Hacker News Reader

Comment by scrub_tier | Hacker News Reader

"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."

Respectfully, how does your desire to bear private arms contribute to your militia or the freedom of your state and country? I'm taking a chance here on hacker news with what might have been a troll comment, but please accept my sincere honest intent to understand your point of view.

How does a suppressed destructive device on an unregulated currency exchange make our society better?

How does your right contribute to the security of the state?

How did you come to believe you needed this capability?

At the risk of appealing to authority, we have established case law in all of our rights which to a reasonable extent remove the protection of our rights for the benefit of the community. We aren't allowed to have indentured servitude, but we legally have the draft in times of crisis. We have the freedom to speak and share our world views, but I cannot yell "fire" in the movie theater lest I risk my own imprisonment for endangering the lives of others.

Why should the second amendment be treated with any less discretion?

View on HN

How does a suppressed destructive device...

A suppressor, aka "silencer", is a SAFETY device. If you believe otherwise, you've been watching too much TV. They don't render the weapon silent or even quiet, they bring the explosive sound down to a range that doesn't pose risk of hearing loss. I've seen the sound of a gun with a good silencer likened to slamming an unabridged dictionary onto a solid table as hard as you can. So the assassin in the next room, or even the guy out in the back yard, is still going to wake up somebody in the bedroom.

So the use of a silencer is to protect the hearing of everyone around you. As such, it's certainly a net-positive for society.

Undoubtedly supressors do decrease gas discharge from the muzzle and increase the safety of the system to the user. However, I feel you've chosen a best case scenario and haven't addressed my other points.

Subsonic ammunition is easy to press and real suppressors use closed rubber wipes which are only good for a couple shots. I hadn't intended to make that point a technical critique of suppressive technology so much as an indication of the perceived need over other options. When would I need a suppressor? If I'm not shooting on a range where everyone SHOULD have headgear, then I'm hunting far away from hopefully all society and being safe about it?

Regardless, I appreciate your candor.

> Subsonic ammunition is easy to press and real suppressors use closed rubber wipes which are only good for a couple shots.

"real"? i don't think any of those are even available for purchase. take a look at thunderbeast arms or silencerco for what "real" suppressors look like.

they're astonishingly effective, and last for forever. (which is important when it takes 12 months to get one.)

> When would I need a suppressor? If I'm not shooting on a range where everyone SHOULD have headgear

ugh, have you ever even stood next to someone setting off a hunting rifle?

suppressors are additive with ear protection (super useful for anyone with hearing damage), and also eliminate the whole-body experience of the blast.

That seems like a fig leaf.

The tradeoff is between the relative costs and benefits of suppressors. Given that ear protection is cheap, plentiful, and doesn't increase the probability of someone getting shot, it's hard to justify the legality of suppressors for purely "safety" reasons.

Adding a piece of metal to the end of a barrel doesn't increase the probability of someone getting shot. It doesn't increase the chances of the gun to fire accidentally.

Does the loudness of a gun deter its use in the commission of a crime? I think it does, though perhaps only in a handful of cases. Gang violence comes to mind: the gun's loudness gives you away if you're sneaking up on folks, and makes it easier for law enforcement to locate you.

If a gun's loudness sometimes acts as a deterrent, then the availability of this "piece of metal" will reduce/eliminate this deterrent, and consequently increase the probability of the weapon's being used.

The same can't be said for ear protection.

I'm realizing I'm only partially familiar with some of our laws. Is there any data you or the poster can link to illustrate your claims?

I don't have data. It would likely take a while get the data from the "experiment" that showed that the availability of a suppressor increased the probability of a gun's being used in the commission of a crime.

The point is that given the availability of effective ear protection, there is no legitimate argument for civilian use of suppressors. There is no plausible argument that their existence would decrease the risk of a gun's being used illegally, and there are great reasons to believe that in some instances it would increase this risk, and/or make it more difficult to catch those who have done so.

