Hacker News Reader

Comment by rjbwork | Hacker News Reader

That won't be happening. The second amendment is a thing. Demographics and opinion polls show that we won't be getting rid of it any time soon. Assault Rifles are in common use, thus will not be banned any time soon. The current regime seems poised to expand, rather than restrict, the types of arms which we have the right to bear.

This is ultimately my point - we have a lot of other avenues to address the problem rather than this, IMO, fruitless attempt to deal with the guns.

View on HN

Of course it's hard to do, but that doesn't change the fact that getting rid of most guns is clearly and obviously the way to significantly reduce the amount of gun violence in the US. Contesting this is too silly to take seriously, like an alcoholic saying "I know I've been fired from my last three jobs for showing up drunk, but we have lots of other avenues to address this..."

And just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's impossible. If one side can stack the Supreme Court with people who suddenly realize there's no constitutional right to privacy, the other side can find some judges to suddenly notice the "well-regulated militia" part of the second amendment, and act accordingly.

> The second amendment is a thing.

Gun-control opponents... generally choose to ignore the first clause altogether, hoping that no one notices that there was never an unabridged right to gun ownership.[1]

The solution to the gun-control issue and, perhaps, to some of the lawlessness in our communities is for the states to invoke the Second Amendment and require gun owners to join a militia.[1)

The 2nd Amendment says well-regulated militia shall not be infringed, it's the right of the people. Gun owners should be drafted into militia and whipped into shape. Whether regulation works or not is incidental because the 2nd requires it.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1987/08/22/t...

Contemporary (mis)interpretation of 2A is relatively recent. Nothing is impossible in this realm.

Careless deference to the 2nd amendment (more generally, deference to "the constitution") is among the reddest flags you can throw.

Not really deference. Just a cold analysis of the state of things.

You can't just say "the 2nd amendment" and assume we all mean the same thing. Radical misinterpretation is way too common for that.

What do you think it would mean?

That's a good question, and an illustrative one. It means what supports my argument, considering I have only invoked the amendment by name rather than by any specific consequence or ruling. I hope this helps to illustrate the sham of simply calling out "the constitution" or "the 2nd amendment" as a reason.

I am pretty sure clear backpacks will solve the problem. I read about it on twitter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com