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

Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

cowboystatedaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 96 posts

Re: Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

#61

Post by mullingitover »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #58
mullingitover wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incorrect.[1] [1] https://www.rutgers.edu/news/what-court-packing

You're welcome to cite whatever modern piece that rewrites to whatever definitions you like. I actively encourage you to stick your head in the sand and scream at the top of your lungs. The literal public education textbook I was required to learn from explained court packing decades ago as increasing the number of justices to imbalance an existing court, which is explicitly what FDR was trying to do. If the English…

You don't need to be upset, the mature thing to do is to retract your claim about it having 'always' referred to increasing the court size. That's just facially incorrect, as I demonstrated. Furthermore, what does your 'well ackshually' in this situation do to address the obvious problem of a dysfunctional branch of government suffering from capture by partisans? Let's not pretend that you'd be okay with this if the court was packed with card-carrying democratic socialists.

Re: Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

#62

Post by arikrahman »

mullingitover wrote: post #56
sidewndr46 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

packing SCOTUS has always referred to attempts to add justices, which is what was attempted by FDR

Incorrect.[1] [1] https://www.rutgers.edu/news/what-court-packing

Thanks for giving the citation based on reality and keeping it calm and rational in contrast.

Re: Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

#63

Post by iamnothere »

autoexec wrote: post #50
iamnothere wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t actually need a VIN on a car, you just won’t be able to register and drive a VINless car on public roads. Some states seem to have designated even private roads as “public” if there is uncontrolled access (seems ripe for a court challenge though). But offroading or gated roads would be fine even here. Some YouTubers have fun importing cheap Chinese cars that aren’t street legal and destroying them with extr…

> You don’t actually need a VIN on a car, you just won’t be able to register and drive a VINless car on public roads. Somehow I doubt that many 2nd amendment supporters would be okay with "You don't need a registration number on your gun, it'll just be illegal to carry/use it anywhere except private property"

Some would, some wouldn’t. There are some who only care about home defense or sport shooting on private land. Open carry and CCW folks would be quite upset, yes.

The biggest problem with this (for the first group) would be conveyance from buyer to seller or to/from a range or hunting grounds.

Re: Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

#64

Post by dabluecaboose »

autoexec wrote: post #57
dabluecaboose wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unjustified cynicism aside, the same technical reasons that a ban on printing gun parts is infeasible apply to printing iphone cases. There's no feasible way to detect what a printer is printing.

Don't underestimate the state's ability to spy on what you (and your devices) are doing or their willingness to erode your freedom even with massive false positive/negative rates.

Fine, there's currently no feasible way to do that

Re: Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

#65

Post by superxpro12 »

mullingitover wrote: post #61
sidewndr46 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're welcome to cite whatever modern piece that rewrites to whatever definitions you like. I actively encourage you to stick your head in the sand and scream at the top of your lungs. The literal public education textbook I was required to learn from explained court packing decades ago as increasing the number of justices to imbalance an existing court, which is explicitly what FDR was trying to do. If the English…

You don't need to be upset, the mature thing to do is to retract your claim about it having 'always' referred to increasing the court size. That's just facially incorrect, as I demonstrated. Furthermore, what does your 'well ackshually' in this situation do to address the obvious problem of a dysfunctional branch of government suffering from capture by partisans? Let's not pretend that you'd be okay with this if the…

Pedantry is serving nobody any good here. It distracts from the core debate which is far more serious than the evolution of a dictionary word. It meant one thing. Now it means more. Let's move on and stay on topic.

Re: Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

#66

Post by rcoveson »

autoexec wrote: post #60
PowerElectronix wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second protects the first

I'll believe that the moment I see it. Seems to me like most of the 2nd amendment crowd is more likely to cheer on the destruction of freedoms than defend them. There are a whole lot of freedoms being violated in the US right now including violations of people's first amendment rights. You can even go on youtube and find countless examples, but somehow all the bullets seem to be mostly going into suicides, school chi…

It's as much a fantasy as any other "nuclear option", including the literal nuclear option.

Violent revolutions are a part of our history, and they still happen around the world today. Unless things go very, very poorly in the next few decades, we probably won't see another one in the USA in our lifetimes. We can all admit that that fact makes the 2nd amendment's usefulness feel fantastical.

But on deeper reflection I would hope that we can acknowledge that violent revolution is not an impossibility, it's merely an improbability. And anybody who tries to tell you that hundreds of millions of small arms are inconsequential in a fight is uninformed, to put it lightly.

The fact that the current level of rights abuses (which I would agree is much too high and climbing!) has not lead to a violent revolution is a feature, not a bug.

Re: Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

#67

Post by superxpro12 »

PowerElectronix wrote: post #49
jjtheblunt wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's the first amendment. this article is about the second amendment.

The second protects the first

I didnt see a single firearm when the FCC censored Jimmy Kimmel via licensing revoking.

Re: Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

#68

Post by [deleted] »

StefanBatory wrote: post #24
15155 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Absurd fiction" aka "established law for decades." This concept of "serialized part" is a construct stemming from Democrat-established legislation. What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?

Which part of "well-regulated militia" is difficult to understand? ;)

[deleted]

Re: Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

#69

Post by doodlebugging »

15155 wrote: post #25
StefanBatory wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which part of "well-regulated militia" is difficult to understand? ;)

Basic English skills? Why would the prefatory clause limit the latter? Even the most left-leaning [current] SCOTUS justices didn't/don't attempt to make this argument. 'A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.' Whose rights shall not be infringed here, the breakfast's or those of the people?

[flagged]

Re: Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

#70

Post by doodlebugging »

JCTheDenthog wrote: post #37
StefanBatory wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which part of "well-regulated militia" is difficult to understand? ;)

"A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary to the health of a free State, the right of the people to keep and use Toasters, shall not be infringed." Who has the right to keep and use toasters? The people, or the well-balanced breakfast?

[flagged]
Post reply on HN