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

We need an NRA for privacy

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 170 posts

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#161

Post by rdl »

damoncali wrote: post #159
rdl wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we need SBR/SBS/suppressors (and probably AOWs and most DDs) under NFA at all, but I'm kind of ok with at least making the requirements for select-fire consistent for individual vs. organization, especially after that LAPD Dorner guy.

Honestly, it doesn't make sense to put anything under NFA. Silencers are harmless, SBR's are bigger than handguns, and full auto is going to be less effective in the hands of a nutcase than semi auto. There is really no sane justification for it at all.

I'm fairly pro gun but I feel slightly uncomfortable with random people with crew served weapons, mortars, GMGs, etc. Although I trust most random people with $50k to spend more than I trust police departments with weapons like that.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#162

Post by Torkild »

pessimizer wrote: post #120
Torkild wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prohibition failed because it allowed the bootleggers of the underground to fully monopolize their trade without having to abide by any legal restrictions. If a business no longer has the threat of ramifications for questionable acts, then the questionable acts increase exponentially. That can be two-way though. Cracking down only builds a stronger underground, which is where I see the entire surveillance issue going…

Prohibition didn't fail; it was wildly successful.

I knew I read something on this before:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120817/02295020080/so-ma...

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#163

Post by damoncali »

rdl wrote: post #161
damoncali wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, it doesn't make sense to put anything under NFA. Silencers are harmless, SBR's are bigger than handguns, and full auto is going to be less effective in the hands of a nutcase than semi auto. There is really no sane justification for it at all.

I'm fairly pro gun but I feel slightly uncomfortable with random people with crew served weapons, mortars, GMGs, etc. Although I trust most random people with $50k to spend more than I trust police departments with weapons like that.

There's an upper limit, I'd say. For me, it's a .50 cal M2 or similar machine gun. I don't think those should require extra paperwork. If you want a 20mm or a destructive device, I can understand regulating that. The 2nd Amendment's intent is served well by free access to small arms, I would say. That is enough.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#164

Post by smsm42 »

hga wrote: post #132
smsm42 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is gun industry bigger than Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, eBay, Rackspace, Godaddy, etc. combined? The latter are directly affected by the government policies regarding privacy and certainly their clients would appreciate their companies standing up for their rights. The users should just be more vocal in expressing it. Maybe if you're just a hobbyist who nobody knows your voice won't be heard, but if you're a kn…

The total revenue of the gun industry (which doesn't count a lot of ancillary things like hunting lodges) is 1/8th of Google's---which points out one way this analogy isn't useful. We gun owners are powerful because they're are a lot of us, we're organized, and we vote . Getting Google et. al. to resist this requires an entirely different approach. Ah, one good analogy: while it was owned by some Brits, Smith and Wes…

Maybe this will cause people that value privacy to organize.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#165

Post by smsm42 »

pessimizer wrote: post #140
hga wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are GROSSLY ignorant of the history of gun grabbing atrocities, and they critically proceed the NRA's rise in political power. Read up on '70s BATF abuses of the GCA of '68 and get back to us before continuing to spout counterfactuals. This is exactly what got me started on this issue in the early '70s.

On what planet does the seizure of guns count as an atrocity? I support gun rights absolutely, but you're looking at what I said through single-issue glasses.

Seizure of the property of a law-abiding citizen by the government without any just cause is certainly an atrocity, even more - when this property is related to the right specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, so important it is.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#166

Post by smsm42 »

snowwrestler wrote: post #123
pessimizer wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NRA doesn't have " specific , actual, real gun rights atrocities " and they do just fine. How about people who won't give up their privacy until it is pried from their cold dead fingers just getting an address to send a check to in order to feel like they have agents working on their behalf? Do the NAR or the Chamber of Commerce need atrocities?

Not atrocities, but the threat is definitely personal. The message is basically "the government will take YOUR guns if you don't stand with the NRA."

It is true. When I read the laws that are being proposed nationally and locally in the state I live in, I realized there's a real chance that my right to own a firearm is under a real threat. And to illustrate that, I have before my eyes a number of localities where this right is already destroyed. So my choice of giving the money to the NRA was obvious and easy to make.

The choice of giving money to, say, EFF, is also easy for me to make, but I couldn't point to a specific and targeted threat in this case, it is more of a feeling that things take a wrong direction, which is not as mobilizing.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#167

Post by hga »

smsm42 wrote: post #165
pessimizer wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On what planet does the seizure of guns count as an atrocity? I support gun rights absolutely, but you're looking at what I said through single-issue glasses.

Seizure of the property of a law-abiding citizen by the government without any just cause is certainly an atrocity, even more - when this property is related to the right specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, so important it is.

Indeed, the usual suspects would be up in arms if printing presses (e.g. "high capacity" "assault" fast laser printers) were being seized.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#168

Post by hga »

damoncali wrote: post #163
rdl wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fairly pro gun but I feel slightly uncomfortable with random people with crew served weapons, mortars, GMGs, etc. Although I trust most random people with $50k to spend more than I trust police departments with weapons like that.

There's an upper limit, I'd say. For me, it's a .50 cal M2 or similar machine gun. I don't think those should require extra paperwork. If you want a 20mm or a destructive device, I can understand regulating that. The 2nd Amendment's intent is served well by free access to small arms, I would say. That is enough.

Pat Buchanan came up with a more permissive metric, "anything that doesn't require a trailer hitch", although I can't see there ever being support for indirect fire weapons like mortars.

However, if an armed citizenry is supposed to keep the government in check, why not HEAT warhead anti-armor weapons? E.g. in the context of this discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6186569 which touches on the widespread police procurement of light armor.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#169

Post by the_watcher »

hga wrote: post #153
the_watcher wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is damoncali's point. There is a huge opportunity here for both sides. The NRA gets to shine a light on illegal surveillance (or whatever you want to call it) without having to simultaneously fight the battle over guns. They can fight that battle separately, while at the same, any major wins for privacy are generally wins for the NRA in general. It goes both ways too. The NRA is extremely influential (imagine th…

It may be his point (not going to parse that), but it's not going to happen. As I've described elsewhere in this thread the NRA is not going to stray from its single issue unless something directly impinges on it, like McCain-Feingold's prohibitions on its core political speech. It's a very critical part of why we're even discussing it's effectiveness; asking it to be less effective because you'd like having its musc…

My point is that there is a large constituent in the NRA that is very receptive to the idea that government databases of private citizen actions represent a slippery. I'd also argue that courts finding it lawful (or tolerably unlawful or whatever euphemism we'll be fed) would directly impinge on the NRA's mission as much as McCain-Feingold. A lot of card carrying NRA members still remember being grouped in with "domestic terrorists" for owning guns back in the early Napolitano tenure.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#170

Post by rdl »

hga wrote: post #168
damoncali wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an upper limit, I'd say. For me, it's a .50 cal M2 or similar machine gun. I don't think those should require extra paperwork. If you want a 20mm or a destructive device, I can understand regulating that. The 2nd Amendment's intent is served well by free access to small arms, I would say. That is enough.

Pat Buchanan came up with a more permissive metric, "anything that doesn't require a trailer hitch", although I can't see there ever being support for indirect fire weapons like mortars. However, if an armed citizenry is supposed to keep the government in check, why not HEAT warhead anti-armor weapons? E.g. in the context of this discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6186569 which touches on the widespread…

Yes, the basic principle of civilian = police parity seems essential, along with a constitutional amendment elevating Posse Comitatus.
Post reply on HN