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

111–120 of 389 posts

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

#111

Post by sigzero »

BSousa wrote: post #56
embwbam wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The government really has no jurisdiction to determine how I exercise my RIGHT to keep and bear arms. I don't need to explain to you or anyone else for that matter why I want or think I need an AR-15.

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

#112

Post by notdrunkatall »

darkchasma wrote: post #90
notdrunkatall wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ga…

The tyranny of the Canadian government is so overwhelming. How can I ever live in peace without a gun? Oh yea, I can use words.

The history of the world is essentially a long string of instances of oppression of the many by the few. Democracy is but a blip on humanity's timeline, and there is no guarantee that what is today will still be a century or two (or a decade) from now. We came remarkably close to an all-out financial collapse just a few years ago - what happens if we aren't able to save ourselves the next time that happens; what happens if the system collapses? Answer: anything can happen, no one knows. Riots, destabilization, foreign invasion - no one knows what the future brings, and it could just as easily bring these things as it could bring continued prosperity. But there is one thing that is certain: with 300 million guns floating around the USA, if things do take a turn for the worse, the few will think twice before they consider trying to oppress the many in the USA.

But you're right not to worry, because you're our favorite hat, so we'd take care of you.

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

#113

Post by InclinedPlane »

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…

The police are not always capable of helping you when you need them. The oft-quoted saying is "when seconds count the police are minutes away", and it is very, very true. Guns used in lawful self-defense, which often involves nothing more than drawing the gun causing the attacker to flee the scene, stop an incredible amount of crimes every day. More so, the reason that gun rights are so fundamental in the US is that they are intended as a key tool to prevent the establishment of tyranny. It's easy to write that off as some outlandish idea, or as some preposterous hypothetical but that ignores the lessons of history. In the 20th century, of the 10 most advanced and most powerful nations on Earth only 2 of them never fell under the boot heel of an oppressive totalitarian regime. Fortunately mass use of guns in the hands of the populace was not needed to forestall tyranny in those 2 remaining countries but these statistics are a powerful reminder that tyranny is a very real threat and it will probably forever remain a potential threat to freedom.

As far as acquiring a gun, it is not as simple as many fictional portrayals. Most of the time you will go to a gun shop and pick out a gun and then you'll have to fill out paperwork and the gun store will do a federal background check on you to make sure you are legally allowed to own a firearm. Depending on the type of gun you purchase and the state you live in there may be a waiting period before you can take ownership of your gun.

As far as the ridiculousness of the TSA's rules, those are non-sensical and should not be used to inform other law making.

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

#114

Post by mseebach »

lolcraft wrote: post #61
embwbam wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But the problem with this is that a government can become completely totalitarian without disarming its subjects. Imagine the Soviet Union, but this time you're allowed to bear arms. Or even better, imagine the USA. Sure, you can bear arms, so in the letter you still can fight for your rights. But in practice, the second you try to pull that shit, a F117 Nighthawk is going to blow your terrorist ass to pieces. Practi…

And the problem with that is that it's not that simple as Iraq and Afghanistan has taught us. Guns, of course, are only part of the equation, but I'm pretty sure both wars would have looked a lot different had the population been generally unarmed.

Also, the evacuation of the jews of nazi Germany would have looked a lot different had the jews been armed.

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

#115

Post by recoiledsnake »

notdrunkatall wrote: post #59
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 ga…

Is this the same Jefferson?

Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 (April 2, 1743 O.S.) – July 4, 1826)

There is a huge difference between the industrial technology and government capabilities then and now.

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

#117

Post by knowtheory »

snitko wrote: post #101
knowtheory wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Then government, given its track record of being responsible, being effective and not abusing power should be the last organization for you to turn to for enforcing responsible gun ownership.

Now you are making a different argument.

I don't care if you think the government is or isn't an effective or responsible organization.

I want to know why I as another member of your society should trust my safety to you and your firearm. Because if you fuck up, I don't have the right to redress, because I could very well be dead.

If you don't like the government doing the checking, propose an alternative. Because universal, untrained and unaccountable gun ownership isn't a great improvement on illegal gun ownership as far as I am concerned.

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

#118

Post by drgolden »

knowtheory wrote: post #27
snitko wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is the part a lot of people fail to understand. The mere existence of police that is supposed to protect people doesn't mean everyone in the society agrees to transfer all of those functions to it. Assuming that is pure ignorance. It still gets pretty hilarious when you ask to see your signature under this mythical social contract everyone supposedly signed.

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?

Because the bill of rights says so! The founding fathers clearly had some understanding of risk management because they were chiefly concerned with checks and balances being embedded into the REPUBLIC structure.

In the case of tyranny, freedom of speech (a1) is the most important tool for putting down corporate (group) injustice. When that fails, and the founding fathers knew these things are inevitable, the ordinary people should have tools on par with what the tyrannical corporate establishment possesses to effectively check and balance the tyranny.

Not for hunting. Not for home defense. For tyranny defense.

People are free to move across states and municipalities to find the social system that's right for them. This is not something that the federal government should be narrowing the legal definition of.

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

#119

Post by [deleted] »

knowtheory wrote: post #107
Simucal wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They guarantee no such thing. A bump key will open most residential locks almost instantly[1]. A brick through a window works even faster. You stated that locked doors were a solution to security when they are little more than security theater. They keep out only the people who would passively attempt to enter your home. [1] http://youtu.be/131j0htYIoU?t=30s

We are talking about MIT, not my home. I am well aware of bump keys, and how easy it is to bypass locks. That's what the whole scandal is. Companies are guaranteeing their locks are good for a certain amount of time, and their locks do not live up to their guarantees. But again, we are not talking about my home. I would also love to hear figures on how many mass murderers carry bump keys on them? How many shootings d…

[deleted]

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

#120

Post by nonamegiven »

hemancuso wrote: post #74
notdrunkatall wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ga…

Given the massive mismatch of firepower, training and numbers between the government and the very best armed/trained groups within the civilian population I have trouble believing that anyone can still make this argument at any intellectual level.

It may be that there's a huge mismatch between citizens and the government, but that does nothing to remove or reduce the fact that the constitutional right to bear arms in the United States is based on the possible need to revolt. The Constitution and its Amendments were written in the aftermath of that exact circumstance.

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sport. Any serious discussion about gun control cannot ignore that, and you can't logic it away. It's the elephant in the room, and it won't seriously change one way or another except in a constitutional context.

Post reply on HN