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

Congress is clueless about tech because it killed its tutor

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–69 of 69 posts

Re: Congress is clueless about tech because it killed its tutor

#61

Post by EdHominem »

krapp wrote: post #57
EdHominem wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Militia is armed people. Because Militias were a good thing for the people, a right to bear arms shall not be abolished. But anyways, the reasoning is just reasoning. The right is pretty clearly spelled out and stands on its own.

A Militia is not necessarily "any group of people with guns and a grudge against the government."

No, but it is at least that. (People with guns.)

It certainly isn't conscripts, or people being loaned weapons to defend someone else's holdings - it's free people defending themselves with their own tools.

Re: Congress is clueless about tech because it killed its tutor

#62

Post by jonathankoren »

EdHominem wrote: post #61
krapp wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Militia is not necessarily "any group of people with guns and a grudge against the government."

No, but it is at least that. (People with guns.) It certainly isn't conscripts, or people being loaned weapons to defend someone else's holdings - it's free people defending themselves with their own tools.

Militias were instruments of the state, and they are never DIY volunteer organizations. These were conscripted government funded, organized, and partially armed organizations. Who had canons? The state. Who had funded the militia? The state. Who headed the militia? The state governor. Who declared that all able bodied men 16 and older served in the militia?[0][1] The state. Who declared that all men needed to purchase a weapon?[1] The state.

The main point that differed a "militia" from an "army" was that it was a part time affair, and not a standing army. The threat antifederalists cared about was a standing federal army imposing its will on the state government. It was never about random dudes getting upset at the government. Although there was plenty of that too. (The Whiskey and Shay's rebellions come to mind.) It's just that the founding fathers would send the militia in to arrest them. To romanticize the colonial and early state militias as rugged individualists ready to stand up to The Man is simply ahistorical.

[0] http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/8Mil... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

Re: Congress is clueless about tech because it killed its tutor

#63

Post by nikdaheratik »

pascalxus wrote: post #60

Yes, but don't ignore the root cause. Politicians make decisions based on what will get them re-elected, or whatever will get them the best post-career lobbying position. Their self interest doesn't always overlap with what's best for the country. Most of the advice they got from their 'advisors' probably fell on deaf ears anyway.

Except that most of the issues they're looking for advice on, are things that most voters don't care about. Basically, it used to be a battle of information with lobbyists putting their (often biased) viewpoint, and then the advisors, who are at least paid by the public and theoretically looking out for the rest of us, putting in their view.

Now you just have different lobbyists weighing in on these issues and no one out there thinking about it who isn't already bought by someone trying to make a buck off the public. It should worry at least some of us.

Re: Congress is clueless about tech because it killed its tutor

#64

Post by hga »

jonathankoren wrote: post #62
EdHominem wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but it is at least that. (People with guns.) It certainly isn't conscripts, or people being loaned weapons to defend someone else's holdings - it's free people defending themselves with their own tools.

Militias were instruments of the state, and they are never DIY volunteer organizations. These were conscripted government funded, organized, and partially armed organizations. Who had canons? The state. Who had funded the militia? The state. Who headed the militia? The state governor. Who declared that all able bodied men 16 and older served in the militia?[0][1] The state. Who declared that all men needed to purchas…

Who had canons? The state.

Now that I know is not true, there were (wealthy) private individuals owned canons. Heck, that the Congress has the power to "To ... grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal" acknowledges that private entities had armed ships.

Partly armed is correct, and a screwup there helped ensure that Washington, D.C. got burned in 1814 (too much bureaucracy in issuing flints etc.).

But it's also the case that, as you note, "all able bodied men 16 and older served in the militia", and as is still the law, all who are 17-44 years of age are members of it: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311 (and in modern legal interpretation, men is generally read as men and women).

But these quibbles aside, your general thrust is correct. So much so, per Galvin's The Minute Men: The First Fight: Myths and Realities of the American Revolution http://www.amazon.com/The-Minute-Men-Realities-Revolution/dp... the British in Massachusetts were completely outclassed in war fighting experience, they'd put garrison troops there, and many of our men had gained experience in what we call the French and Indian War.

Re: Congress is clueless about tech because it killed its tutor

#65

Post by pc86 »

jonathankoren wrote: post #46
pc86 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second amendment was crafted with the express purpose of allowing American citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical, oppressive government, using that force as a last resort to maintain their freedom. I don't think "LOL the internet is a series of tubes" quite qualifies.

No. That's a rather modern invention of the 1970s. It was to create a state militia, that's why it talks specifically talks about a "Militia" (capitalization original). It's prima facie absurd to think that the very document that defines treason as "levying war against [the United States]" and talks about using "Militia to [...] suppress Insurrections" would also codify insurrection as a good thing.

I mean you can throw your hands up and say "No" all you want while quoting different documents (as others have pointed out, BOR v. Constitution) but it doesn't change the fact that that's what it is.

