Hacker News Reader

Comment by dpkirchner | Hacker News Reader

Republicans have suggested for years that there is a counterbalance in the bill of rights.

That has shown to be nothing but hot air and wishful thinking. The second they got into power they’ve thrown any hint of caring about the constitution out the window.

The Bill of Rights is just words on paper. For it to mean anything, the judicial needs to be willing to uphold it and the executive needs to be willing to enforce those decisions.

That becomes much less likely when they are allowed to become overly partisan. The officials who wield power lose the ability to distinguish between civic duty and the rule of law, and loyalty to the party itself.

Yet they continue to ignore court orders when those rights are found to have been violated.

The primary mechanism for redress of constitutional right violations under current law are monetary damages under FTCA, especially now that universal injunctions are dead. There's no actual counterbalance.

Can I buy the same weapons the American military has access to?

Until that's true, the 2nd amendment is meaningless when USAF can buy JDAMs and F35s and I, an American citizen, cannot.

It’s been meaningless ever since the courts decided the “well-regulated militia” part doesn’t actually mean anything. It was never meant to be carte blanche access to every weapon under the sun

Even if you had access to all the munitions on paper, it would be extraordinarily surprising to wake up one day to the news that US citizens collectively out-gunned the US armed forces. I mean, F35s are not famous for being cheap.

Even if you could spend alike in aggregate, who maintains them? Where is the secondary military drilling people on tactics and/or strategy?

Nah, the 2nd never did what its proponents claimed, not even in the old days.

> Nah, the 2nd never did what its proponents claimed, not even in the old days.

I'm not sure this is accurate. General Benjamin Butler bought and used private gatling guns. JP Morgan loaned a warship to the Navy. I am sure there are many other examples. https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/research/h...

Regarding who maintains them: that’s my problem to have _after_ I buy them, but today I can’t even buy them! And I picked a high-end example, of course I couldn’t maintain an F35 but maybe I would like some automatic rifles or more realistically some armed drones.

Still I think we’re saying the same thing: the founder’s arguments amount well regulated militias being a check on tyrannical government doesn’t land when the tyrannical government can just drone swarm the country into submission.

I think you misunderstood the range and purpose of the 2nd amendment.

Yeah, and what happens every time we take a Republican at his word?

in theory, yes; in practice, no.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com