Long range flamethrowers are illegal, but could be said to have a "legitimate use" for clearing brush. When there is no good argument for a thing to exist, and there are good safety-based arguments for it to not exist, then in the name of safety we should not have said thing.

The change in loudness would have to be proven to make a difference first, which you have not done here. A gun with a suppressor is still a very loud gun.

"A 30-decibel reduction in theory means an AR-15 rifle would have a noise equivalent of 132 decibels. That is considered equivalent to a gunshot or a jackhammer." Are firearms with a silencer 'quiet'? - The Washington Post

> "The change in loudness would have to be proven to make a difference first"

What do you specifically mean by "proven to make a difference"? Suppressors are known for being used by intelligence services -- presumably they're not using them to protect their agents' hearing.

I'll take your point into consideration that deregulating silencers will increase their usage by intelligence services.

Huh? That wasn't my point.

It should be blindingly obvious that silencers/suppressors have a use beyond "hearing safety". Namely, that they allow someone to shoot someone else without attracting as much attention.

Are you claiming otherwise?

I am claiming that you are taking the example of intelligence agencies and expanding it to all crime, which is not honest in the least.

What do you suppose the impact of a suppressor would have been in Las Vegas last fall?

Realistically, not much.

Speaking of established case law, we have from the very first page of Heller [1]:

> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia... [2]

The Constitution encodes a value judgement about the rights it protects; these rights are presumed to be protected unless it can be shown why they aren't in some specific case. That is to say, to ask someone "how [their] right contribute[s] to the security of the state" is wrongheaded - if you wish to deprive them of their right you must first meet strict scrutiny.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

[2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

If we actually had a Swiss-style militia system, the constitution would be completely unambiguous. Instead, the pro-gun interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that it’s first clause is completely meaningless. I’m not sure how they resolve that kind of “being literal only when convenient” hypocrisy in their heads.

While I happen to agree and appreciate your input, let's avoid words like hypocracy for now. It tends to nurture hostility and I'm trying to get some real insight.

I'm not sure he was attacking anyone here. You need to compare (I mean really read) the majority opinion in Heller with the dissenting opinions. "Hypocrisy" is one word that leaps to mind from time to time, particularly in light of the magnitude of the changes and the way the author of the majority decision is supposedly an originalist and strict constructionist.

Hi Justin.

It's not that I disagree. In fact, I too believe it to be intrinsically hypocritical than not the more I've re-read it since I posed my initial question. HOWEVER, how we talk about things can be colored by our choice of words. The original poster is correct, but offers no examples from the case document. I believe when we state what we believe to be true, but don't support it directly may be somewhat counter productive to the more open discussion. I appreciate your feedback.

Devils advocate: Mincing words and dancing around language can sometimes lead us away from solutions or understanding. I'm taking a risk. :)

In the context of the time when it was written, "militia" meant the entire male population of military age. You can look up period law codes and find this kind of definition. It wasn't a legal fiction, either; that was the only civil defense most communities had, and threats were fairly common (e.g. Indian raids).

The plain meaning of the second amendment, in this context, is that _anyone_ is allowed to own arms, because everyone is expected to take responsibility for defending themselves and the community. There's also another layer; "militia" is as opposed to "standing army", and "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" thus means that the militia (that is, the population at large) needs to be armed well enough to resist tyrannical impositions by a standing army.

Yes, even if you take the period definition of militia, that doesn't mean the clause is meaningless today, it just means the context of the amendment is archaic. The fact that the meaning is still twisted:

> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

to mean tyrannical impositions by a standing army of the same state, as opposed to a foreign state, is categorically ridiculous.

It quite obviously meant both. The British army, against whom the people who wrote that clause had just finished fighting a revolution, was an army of "the same state" when the fighting was happening.

Any attempt to deny that the founders were very worried about tyranny imposed by the government of the country in question, and intended the second amendment (among other things) to allow the citizens to resist against the army of that government, is outright ahistorical.

> It quite obviously meant both.

The amendment is quite short and easy to quote; the pro-gun crowd actually hates this one little trick:

> 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.

