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

Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

emergency.mit.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 389 posts

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#51

Post by lolcraft »

BSousa wrote: post #11
fakeer wrote: post #6

Good that the man was not found there(in a sense that no one was harmed). I still would like to understand few things. Of course I shall not be able to understand how it feels to have a gun when you want it(and afterwards take a decision on how to use it. To defend yourself or flash in malls or kill children for fun or out of depression) as I live in a country where having fire-arms is either a luxury for powerful an…

Not american here so this is just a supposition. I think the main issue with it is related to the constitution. While the idea as far as I understand, was for citizens to bear arms and form a militia to protect against a foreign power, many of the people that defend the right to bear arms do so based on a limited knowledge of it (i.e.: 'The right to bear arms is in the constitution' but have no idea what comes next).…

It was also used, as I understand, as sort of legal allowance to form paramilitary parties with sort of like police powers. So you, as a citizen, could enforce laws when there was no police or army able to do so for you. For instance, in the days of slavery, the 2nd amendment was used to justify groups of armed thugs [1] that hunted black slaves on the run.

I've never understood the logic behind Republicans of the 20th century [2]. AFAICT, they think the 2nd gives them "the right to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government". That's clearly bullshit. First, because what constitutes tyranny changes a lot from person to person, and only legislation can define it clearly and "democratically". Second, because the former means you're legitimizing political violence in a democracy, precisely the system where that kind of shit should not be allowed. So in fact you're just making terrorism, or at least the kinds of terrorism you like, legal, with all the contradictions that would bring. Timothy-McVeigh-like bullshit ensues.

[1] Of course, back then they were considered to be respectable persons that followed the law.

[2] They're not the only ones, of course (cf. Black Panthers, which I personally am more sympathetic to, since IMO there was clearly oppression there), but they're the loudest.

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#52

Post by knowtheory »

snitko wrote: post #39
knowtheory wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the failure of others to recognize that they live in a society and that their actions have an effect on others is just as obnoxious. You may be happy to take your chances and own and carry a firearm, but why should I , or any other bystander, have to take your chances?

Same logic can be applied to your argument. Why should I take your chances and rely on the police instead of myself to be able to protect me? Convince me (rather than order me) I would be better off without it - and I could voluntarily change my mind.

No, not really. My problem is having a massive untrained population of gun owners. If I could have a reasonable certainty that if you owned a gun, you were trained to use it safely, were required to store your firearms safely, and were responsible/liable if your firearm was lost or stolen, I would be perfectly happy for you to own a gun.

But this discussion invariably comes down to "gun-rights" folks asserting that any abridgment or checks of their right to own a gun is equivalent to tyranny that would justify overthrowing the government. It's ridiculous.

I'm not against gun ownership, i'm against unsafe gun ownership.

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#53

Post by JoeAltmaier »

sergiotapia wrote: post #43

How many people need to die before people in the US realize that having easily obtained firearms is not a good idea?

Guns also save lives. And nations without guns are not violence-free at all. Its a spurious connection, made by lazy thinkers.

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#54

Post by dpiers »

BSousa wrote: post #11
fakeer wrote: post #6

Good that the man was not found there(in a sense that no one was harmed). I still would like to understand few things. Of course I shall not be able to understand how it feels to have a gun when you want it(and afterwards take a decision on how to use it. To defend yourself or flash in malls or kill children for fun or out of depression) as I live in a country where having fire-arms is either a luxury for powerful an…

Not american here so this is just a supposition. I think the main issue with it is related to the constitution. While the idea as far as I understand, was for citizens to bear arms and form a militia to protect against a foreign power, many of the people that defend the right to bear arms do so based on a limited knowledge of it (i.e.: 'The right to bear arms is in the constitution' but have no idea what comes next).…

America was founded by revolutionaries; people who understood that tyranny and threats to liberty do not necessarily come from foreign powers. The right to bear arms and form a militia was established to protect citizens from their own government as much as any foreign power.

The idea of a bunch of gun toting lunatics becoming fed up with the government and revolting is terrifying, but it's also how this country came to exist.

