Hacker News Reader

Comment by plinkplonk | Hacker News Reader

"the purpose of the second amendment was to provide the people with a means to rebel against a tyrannical government"

by this logic, shouldn't you be able to buy IEDs and RPGs (and launchers) at walmart? I understand these weren't available at the time of The War of American Independence, but going by the spirit of the Second Amendment, one would want people fighting tyranny to have the most effective weapons possible to do said fighting. Those(IEDs etc) seem to be the most effective weapons for a guerilla force fighting a tyrannical government (vs Glocks or whatever).

And if you are considering non guerilla forces facing off with government forces, you probably need artillery and heavy machine guns (to start with).

View on HN

>by this logic, shouldn't you be able to buy IEDs and RPGs (and launchers) at walmart?

Yes, that was the thinking of the time. However, RPGs did not yet exist. Notice what you quoted me saying. "The purpose of the second amendment was..." That is past-tense.

Obviously in today's age the original scope of it must be limited. I don't even support the idea that everyone should have an absolute right to a gun. There should be some regulation, but outright outlawing guns? I am glad that I can say I'm confident that it won't happen across the entire US any time soon.

I believe they should have about the same level of regulation as automobiles. Both are deadly. Yet, with proper training and mental clarity, they are both useful and safe.

just to be clear, I am not saying you should ban handguns. Or saying that the constitution writers should have foreseen all weapons of the futue.

Just saying that if the purpose of the Second Amendment were to promote the ability of the populace to fight tyranny, then citizens should probably be able to access all military grade weapons short of nukes or other WMD (maybe those too?).

I am not taking a stance against that position,just pointing out that it takes some weird mental contortions to be have citizens be have a constitutional right to buy a high magazine hand gun, but not (say) a mortar, or RPG, a grenade launcher, or even an HMG. The former provides defence against tyranny, but the latter don't?

The latter do, and I think there are quite a few people who probably believe they should have a right to those items. I'm personally not aligned with their beliefs.

Obviously we can go uphill with this until the argument caps out at nuclear power. I believe that personal small-arms are probably at least enough to make an escape if troops were sent out to capture you and take you to an internment camp or something (which by the way, they are trained to do) -- it should be considered that if the government really did become tyrannical, that a lot of the military would rebel as well.

The whole point of the 2nd amendment is to be able to form a militia if the government gets big and tries to take your liberty. You don't need artillery, just a small percentage of resistance like the small percentage that fought the british

yes, and just as muskets were probably the most effective weapons for the resistance then, so RPGs and IEDs are, today. And so (following logically from the 2nd amendment) citizens should be able to buy and stock them. Or can the potential oppressors decide what weapons the opposing militia may have?

How can you promote handguns, but not RPGs (if the logic of promoting handgun availability is that it enables resistance to tyranny)? Or, looking at it the other way, how can you ban RPG/IED purchases, but not ban handguns?

Have you opened the news in past two years? governments can fall in weeks starting with stones. don't kid yourself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com