There is no "obviously we mean our own government" rather than foreign invaders the militias (like the Swiss ones around since pre-revolutionary times) are typically meant to deal with.

...The pro-gun crowd are the ones who constantly quote the amendment verbatim. They don't "hate" it.

And yes, it doesn't explicitly say in the text of the amendment what kinds of threats the militia is meant to defend "the security of a free state" from. This is why you need to make obvious deductions based on context. There's certainly no basis, either in the literal text or in contextual deduction, for the idea that the founders only meant it as security against foreign invasion.

> Respectfully, how does your desire to bear private arms contribute to your militia or the freedom of your state and country?

According to 10 U.S. Code § 246[0]:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So, the majority of male Americans belong to the militia of the United States, and the vast majority of those belong to the unorganised militia (arguably, this section of the U.S. Code should be extended to cover women as well). Bearing private arms is simply arming oneself as a member of the unorganised militia.

> How does a suppressed destructive device on an unregulated currency exchange make our society better?

A suppressor is simply a safety device to save hearing; it's not a magical silencer.

> How does your right contribute to the security of the state?

An armed populace is better able to suppress insurrection, e.g. during the LA Riots back in the 90s.

> Why should the second amendment be treated with any less discretion?

It shouldn't be. We reasonably prohibit firearms to felons, domestic abusers, the mentally ill &c. Honestly, if the Second Amendment were treated like the First is, the New York Times would publish op-eds urging that concealed-carry be mandatory …

0: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

"A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

Do the people get to keep and eat food, or does a breakfast get to keep and eat food?

It's a matter of English grammar. Again:

"Well stocked libraries being necessary to the development of a sound mind, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

Is it only people in libraries that can keep and read books?

If you want a sentence diagram of it: https://imgur.com/vTB11TE

Several state constitutions have parts with similar structure. It wasn't uncommon.

The meaning of law should not change when common language usage changes. At the time of writing, "well regulated" meant effective/functional/working, and militia meant every male from about age 12 to 60.

Trying to reinterpret the 2nd amendment away is an attempt to bypass the proper process for making constitutional changes. There is one legitimate way to restrict guns; simply amend the constitution.

Hi!

I agree completely that we should not language shiv out legal problems away lest we destroy ourselves in favorable ambiguity. My question was clearly poorly articulated (smells of irony).

The first clause established a clear goal and intent, while the second is the statement of action.

The more interesting legal question to me (my legalese is super weak, so please excuse), why is any law that would not hamper a militia be considered unconstitutional? Other than Heller seems to have set the definition militia to something frankly disturbing.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States; there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." --unprovably attributed to Admiral Yamamoto

"Wolverines!" -- Hollywood movie Red Dawn

There are enough guns in the US for every man, woman, and child to carry one, and enough mulish stubbornness to carry on guerilla warfare for a long time. Americans shoot at each other constantly, and have been intensively studying next-generation warfare overseas for decades. We would certainly not hesitate to convert school shootings into checkpoint shootings, and random/racist bombings into vichy collaborator bombings.

Any nation with experience occupying Afghanistan should consider it before attempting to occupy the US. Those without it should consult with any allies that have it.

It doesn't contribute to the security of the state, but it does increase the security of the country. Except insofar as potential invaders decide that a standard invasion is infeasible and instead nuke every city and military base, I guess.

> I cannot yell "fire" in the movie theater...

Mr. Ken "Popehat" White would like to have a word: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

Hehe, fair enough. May I ask the question this way? What is the intrinsic risk of a land war between the US and another foreign power? I'm currently mobile trying to find the ATF and NRA data on distribution, but my recollection was that most fire arms were concentrated in larger collections. How do you characterise firearms ownership in the larger civilian market? It makes 100% sense to me regardless of law if you live in Nevada or Alaska to have some sort of force to bring to bear where the faculties of the state are in short supply and geographically challenging, but why rifles in suburbia?

There is statistically insignificant risk.