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#55

Post by acabal »

rickdale wrote: post #29

I just want to say as an American, I am so fed up with all these gun stories. I understand there is debate about gun control and this and that, but we are having a much larger cultural problem here. The attitude of helping your neighbor or even someone less fortunate is slowly disappearing and being replaced by a fear for protecting what we have, as if someone else is after it. In my mind it's cyclical, if we help th…

Seriously. Just like that "Bitter Pill" story in Time a day or two ago highlighted that insurance is a red herring for the deeper problem of profit-driven costs in US health care, the issue of gun control is a red herring for a deeper cultural problem. Like you said people are becoming more fearful and more selfish. Combine that with a culture that glorifies violence and the insane media circus that pops up whenever anybody puts the words "school" and "shooter" together, you get an excellent, self-perpetuating environment for fomenting violence of any kind. Delusional people who can't get mental health care and who want to send a message will find a way to do that no matter what's banned or how Orwellian our society gets.

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#56

Post by BSousa »

embwbam wrote: post #44
BSousa wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not american here so this is just a supposition. I think the main issue with it is related to the constitution. While the idea as far as I understand, was for citizens to bear arms and form a militia to protect against a foreign power, many of the people that defend the right to bear arms do so based on a limited knowledge of it (i.e.: 'The right to bear arms is in the constitution' but have no idea what comes next).…

I'm American. I grew up in a conservative household so I think I understand where they are coming from. My understanding is that many consider the 2nd amendment to allow them to bear arms to protect themselves from their own oppressive government. The idea is that no government can become completely totalitarian without first disarming the population. And if they try, the people can revolt. That may be an incorrect u…

As I said, it was a supposition ;)

I can understand having a license to own a gun (My dad owns a hunting rifle, and a handgun that was an inheritance from my grandpa which will possible pass down to me) but I was watching some news a couple weeks ago where they were showing a hearing on the senate (I think) and the people that went to talk there were defending that changing the laws to allow some guns but not others (automatic rifles I think) was wrong.

In exactly what case does a civilian need an automatic rifle? I sorta understand the afraid of the government thing, but let's be honest, if the government wants to be even more/fully totalitarian, an untrained militia carrying rifles won't stop them.

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#57

Post by paulhauggis »

89vision wrote: post #12
cbau wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty simple-- As an American, I have a right to the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't want to give up any rights I don't have to. That includes the freedom to buy and carry a gun.

Your freedom to buy and carry a gun infringes on my right to feel safe in public

I don't feel safe when I see or smell Marijuana. Is that a reason to not legalize it?

If we were discussing the legalizing of MJ, I have a feeling your attitude would abruptly change.

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#58

Post by thejosh »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #53
sergiotapia wrote: post #43

How many people need to die before people in the US realize that having easily obtained firearms is not a good idea?

Guns also save lives. And nations without guns are not violence-free at all. Its a spurious connection, made by lazy thinkers.

Sure not violence free... but not as many mass shootings.. :)

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#59

Post by notdrunkatall »

fakeer wrote: post #6

Good that the man was not found there(in a sense that no one was harmed). I still would like to understand few things. Of course I shall not be able to understand how it feels to have a gun when you want it(and afterwards take a decision on how to use it. To defend yourself or flash in malls or kill children for fun or out of depression) as I live in a country where having fire-arms is either a luxury for powerful an…

>But I still don't understand that how can guns be allowed in such a manner when they don't let you handle a gas cylinder at a public place or a take a metallic fork on an air-plane.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

-Thomas Jefferson

You can't fight tyranny in government with metallic forks and gas cylinders.

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#60

Post by ceejayoz »

spydum wrote: post #28
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I DO have to give up the right to travel without being strip-searched. A nation of paradoxes.

On a commercial airliner.. To my knowledge private planes don't have crazy restrictions or invasive searches. Indeed, you don't have to fly at all.

> On a commercial airliner.. To my knowledge private planes don't have crazy restrictions or invasive searches.

Which is fairly silly, considering it shouldn't be hard for Saudi billionaires to charter a 767.

Post reply on HN