Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests • Hacker News Board

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#641

Post by homonculus1 » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 7:07 PM UTC

cwkoss wrote: post #580

nvahalik wrote: post #18

> Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator This is why we have the second amendment. And the constitution as the thing to which office-holders swear allegiance to rather than to "the party" or "the president".

I think it is unfortunate that so many Americans don't know about the history of the Black Panthers. In US public school system, we are taught that the Civil Rights Act was won through peaceful marching - this is not the whole story. Black Panthers carried guns to protect protests, and having guns created a situation where cops could not rush in and beat dissent into submission. There is a strong argument that withou…

>Any discussion of gun control in America must account for the self-defense rights of Americans who do not have adequate protection from the police.

Not to detract from your excellent point but when it comes to personal defense against crime, this applies to everyone who doesn't have private security. Even if the police are 100% on your side, they can't help you if they aren't at your side. When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#642

Post by x86_64Ubuntu » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 7:07 PM UTC

tenaciousDaniel wrote: post #316

josephdviviano wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact is that the dictator would still win. The rebellious citizenry would live a life of absolute misery, just as those in the middle east do. The 2nd amendment made a lot of sense when weaponry consisted of horses and rifles, not computer-guided missiles. If there was ever a true US dictator, the 2nd amendment would mostly be used by the oppressed to rob, attack, and oppress one another.

I just don't see any historical evidence that superior weaponry always wins, whereas there are plenty of examples to the contrary. So I don't know why it's a "fact" that the dictator would still win.

The exceptions prove the rule, as well does the entirety of New World colonization.

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#643

Post by rjf72 » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 7:08 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #609

rjf72 wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the text of the second amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." From its advent until somewhere around the mid to late 20th century it was interpreted universally as an individual right. The founding fathers and others of the time wrote extensively on this and it was not controversial for centur…

> In brief form: he posits that if the law were constrained only to the militia, and not the masses of people that may comprise it, then it would be quite a pointless amendment as the very government it seeks to protect individuals from could undermine it by inaction or neglect in regards to the formation of that militia. It should be noted that the Bill of Rights was originally interpreted to only limit the actions…

Can you elaborate on what you mean in regards to the Bill of Rights being interpreted to only apply to the federal government? This seems to be in contradiction the supremacy clause.

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#644

Post by acchow » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 7:08 PM UTC

sixothree wrote: post #624

philliphaydon wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The full video shows a officer on the ground being beaten with sticks. So it wasn’t just a kid swinging at the officer.

Could you imagine what would happen in America if an officer was on the ground being beaten?

At least a full clip.

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#645

Post by PhasmaFelis » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 7:08 PM UTC

CapricornNoble wrote: post #549

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an interesting sci-fi dystopia in there, maybe. Everything up to light machine guns are available with no restrictions to anyone who wants to buy them. The government constantly talks up the sanctity of the right to bear arms, and the importance of being prepared at all times to defend innocents against . The dystopian military enforcers wear bulletproof powered armor, and private ownership of any weapon that…

>>>The dystopian military enforcers wear bulletproof powered armor, and private ownership of any weapon that can pierce that armor is a "grievous threat to public order," punishable by summary execution. Which sounds like a deterrent.....until the insurgents use autonomous vehicle technology to pilot dump trucks full of fertilizer explosives into the enforcers. https://hugokaaman.com/2017/02/14/the-history-and-adapta…

Well, it's dystopian sci-fi. Of course there's got to be some way to hit back against the oppressors.

On the other hand, if your battle plan involves using up an entire truck for each enemy soldier (or squad?) neutralized, I feel like you're gonna have a hard time scaling that up to open warfare.

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#646

Post by CharlesColeman » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 7:08 PM UTC

coryfklein wrote: post #422

daenz wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The 2nd amendment made a lot of sense when weaponry consisted of horses and rifles, not computer-guided missiles. Let me make sure I understand your basic premise: the ability to defend yourself against a tyrannical dictatorship made sense until the government developed better technology, now it's pointless so just give up your guns? Aside from being completely contrary to the American spirit of defending yourself f…

> Where is the military going to fire those "computer guided missiles?" Blowing up a home or two harboring a "terrorist cell" during a meeting I'm sure will be deterrence enough for a lot of those gun owners. > Are they going to destroy their own infrastructure? The infrastructure is the exact kind of ground that can be held much more securely against pistols and rifles using the U.S.'s advanced weaponry. > Do you th…

> Blowing up a home or two harboring a "terrorist cell" during a meeting I'm sure will be deterrence enough for a lot of those gun owners.