The US shares land borders with only two foreign countries: Canada and Mexico. We have been at peace with the former since 1815, and strong allies since 1940. Relations with the latter have been a bit less cordial, exacerbated by racism and corruption. But there's very little risk of invasion there. So any potential direct attacker would have to come by sea, through the largest navy on Earth.

I think the only way to reasonably do it would be by subverting an entire municipal government and then buying up military hardware through the police department. The force would have to be trained to capture and use military assets already in place. But then what would they do with them? Nothing you could do would be more profitable than just sitting back and running the government you already control just like a corrupt American politician would. And the reason is that suburban Americans would NIMBY a foreign invasion just as strenuously as they would a proposed nuclear power plant, a new Wal-Mart, or some mid-rise apartment blocks. Just think how that go if everyone were allowed to shoot their guns at each other.

Most people do not own firearms. But those who don't mostly live in cities. Everyone in a rural area owns at least one, without exception (hyperbole), even if it's just the one they use for unsalvageable injured livestock and large predators. Suburbanites keep rifles for recreational target shooting and hunting, but for personal defense you're probably better off with a shotgun or a sidearm. A lot of my neighbors carry daily, for no particularly good reason that I can discern. I don't care to know who's packing and who isn't, but you can often tell by looking at the purses or clothing.

I don't have one, but I saw a neighbor shoot a snake on the sidewalk across the street once. That guy's kind of an idiot, but he didn't miss. It wasn't venomous, and he probably didn't eat it, but he didn't have to be afraid of it any more, either. So I guess it wards off the bogeyman?

I'd estimate that 98.6% of rural households own at least one gun, 20% of urban households keep some, and 50% of suburban households. Most people who own any guns at all have no more than one sidearm, one rifle, and one shotgun, and a large number of the total number of guns are found in collections of 20 or more. You have to be rich or inherit antiques to hoard guns like that. Most people would probably stop after a 1911A pistol or .357mag revolver, a Mossberg 500 or Remington 870 or similar 12ga pump shotgun, and a .22LR rifle. Those guns are cheap, versatile, use cheap and widely available ammunition, have plenty of clones, and can serve most gun-owner purposes that's aren't hunting things larger than squirrels. A subset will also get a 5.56 or .223 military-inspired rifle for keeping the king of England out of your face, and a mostly disjoint subset will have one very good larger-caliber rifle and huge chest freezer for hunting deer every November. Hunters and hoplophiles tolerate one another, but they are usually more allies than friends.

Why do voters need to align their preferences with the US Constitution? Even assuming that the second amendment only allows residents to own weapons for militia use, I think it’s reasonable for citizens to say they won’t be happy until that right is expanded. If nothing else, they may mean that they support an additional amendment to carve out more rights.

Hi! Appreciate the feedback.

So you raise any interesting point. I'm only concerned about the law of the land since it's generally more or less the common ground we are forced to live on.

New question, and this is more open to derailment, but let's risk it.

ASSUME your current policy (liberal or conservative) is wrong, what what extent do you have the right to choose it anyways?

I’m really just playing devil’s advocate. Half the time people talk about what the law is, and half the time they talk about what the law should be. In either case, it feels like half the time I want to talk about the other subject than what gets brought up.

To answer your question, you should always have the right to be wrong (e.g., choose or prefer a wrong policy). I’m sure people would prefer to say “you have an unqualified right to be wrong, but only on matters that don’t affect others.” But I’ll go further and say everyone has the right to be stubborn and thick-headed.

I am assuming that even with a right to be wrong, I don’t have a right to be violent about it, etc. It’s more “I have a right to be a crank (if I’m in the minority), and a right to vote for bad policies and expect them to be implemented (if I win and they don’t violate civil rights).”

In a democracy, the safety valves seem to be:

* usually it’s hard to prove which answer is right or wrong (society as a whole doesn’t pay much for less-than-optimal policies that aren’t actively bad)

* for policies that are actively bad, the people generally notice the high cost and change the policy.

