Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How We Learned to Love the Bill of Rights

bunkhistory.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 111 posts

Re: How We Learned to Love the Bill of Rights

#91

Post by mr_spothawk »

samsolomon wrote: post #61
kelnos wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's talk in practical terms for a second, though. Do you truly believe that gun ownership in the US could result in a bunch of citizens overthrowing the US government should it become tyrannical? I just don't see it happening. The US military is far too well-trained and -armed, and of course a hypothetical tyrannical US government would turn the military against its citizens if there was an armed uprising. And they…

> The US military is far too well-trained and -armed, and of course a hypothetical tyrannical US government would turn the military against its citizens if there was an armed uprising. And they would win so laughably easily. I doubt it. The US failed in Vietnam and has been struggling in Afghanistan since 2001. Tanks and planes do not win wars. Small arms do. EDIT: Dystopian follow-on thought. I wonder if this paradi…

> drones

this is why it's tough (for me) to listen to the courts say "that doesn't mean a right to carry any weapon at any time for any reason".

a decent resistance will need drones.

fortunately they're cheap

Re: How We Learned to Love the Bill of Rights

#92

Post by throwahey »

mr_spothawk wrote: post #89
kelnos wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's talk in practical terms for a second, though. Do you truly believe that gun ownership in the US could result in a bunch of citizens overthrowing the US government should it become tyrannical? I just don't see it happening. The US military is far too well-trained and -armed, and of course a hypothetical tyrannical US government would turn the military against its citizens if there was an armed uprising. And they…

> Do you truly believe that gun ownership in the US could result in a bunch of citizens overthrowing the US government should it become tyrannical? no. it's not about overthrow. it's about meaningful #resistance in the face of braindead authoritarian pepperspray cops without the spine to think for themselves. gun owners aren't at the range practicing political science, and international business, and and learning to…

It scares me that there are people who think any type of resistance against the government would be hopeless, and would prefer to disarm the public for a false sense of security.

One thing I don't get is that those who are anti-gun don't seem to have much faith in the government to begin with, what makes them think that they won't continue to take away rights as soon as the public is disarmed, given that it has happened time and time again all over the world.

Re: How We Learned to Love the Bill of Rights

#93

Post by direfungasaur »

zaroth wrote: post #85
direfungasaur wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't understand the generality of the assertion. Law-abiding folks are suddenly going to become violent because the government changed one law? I can certainly believe that some segment of the population might revolt, but broad-scale revolt seems rather unlikely. Most of us are well-fed and entertained enough that the loss of firearms would be an irritant, not an issue worth risking life and limb over. Someth…

I think there’s a sizable part of the population which believes very strongly that what would come after gun confiscation is worth fighting a war to prevent. And you can’t fight that war if you aren’t armed for it. So it’s a do or die / back up against the wall proposition at that point. Men rise up in violence all the time to protect what is sacred to them. “Change one law” is I think not an accurate depiction of th…

With respect to the 'change one law' phrasing - I don't think a repeal of the 2nd immediately leads to confiscation. It only removes the federal restrictions, but several state constitutions have the right explicitly enshrined. Pennsylvania is a good example, but I believe there are others. Confiscation would probably require not only an appeal of the 2nd, but also repeal of any state laws as well. I tend to believe that would result a slow, piecemeal process where individual states go through confiscation one by one.

That said, your point can certainly stand at a state level. I still think how the process is managed impacts the broader social response. An approach that attempted to leave bolt-action/small capacity shotguns and files in place may be received differently than a wholesale ban. An approach that only eliminated 'assault weapons' but left handguns would have a different impact than an approach that required both to be turned-in. There's lots of ways to drive a confiscation, with lesser or greater outcomes on how people resist, I would think.

Re: How We Learned to Love the Bill of Rights

#94

Post by skookumchuck »

stdbrouw wrote: post #60
skookumchuck wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I like all of the amendments. I'm not an NRA member, but the idea of repealing the 2nd Amendment, or worse, interpreting it out of existence has bothered me in ways I couldn't quite put my finger on. I finally realized what it was. If we decide one of the rights is "archaic", "obsolete", "insane", or any of the epithets routinely leveled at it, we set a terrible precedent. How long will it be before the rest fall w…

In Europe, democratic countries regularly amend their constitution because parts of it have become archaic, obsolete or insane. We have yet to descend into chaos or tyranny.