By deterrence, did you actually mean motivation?

Killing someone's family and friends often radicalizes them, and I would say it very rarely pacifies them.

I mean look at the example of the HK protests: the police didn't stop them by kicking some people's teeth in [1], they actually fueled them by doing that.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/asia/100000006702862/hon...

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#647

Post by camgunz » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 7:09 PM UTC

jboggan wrote: post #428

camgunz wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is untrue, and the Supreme Court has ruled several times on it. This is a pretty weak appeal to authority. My rejoinders are Dred Scott and Korematsu (or anything about the idiotic "right to contract"). The Court isn't always right. > or realize that the Bill of Rights was added at the states request to protect individual rights, not collective govt sanctioned rights Well, 9A protects individual rights not enu…

>2A is absolutely not about individual rights. No Founder ever talked about it in this way. It's about militias. Absolutely untrue. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776 I don't need to refute it any further with additional quotes., it's a ridiculous statement. Furthermore the mentioning of the recent Heller case in the Supreme Court is not an a…

I don't see TJ talking about 2A there.

Edit: Thought I would reply to your Heller stuff too.

It's an appeal to authority because it's selective. The precedent when the Court decided Heller was set by Miller [1], which reads at the outset (emphasis mine):

> The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

If you're gonna invoke the Court, you have to invoke the whole thing. And to that end, there's a long history of the Court backing up the individual's right to bear arms under some pretty dubious logic. All of which is to say the Court is and always has been a political institution. No Justice since John Marshall has ever known what the Founders thought, because they weren't them. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to get one over on you.

[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#648

Post by blockmarker » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 7:10 PM UTC

4b11b4 wrote: post #486

nvahalik wrote: post #18

> Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator This is why we have the second amendment. And the constitution as the thing to which office-holders swear allegiance to rather than to "the party" or "the president".

The 2nd amendment was never created in order to "rebel" against the government. Think about this: it was the goal of the founders of the Constitution to create a new system which would be fair and just and work well. Checks and balances exist in the three forms of government. If you were creating a new system, would you include a clause that says: just in case I'm getting this wrong, let's make sure it's an unalienab…

>just in case I'm getting this wrong, let's make sure it's an unalienable right for people to have weapons in case they need to kill me?

That supposes that the Founders would forever rule and be unified, with no possibility of anyone else ever ruling. That obviously is idiotic.

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#649

Post by camgunz » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 7:10 PM UTC

jki275 wrote: post #577

camgunz wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is untrue, and the Supreme Court has ruled several times on it. This is a pretty weak appeal to authority. My rejoinders are Dred Scott and Korematsu (or anything about the idiotic "right to contract"). The Court isn't always right. > or realize that the Bill of Rights was added at the states request to protect individual rights, not collective govt sanctioned rights Well, 9A protects individual rights not enu…

The plain language of the text of the 2nd amendment has always been clear. Everything else you've posted is trying to work around the text as it's written and interpreted by SCOTUS.

This is the text:

> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

How do you explain "Militia" and "State"? How does 2A not refer explicitly to State militias?

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#650

Post by spacehunt » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 7:10 PM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #631

program_whiz wrote: post #13

Sure, the kid was swinging at the officer, and I suppose that warrants the officer acting in self-defense. But another question is, what are the protesters supposed to do? The government has all the power, and can simply snuff out any resistence. If you just stand in the streets, they really don't care, they are going to take your freedom. Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator that just decided they were going to…

When we are judging individuals, it's important to judge with individual circumstances. Was THIS protestor being violent? Was THIS police officer justified in firing? In this case, there is one video that isn't getting much viewership which very clearly shows the protestor who was shot, chasing down and beating a police officer on the ground. The officer that fired was coming to the rescue when the protestor attacked…

The video shows that the police officer had his handgun drawn before he was hit with the pipe.

Furthermore, the same officer was actually carrying a rubber bullet gun on him at the time.

Why didn't he deploy rubber bullets at a distance, but instead charged in with his handgun drawn?