful statement? I think I'm probably happy to toss the Third Amendment on a similar basis: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Does this speak to the problems that the republic faces today, any more so than does the Second?
  - barrenko 4y ago
    The first sentence is and will always be true.
  - mLuby 4y ago
    Just because the third amendment doesn't invoked doesn't mean we should lose that protection. It's #3 for a reason. Wait till some general presents innovative cost-cutting measures called something like "homes for heroes" that no patriotic American could object to.
    - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
      It's #3 because of the Quartering Acts; relating to a very specific set of facts during the Revolutionary War. Consider for a moment that if General Gage hadn't persuaded the British Parliament of the need to amend the Mutiny Act to require American towns to provide food and shelter to British troops, then this amendment would never have been passed. It was passed because of what was top-of-mind for the writers in the 1780s. It's dead letter. There has been one case on it in 200 years.
      - mLuby 4y ago
        s/dead letter/stable and working as intended/ Yep, the context is interesting. Hopefully we'll never see quartering again but as the saying goes: history rhymes.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  That is probably the biggest strawman I have seen on HN
cout 4y ago
How do you enforce that in the era of 3D printers and consumer grade CNCs?
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  Repealing the Second Amendment has nothing to do with enforcing anything; it just acknowledges that the modern American experience does not need armed militias for the security of the free state, and that where we do have militias they are seldom well-regulated nor do they tend to promote security, and that perhaps arms being what they are today, and America being what it is today, maybe we could decide that there isn't today a right to bear arms.
- bobkazamakis 4y ago
  the same way you enforce everything else? the idea isn't to make guns non-existent.
  - relaxing 4y ago
    Prosecute after the fact? That doesn't change the status quo.
- michaelt 4y ago
  Here in the UK, we haven't had a school shooting in decades - despite the availability of affordable CNC machines and 3D printers. After all, I have no gun and also no bullets, and also no gunpowder or primers, and also nobody I could show a DIY gun off to, and also nowhere I could shoot a DIY gun, and also if I use it to defend my home, the cops can put two and two together. Criminals generally just use knives. Obviously people who can import illegal drugs can also import illegal guns, but they're keen to keep a low profile. Of course, I doubt America could ever get to where the UK is today - too many people who are passionately pro-gun, and too many guns around out there.
  - NDizzle 4y ago
    Do you have a permit to state your opinion out in the open like this? Of course America will never get to where the UK is today. We don't want that shit. We want freedom.
TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
Enforce the Second Amendment. It starts with "A well regulated militia..." A well regulated militia has absolutely no relationship to selling assault weapons to teenagers and/or fantasists. There is no constitutional "right to bear arms" outside of that context. And while that's being clarified, it would be also be good to investigate the NRA's Russian money problem. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/27/nra-russia-foreign-asset-senate-report-investigation https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/27/nra-russia-f... Because the US doesn't have a gun problem so much as a stochastic terrorism problem, blatantly sponsored and encouraged by a hostile foreign power which is known for encouraging extremely destructive cultural subversion.
- chipsa 4y ago
  There's no such thing as a "collective right". Every other right guaranteed in the Constitution applies to an individual. Also, "assault weapon" is a term that means whatever the gun grabbers want it to mean today.
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    OK then; if you don't like "assault weapon"; let's clear this up terminological issue. I'd like to ban all automatic, select-fire or semi-automatic firearms, except on the basis of a permit issued on evidence of demonstrable need. We can move on to consider other types of actions.
    - Merad 4y ago
      > I'd like to ban all automatic, select-fire or semi-automatic firearms You're looking to ban at least 75% of all guns in the US. It might even be more like 80-90%, but I'm too lazy to look for a source. How do you intend to accomplish that?
      - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
        I don't care; I'm just avoiding the terminological confusion around "assault weapon" and all the noise it generates.
jihadjihad 4y ago
I don't see this happening for at least a handful of generations, if ever, even though it has happened once with the 21st amendment (repealed the 18th). A supermajority in both houses is doable, but you need all but 12 states to vote in favor, too. There are comfortably 15+ states in the "ain't ever gonna budge" category on that front, and while attitudes could shift in future generations that make such change possible, there is no doubt in my mind that it would take literal generations to happen.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  I agree with you, I don't say it because I think it's a useful thing to try to achieve right now; I say it only because I believe it's true, and I wish we'd start from the fundamental problem.
  - jihadjihad 4y ago
    Totally, and it is a tough thing because it feels so intractable--the mountain to get over (38 states in favor of repealing) just seems nigh impossible. But, stranger things have happened.
yostrovs 4y ago
Talking about repeal of the 2nd amendment is equally useless when there are probably more guns than people in the US, and there's nowhere near enough support for that. There are some ideas, such as increasing the age of ownership, and many others, which should be considered. You'll actually be able to achieve results. Banning guns completely in America is simply impossible now.
- NDizzle 4y ago
  shall not be infringed
galangalalgol 4y ago
There is a saying that god may have made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal. The right to use lethal force in defense of self is pretty widely accepted, but we should acknowledge that some of us have dramatic advantages in that regard. Being taller, having been in more fights, having a physically active job, being male... Firearms, more than literally any other weapon, level that disadvantage. So to acknowledge the right but deny it an equitable means seems unfair to me. And on a less philosophical note, there will be no changes to the constitution until we have a complete party failure on one side or the other. The current polarization does not seem correctable as it self perpetuates. And in this climate even public agreement on normal legislation that both parties privately agree on is rare, because that is seen as conspiring with the enemy.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  This is an appealing idea, with a great soundbite, that has literally no large-scale evidence in its favor. The epidemiological evidence is pretty clear on this; the prevalence of self-defense use of guns is minuscule. Even where guns are used in self-defense, it's often in the context of an escalation of an argument rather than in the scenarios people imagine. People who do use guns to protect themselves in the course of crimes are no less likely to be injured than those who do not.
  - mtnops 4y ago
    I would encourage you to revisit the research around firearms used in self defense. 500,000 to 3,000,000 encounters where a firearm was used in self defense in the US is what I was able to find. Doesn't sound minuscule.
    - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
      You need to look beyond the headline numbers. Here's a good place to start reading: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-thr...
tablespoon 4y ago
> There's never going to be useful progress here until America unsticks from the idea that the right to arm yourself belongs in the same category as the right to free speech or due process. America also needs a comprehensive media safety law that bans dissemination of reports of things like school attacks outside of the affected communities. All the nationwide media coverage does is inspire copycat mayhem.
- rufus_foreman 4y ago
  Wow, ready to throw out both the first and second amendments. Is there any part of the Bill of Rights that you would actually stand up for?
rubyist5eva 4y ago
> Step 1: repeal the Second Amendment. Will never happen in this lifetime.