Your rights are under constant attack as well, and you've definitely got fewer ones than in the US.

Re: How We Learned to Love the Bill of Rights

#95

Post by mindslight »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #39
mindslight wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mitchell vs City of Henderson. They've all been pwnt in one way or another.

The Mitchells lost their case—at least on the third amendment claims.

Yes, exactly.

It would be tautological to consider the Supreme Court's decision to be the final word on the truth of the matter - doing so would imply that it's impossible for the government to systematically violate any rights/laws.

Re: How We Learned to Love the Bill of Rights

#96

Post by seren »

skookumchuck wrote: post #94
stdbrouw wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Europe, democratic countries regularly amend their constitution because parts of it have become archaic, obsolete or insane. We have yet to descend into chaos or tyranny.

Your rights are under constant attack as well, and you've definitely got fewer ones than in the US.

You mean like the GDPR ?

Re: How We Learned to Love the Bill of Rights

#97

Post by CompanionCuuube »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #86
quantumleap22 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The incarceration rates of Europeans in America are similar to those of Europeans in Europe.

If by Europeans, you mean white, then that isn't true. The US incarcerates whites at the rate of 450 per 100k which is roughly double the rate of any European country except for Russia and equal to Russia's rate. It's triple or more the rate of incarceration in most of Western Europe. If you are referring to people who are actually from European countries, then I haven't seen data on that, but Europeans in the US wou…

Yes, Europe is sending us their best so the sample in the US is not representative. I think you are responding to someone talking about people who share the cultural upbringing of Europe rather than race. Unless you think race is a powerful indicator of criminality?

Re: How We Learned to Love the Bill of Rights

#98

Post by isleyaardvark »

akkat wrote: post #69
toomanybeersies wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have Donald Trump trying to undermine the news media, attacking people for expressing their opinions by refusing to stand for the anthem, calling for stripping the citizenship from those who burn the US flag, and wanting a ban on Muslims entering the country. Attacks on individual liberties are not limited to a particular political ideology.

By "attacking" you mean calling some news fake news and criticizing other people's political statements. Those things are within the law. Jailing people for their political opinion, like they do in UK, China and Iran, is a violation. Anyone trying to make laws allowing those things would be attacking the first.

The Trump adminstration was literally exploring changing the First Amendment:

http://theweek.com/speedreads/695695/reince-priebus-admits-t...

Re: How We Learned to Love the Bill of Rights

#99

Post by nybble41 »

adrianratnapala wrote: post #12
dragonwriter wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that the rights in the Soviet Constitution have an important explicit limitation in Article 39: “Enjoyment by citizens of their rights and freedoms must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state, or infringe the rights of other citizens.”

This sort of thing is common in well run democratic countries too. European constitutions are full of provisions that say "Such and such a right is inviolable, except when it's not". Or "except when it is violated according to the law". And it works! That's because (in recent decades) the political reality in Western Europe has been basically in favour of democracy in freedom -- and so they limited basic rights only…

Still, the fact that these exceptions exist is a clear sign that the authors of the document did not see these as rights at all, but rather revocable privileges. In practical terms, you don't need a written constitution to uphold rights, and having one does not guarantee that rights are upheld—but if you're going to go to the trouble of defining rights in a written constitution, you shouldn't include an insidious "escape hatch" which undermines those rights by claiming that they can legitimately be infringed "for a good cause". Rights, as opposed to privileges, are unconditional and cannot legitimately be infringed under any circumstance.

Re: How We Learned to Love the Bill of Rights

#100

Post by icebraining »

krapp wrote: post #66
danjayh wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what scares me about the current attitude (nationally) towards gun control. The right to bear arms is a basic civil right, unambiguously encoded in the Bill of Rights alongside speech, assembly, religion, due process, etc. Throughout history, taking away weapons has always been an early step down the slippery slope to totalitarianism and stripping the populous of their other rights. Just because it's unlikely…

>This is what scares me about the current attitude (nationally) towards gun control. The current attitude stems from a desire for civility and public safety. Why would that scare you? >The right to bear arms is a basic civil right, unambiguously encoded in the Bill of Rights alongside speech, assembly, religion, due process, etc. It's not unambiguously encoded. If it were, there would not be entire debates over the m…

The current attitude stems from a desire for civility and public safety. Why would that scare you?

Regardless of the specific topic, lots of terrible things have been done "with the best of intentions". It's hardly a reason not to be scared.

Post reply on HN