Re: Congress is clueless about tech because it killed its tutor

#66

Post by EdHominem »

hga wrote: post #64
jonathankoren wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Militias were instruments of the state, and they are never DIY volunteer organizations. These were conscripted government funded, organized, and partially armed organizations. Who had canons? The state. Who had funded the militia? The state. Who headed the militia? The state governor. Who declared that all able bodied men 16 and older served in the militia?[0][1] The state. Who declared that all men needed to purchas…

Who had canons? The state. Now that I know is not true, there were (wealthy) private individuals owned canons. Heck, that the Congress has the power to "To ... grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal" acknowledges that private entities had armed ships. Partly armed is correct, and a screwup there helped ensure that Washington, D.C. got burned in 1814 (too much bureaucracy in issuing flints etc.). But it's also the case…

If the Militia is strictly governmental - the reserves essentially - why would it warrant a constitutional amendment allowing the soldiers to keep guns at home?

How would a governmental Militia (ie British) have proven useful to the Americans and warranted this specific clarification?

I'm not an American, but it seems pretty clear that the people on the ground at the time meant "because we won our freedom from tyranny by being able to call up an army of the people, and may need to do so again, everyone shall be able to keep arms handy".

Re: Congress is clueless about tech because it killed its tutor

#67

Post by hga »

EdHominem wrote: post #66
hga wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who had canons? The state. Now that I know is not true, there were (wealthy) private individuals owned canons. Heck, that the Congress has the power to "To ... grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal" acknowledges that private entities had armed ships. Partly armed is correct, and a screwup there helped ensure that Washington, D.C. got burned in 1814 (too much bureaucracy in issuing flints etc.). But it's also the case…

If the Militia is strictly governmental - the reserves essentially - why would it warrant a constitutional amendment allowing the soldiers to keep guns at home? How would a governmental Militia (ie British) have proven useful to the Americans and warranted this specific clarification? I'm not an American, but it seems pretty clear that the people on the ground at the time meant "because we won our freedom from tyrann…

Indeed, except for the first bit being a dependent clause.

And behind that is some politics: our Founders were supremely suspicious of standing armies (we didn't really have much of one until the Cold War) and "select militias", which were groups of armed men selected by some criteria (like being a loyal Tory) instead of "everyone" answering the call up.

Some of the Founders wanted us to depend entirely on a militia system, but others, including the supremely important George Washington, commander in chief during the Revolutionary War, said no way, Regulars are required for serious wars. And his and the other experienced commanders opinions could not be denied, so the dependent clause, very unusual in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, was a sop thrown to the pro-militia only group.

Re: Congress is clueless about tech because it killed its tutor

#68

Post by original_idea »

gnaritas wrote: post #16
original_idea wrote: post #4

No one should trust a government agency to be an 'expert' on tech. Moving on.

That's patently silly since the government is "the" expert on much tech that only it has. Who do you think has and maintains our nuclear arsenal? You think the CIA is clueless on tech? Who again was spying on Google's internal network... idiots that don't know anything about tech? Who is performing mass surveillance, idiots that don't know anything about tech?

"agency" is the key word there. Individuals aside. bureaucrats tend to kill anything/everything.

Re: Congress is clueless about tech because it killed its tutor

#69

Post by EdHominem »

hga wrote: post #67
EdHominem wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the Militia is strictly governmental - the reserves essentially - why would it warrant a constitutional amendment allowing the soldiers to keep guns at home? How would a governmental Militia (ie British) have proven useful to the Americans and warranted this specific clarification? I'm not an American, but it seems pretty clear that the people on the ground at the time meant "because we won our freedom from tyrann…

Indeed, except for the first bit being a dependent clause. And behind that is some politics: our Founders were supremely suspicious of standing armies (we didn't really have much of one until the Cold War) and "select militias", which were groups of armed men selected by some criteria (like being a loyal Tory) instead of "everyone" answering the call up. Some of the Founders wanted us to depend entirely on a militia…

> Indeed, except for the first bit being a dependent clause.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. This line implies you think it is not a dependent clause but later you say it is...? Also, what is the impact you're implying?

But anyways, the only actionable piece of the 2nd is "the right shall not be infringed".

> And behind that is some politics: our Founders were supremely suspicious of standing armies [...]

Rightly so. But the original reasoning behind the laws aren't the laws. For better or worse.

It's been acknowledged that people have this right (to keep and bear arms) and you cannot take rights away.

For instance, we can't reinstate slavery, even with another amendment. It's not like the 13th amendment made it illegal; the amendment forced the government to acknowledge that it does not have that power and cannot enact slavery - those orders would be illegal.

A vote to repeal the 13th would be unconstitutional in its very nature because it recognizes a right. Unlike repealing the 18th establishing prohibition, for example.

Post reply on HN