tcspence 4y ago

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
How about because: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ... is no longer either a true or useful statement? I think I'm probably happy to toss the Third Amendment on a similar basis: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Does this speak to the problems that the republic faces today, any more so than does the Second?
- barrenko 4y ago
  The first sentence is and will always be true.
- mLuby 4y ago
  Just because the third amendment doesn't invoked doesn't mean we should lose that protection. It's #3 for a reason. Wait till some general presents innovative cost-cutting measures called something like "homes for heroes" that no patriotic American could object to.
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    It's #3 because of the Quartering Acts; relating to a very specific set of facts during the Revolutionary War. Consider for a moment that if General Gage hadn't persuaded the British Parliament of the need to amend the Mutiny Act to require American towns to provide food and shelter to British troops, then this amendment would never have been passed. It was passed because of what was top-of-mind for the writers in the 1780s. It's dead letter. There has been one case on it in 200 years.
    - mLuby 4y ago
      s/dead letter/stable and working as intended/ Yep, the context is interesting. Hopefully we'll never see quartering again but as the saying goes: history rhymes.
quickthrower2 4y ago
That is probably the biggest strawman I have seen on HN

cout 4y ago

How do you enforce that in the era of 3D printers and consumer grade CNCs?

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
Repealing the Second Amendment has nothing to do with enforcing anything; it just acknowledges that the modern American experience does not need armed militias for the security of the free state, and that where we do have militias they are seldom well-regulated nor do they tend to promote security, and that perhaps arms being what they are today, and America being what it is today, maybe we could decide that there isn't today a right to bear arms.
bobkazamakis 4y ago
the same way you enforce everything else? the idea isn't to make guns non-existent.
- relaxing 4y ago
  Prosecute after the fact? That doesn't change the status quo.
michaelt 4y ago
Here in the UK, we haven't had a school shooting in decades - despite the availability of affordable CNC machines and 3D printers. After all, I have no gun and also no bullets, and also no gunpowder or primers, and also nobody I could show a DIY gun off to, and also nowhere I could shoot a DIY gun, and also if I use it to defend my home, the cops can put two and two together. Criminals generally just use knives. Obviously people who can import illegal drugs can also import illegal guns, but they're keen to keep a low profile. Of course, I doubt America could ever get to where the UK is today - too many people who are passionately pro-gun, and too many guns around out there.
- NDizzle 4y ago
  Do you have a permit to state your opinion out in the open like this? Of course America will never get to where the UK is today. We don't want that shit. We want freedom.

