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

The Jews in the Attic Test

joehuffman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#51

Post by pas »

pdonis wrote: post #37
berbec wrote: post #30

I've seen arguments like this before. It boils down to "the second amendment gives me the right to own/buy/manufacture any weapon I need to defend myself against tyranny." The problem is to maintain the private citizen/armed forces of a cou try balance of power is ludicrous. What exactly do you need to buy to defend yourself against a troop of Navy Seals? OK, training and gear. For a start: Teflon coated bullets, hig…

> It boils down to "the second amendment gives me the right to own/buy/manufacture any weapon I need to defend myself against tyranny." At the time the amendment was passed, privately owned warships, comparable in power to those available to governments, were common. In fact the use of such warships as privateers was a key component of the United States' strategy in both the War of Independence and the War of 1812. T…

> but unless and until that happens, the second amendment says what it says and you can't just ignore that because you don't like the implications.

People are not ignoring it.

And a lot of people think that the SC has the duty and responsibility to [re]interpret the Constitution every time they consult it. Therefore there might not be a need for a new Amendment.

Of course, cleaning up the mess would be great with a new Constitution. But the time is not right for that, reason is not hip enough nowadays.

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#52

Post by AstralStorm »

berbec wrote: post #30

I've seen arguments like this before. It boils down to "the second amendment gives me the right to own/buy/manufacture any weapon I need to defend myself against tyranny." The problem is to maintain the private citizen/armed forces of a cou try balance of power is ludicrous. What exactly do you need to buy to defend yourself against a troop of Navy Seals? OK, training and gear. For a start: Teflon coated bullets, hig…

High yield explosives, shovels and demolitions training.

The actual force that is impossible to repel with typical means is naval and air force. (though you can still attack the logistics of those operations)

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#53

Post by acjohnson55 »

pdonis wrote: post #40
toomanybeersies wrote: post #24

[flagged]

> So of course, with this uninfringed right, you have people killing their spouse, children accidentally killing their family members, people seeking help after a car crash getting shot [1], increased rates of suicide, etc. etc. That's not to mention otherwise lawful firearms owners shooting up schools, churches, and theaters. You're leaving out some key factors. First, firearm violence in the US (like violence in ge…

You don't even attempt to cite any stats that would show that non-urban America is as safe as Europe. And it's a stretch to believe because Europe doesn't have semi-regular gun massacres, which aren't actually happening in inner cities.

Guns are widely available in high crime areas because it's trivial to travel to a jurisdiction where buying them is legal.

We also have very little liability for what happens with a gun you own or sale when it's not in your possession. If this weren't the case, you'd see much fewer firearms getting into the hands of criminals.

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#55

Post by toomanybeersies »

yellowapple wrote: post #50
toomanybeersies wrote: post #24

[flagged]

"Even if you don't intend to go out and shoot somebody, buying a handgun or a shotgun for home defence is buying one with the intention of killing people." Not necessarily. Even assuming there's an intention to fire the gun in the first place (it might be meant as a deterrent), there also might be the intention to only wound the assailant. Not all gunshots are fatal, after all. Of course, even a shot to the leg can b…

If you've ever handled a firearm, you will have been told to only ever point it at something you intend to kill.

Any shot is a potentially lethal shot, and the only reason that a gun is a deterrent is that you have the potential to kill the assailant.

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#56

Post by mikeash »

pdonis wrote: post #48
mikeash wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then perhaps the article should choose a more illustrative example. My point is that I disagree with the basic premise. Laws which help tyrannies oppress and murder people are not necessarily the same laws that turn good governments into tyrannies. I see no reason the two should be connected.

> Laws which help tyrannies oppress and murder people are not necessarily the same laws that turn good governments into tyrannies. Can you give any counterexamples? Also, bear in mind that the criterion in the article is not "does the law help tyrannies oppress and murder people?" but "does the law make it difficult or impossible to protect the innocent against the government?"

The test as quoted makes no sense. It’s always going to be difficult or impossible to protect the innocent against a government run amok. There is no scenario where a bunch of maniacs have taken over and you’re trying so save some innocent people and it’s easy to do.

Thus I have interpreted it as “does the law make it more difficult to protect the innocent against the government if the government has gone crazy?” That seems like the more charitable interpretation, as it actually makes a little bit of sense until you bite into it.

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#57

Post by pdonis »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #53
pdonis wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So of course, with this uninfringed right, you have people killing their spouse, children accidentally killing their family members, people seeking help after a car crash getting shot [1], increased rates of suicide, etc. etc. That's not to mention otherwise lawful firearms owners shooting up schools, churches, and theaters. You're leaving out some key factors. First, firearm violence in the US (like violence in ge…

You don't even attempt to cite any stats that would show that non-urban America is as safe as Europe. And it's a stretch to believe because Europe doesn't have semi-regular gun massacres, which aren't actually happening in inner cities. Guns are widely available in high crime areas because it's trivial to travel to a jurisdiction where buying them is legal. We also have very little liability for what happens with a g…

> Europe doesn't have semi-regular gun massacres

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun...

> semi-regular gun massacres, which aren't actually happening in inner cities.

You're right, "inner cities" was too narrow. "Urban areas" would be better. The point is that the localities are isolated; they aren't evenly spread across the US, they're concentrated in certain places, and those places all have a common factor that I described.

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#58

Post by pdonis »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #53
pdonis wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So of course, with this uninfringed right, you have people killing their spouse, children accidentally killing their family members, people seeking help after a car crash getting shot [1], increased rates of suicide, etc. etc. That's not to mention otherwise lawful firearms owners shooting up schools, churches, and theaters. You're leaving out some key factors. First, firearm violence in the US (like violence in ge…

You don't even attempt to cite any stats that would show that non-urban America is as safe as Europe. And it's a stretch to believe because Europe doesn't have semi-regular gun massacres, which aren't actually happening in inner cities. Guns are widely available in high crime areas because it's trivial to travel to a jurisdiction where buying them is legal. We also have very little liability for what happens with a g…

> We also have very little liability for what happens with a gun you own or sale when it's not in your possession

For "own", yes, you're right; greater accountability for gun owners who let others use their guns would be a good idea.

For "sale", not so much; selling something means transferring ownership, which means once you've sold it, you aren't responsible any more because you aren't the owner. The new owner is the one who should be held responsible.

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#60

Post by pvg »

auser24 wrote: post #59
pvg wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It hasn't been 'removed'. Users flagged it.

Effectively removing it. It has never been unflagged. Nice way to hide opinions.

It's a nice way for users to help keep offtopic stuff from clogging up the front page, yes.
Post reply on HN