If you think I’m wrong, or I think you’re wrong, we don’t get to steamroll each other. We have to try to convince the other side. This can be annoying, but every alternative we’ve tried has been worse. No dictator, bureau, monarch, etc. has a perfect record of always choosing right or always correcting past mistakes. So I think it’s reasonable to assume we’ll always have some mistaken policies. The question is which mistaken policies should we live with (answer: the ones we choose to live with).

I have an old game book that includes the quote “democracy guarantees the people get the government they deserve.” I’ve also heard the statement “democracy assumes the people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.” I agree with both statements.

> Respectfully, how does your desire to bear private arms contribute to your militia or the freedom of your state and country?

The Supreme Court in DC. v Heller [1] determined:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"

The definition of the militia in federal law [2] is not limited to those with membership in a formal organization:

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..."

> We aren't allowed to have indentured servitude, but we legally have the draft in times of crisis.

In my opinion Arver v US was a war-time sham case and the 13th amendment's prohibition of "involuntary servitude" clearly and unambiguously prohibits the draft.

> We have the freedom to speak and share our world views, but I cannot yell "fire" in the movie theater

This quote is from Schenck v United States and was written to support the Supreme Court's decision that criticizing the draft was illegal and not protected by the first amendment. Fortunately this was later overturned.

> How does a suppressed destructive device on an unregulated currency exchange make our society better?

Suppressors have a legitimate purpose in reducing hearing damage to the user by taking the volume of a firearm down from jet engine to lawnmower. As for the 51 caliber, I can only assume the previous poster simply thinks that applying a federal "tax" to barrels over 50 caliber is arbitrary and capricious.

> How did you come to believe you needed this capability?

The police not only have no responsibility to protect anyone, but also no responsibility to even actually show up when you call. We saw in the recent Florida shooting that multiple officers on the scene are perfectly willing to hide and completely ignore the murder of children. On this basis (among others) I see no reason for civilians who are not police officers to have legal access to anything less than what is available to civilians are are police officers. If there were firearm restrictions that applied to everyone I would be intrigued, but I have yet to see any legislation that does not completely exempt police (they are exempt even in absurd cases, e.g. from state laws restricting firearm ownership by people with a history of domestic violence).

[1] http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

> Suppressors have a legitimate purpose in reducing hearing damage

Flame throwers have a legitimate use as a brush clearing tool. Fortunately there are straightforward and safer alternatives.

The best way to prevent hearing damage from a gun is with ear protection.

Interesting, I appreciate your feedback.

Why does equality if availability with local state institutions appeal to you?

>Respectfully, how does your desire to bear private arms contribute to your militia or the freedom of your state and country?

It doesn't directly, but without a private right to bear arms all you're left with is a centralised police force on steroids.

The big fault of the American gun rights movement is of course that they ignored that arguably most important part of the 2nd amendment, there is no real popular militia that can be taken seriously in the US. For goodness sakes, when the ATF gets to drive around in M1 Abrams tanks, whether you can have a bump stock or not becomes pretty meaningless.

One could of course argue that the American model would just collapse into warlordism, but it would be interesting to see it tried.

Respectfully, even if there was a strong recognized militia they had a tank I cannot follow the reasoning. We're a troubled democracy, but the army is practically saintly to many. A sample size of 1 is small, but does anyone here NOT know someone in the military? If so, would you shoot your fellow countrymen? I understand how quickly people abandon their principles in times of crisis, but in 230 years and we've had one civil war?

>Respectfully, how does your desire to bear private arms contribute to your militia or the freedom of your state and country?

Individually, not much, but like vaccines and herd immunity, it works well when large number do.

>How does your right contribute to the security of the state?

"in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"

http://www.billofrights.org/

>How did you come to believe you needed this capability?

History makes a fine lesson. Maybe 100 million killed by democide in the 20th century.

>Why should the second amendment be treated with any less discretion?

Yelling "fire" in a movie theater has nothing to do with "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers". Neither does slander, verbal assault, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com