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago

Enforce the Second Amendment. It starts with "A well regulated militia..." A well regulated militia has absolutely no relationship to selling assault weapons to teenagers and/or fantasists. There is no constitutional "right to bear arms" outside of that context. And while that's being clarified, it would be also be good to investigate the NRA's Russian money problem. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/27/nra-russia-foreign-asset-senate-report-investigation https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/27/nra-russia-f... Because the US doesn't have a gun problem so much as a stochastic terrorism problem, blatantly sponsored and encouraged by a hostile foreign power which is known for encouraging extremely destructive cultural subversion.

chipsa 4y ago
There's no such thing as a "collective right". Every other right guaranteed in the Constitution applies to an individual. Also, "assault weapon" is a term that means whatever the gun grabbers want it to mean today.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  OK then; if you don't like "assault weapon"; let's clear this up terminological issue. I'd like to ban all automatic, select-fire or semi-automatic firearms, except on the basis of a permit issued on evidence of demonstrable need. We can move on to consider other types of actions.
  - Merad 4y ago
    > I'd like to ban all automatic, select-fire or semi-automatic firearms You're looking to ban at least 75% of all guns in the US. It might even be more like 80-90%, but I'm too lazy to look for a source. How do you intend to accomplish that?
    - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
      I don't care; I'm just avoiding the terminological confusion around "assault weapon" and all the noise it generates.

jihadjihad 4y ago

I don't see this happening for at least a handful of generations, if ever, even though it has happened once with the 21st amendment (repealed the 18th). A supermajority in both houses is doable, but you need all but 12 states to vote in favor, too. There are comfortably 15+ states in the "ain't ever gonna budge" category on that front, and while attitudes could shift in future generations that make such change possible, there is no doubt in my mind that it would take literal generations to happen.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
I agree with you, I don't say it because I think it's a useful thing to try to achieve right now; I say it only because I believe it's true, and I wish we'd start from the fundamental problem.
- jihadjihad 4y ago
  Totally, and it is a tough thing because it feels so intractable--the mountain to get over (38 states in favor of repealing) just seems nigh impossible. But, stranger things have happened.

yostrovs 4y ago

Talking about repeal of the 2nd amendment is equally useless when there are probably more guns than people in the US, and there's nowhere near enough support for that. There are some ideas, such as increasing the age of ownership, and many others, which should be considered. You'll actually be able to achieve results. Banning guns completely in America is simply impossible now.

NDizzle 4y ago
shall not be infringed

galangalalgol 4y ago

There is a saying that god may have made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal. The right to use lethal force in defense of self is pretty widely accepted, but we should acknowledge that some of us have dramatic advantages in that regard. Being taller, having been in more fights, having a physically active job, being male... Firearms, more than literally any other weapon, level that disadvantage. So to acknowledge the right but deny it an equitable means seems unfair to me. And on a less philosophical note, there will be no changes to the constitution until we have a complete party failure on one side or the other. The current polarization does not seem correctable as it self perpetuates. And in this climate even public agreement on normal legislation that both parties privately agree on is rare, because that is seen as conspiring with the enemy.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
This is an appealing idea, with a great soundbite, that has literally no large-scale evidence in its favor. The epidemiological evidence is pretty clear on this; the prevalence of self-defense use of guns is minuscule. Even where guns are used in self-defense, it's often in the context of an escalation of an argument rather than in the scenarios people imagine. People who do use guns to protect themselves in the course of crimes are no less likely to be injured than those who do not.
- mtnops 4y ago
  I would encourage you to revisit the research around firearms used in self defense. 500,000 to 3,000,000 encounters where a firearm was used in self defense in the US is what I was able to find. Doesn't sound minuscule.
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    You need to look beyond the headline numbers. Here's a good place to start reading: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-thr...

tablespoon 4y ago

> There's never going to be useful progress here until America unsticks from the idea that the right to arm yourself belongs in the same category as the right to free speech or due process. America also needs a comprehensive media safety law that bans dissemination of reports of things like school attacks outside of the affected communities. All the nationwide media coverage does is inspire copycat mayhem.

rufus_foreman 4y ago
Wow, ready to throw out both the first and second amendments. Is there any part of the Bill of Rights that you would actually stand up for?

rubyist5eva 4y ago

> Step 1: repeal the Second Amendment. Will never happen in this lifetime.