Hacker News Reader

That is precisely why the Constitution includes a specific means to change it. If that's what is deemed necessary, then there's a process to accomplish it.

Sidestepping the Constitution, or ignoring its enumerated rights and restrictions, however, is unacceptable, and should not be tolerated by We the People.

Thank you. Yes the document is old. If we feel is outdated there is a mechanism * within the law* to change it!

From what I understand, the right to bear arms was inclusive of nearly any weapon. There were interesting discussions (at the time) with regards to whether the 2nd Amendment included the right to bear warship, cannon, or repeating rifles. They concluded that it did.

Furthermore, I don't understand why the ease (or lack thereof) of a militia (the present day equivalent for which may be a State Guard) to overtake or resist the (exponentially larger) Federal government has any bearing on our rights. You wouldn't use this sort of argument anywhere else.

"For we got rid of things like having slaves be counted as 3/5 of a person of representation."

Just in case you didn't know, the "a slave is 3/5 of a person" that is so oft-decried today was an anti-slavery measure. For the purposes of Congressional representation, if a slave was counted as a full person, then the slave-owning states would get expanded numbers in Congress for all the non-voters being kept in slavery. Three-fifths, as opposed to full representation, at least kept them from gaining as much power as they would have otherwise. These things generally aren't as simple as one is often told.

I usually prefer -3/5 to emphasize this.

I wouldn't call it an anti-slavery measure but one of a long series of compromises on the issue of slavery. Considering 3/5 > ((0 + 1)/2) it seems to be a compromise tilted towards the pro slavery side.

For we got rid of things like having slaves be counted as 3/5 of a person of representation

__

... by amending it via formal, open process; not by selectively ignoring it.

>For starters it's crazy to think that a militia equipped with a stock pile of firearms can overtake a intrusive government with tanks, choppers etc. It's just not realistic.

You mean like every single insurgent force in the middle east in the past few decades?

"I think the gun provisions have not. For starters it's crazy to think that a militia equipped with a stock pile of firearms can overtake a intrusive government with tanks, choppers etc. It's just not realistic."

I disagree. As Tolstoy pointed out, the winner of a war is usually who wants to win more.

Look no further than Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. They humiliated us. Granted, Iraq has no winner yet, but the country with choppers lost badly to a bunch of irregulars with AKs

It's sad to see the level of discussion and civility of hacker news be reduced to "constitution nuts" that adds nothing to your argument and detracts from the overall quality of the discussion.

I grew up in a county with 1 police officer on duty at night that was 50 miles by 30 miles having a gun felt like a necessity. I now live in NYC and it does not.

What I'd like to see happen is:

1. Licensing guns and their sales, including required training. I liken this to license required around cars / alcohol sales.

2. Closing background check / re-scale & licensing loopholes.

3. Requiring additional insurance from gun owners.

4. Local control over the remaining aspects (can cancel out above mandates).

I don't think you entirely get rid of guns even if all of them are illegal. And the US is a big country that encompasses many diverse areas with competing interests. This scenario accounts for the country / NYC divide. It admin that it does require more from the folks in the country (licensing / training). But that's always a bit of tit-for-tat like the folks in NYC where a big chunk of their tax dollars goes out of state / upstate NY, or utility bills in the city that have taxes for building out access out in further to reach places.