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

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

#81

Post by 15155 » Wed, Apr 29, 2026, 10:05 PM UTC

doodlebugging wrote: post #80

15155 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Bullshit" - also known as: "settled jurisprudence I don't agree with."

You're wrong here. I was commenting on your short post and the short post of another user that made nearly exactly the same comment within a pretty short time period. This is you. '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? This is the ot…

That other fellow more or less cloned my comments after half an hour, I have no idea why.

This doesn't make the underlying English analysis inaccurate: the prefatory clause does not somehow restrict the rest of the sentence.

> You don't know me. You will never know me.

I'll continue manufacturing firearms, and you'll continue being able to do nothing about it.

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

#82

Post by autoexec » Wed, Apr 29, 2026, 10:25 PM UTC

rcoveson wrote: post #78

autoexec wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's as much a fantasy as any other "nuclear option", including the literal nuclear option. Mutually assured destruction is what makes the literal nuclear option a valid deterrent. That doesn't work with the second amendment though because one side has guns and the other side has guns and tanks and drones and nukes and the ability to control all public communication networks, etc. Violent revolutions are a part of…

> That doesn't work with the second amendment though because one side has guns and the other side has guns and tanks and drones and nukes and the ability to control all public communication networks, etc. I don't want to be too blunt, but this is the "uninformed" I was talking about. The same asymmetry was present in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The ability to level cities is not actually that helpful when the goa…

> The same asymmetry was present in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Those also occurred overseas. The government didn't already have control over the population like they do here. They didn't have massive amounts of data on every last person there, and everyone those people knew. They hadn't been tracking all of their movements. If the founding fathers had tried to gain independence while still in Brittan the fight would have been much much harder.

We can argue over how well a revolution might go in theory, but the second amendment's failure to protect our freedoms isn't theoretical. Our freedoms are being violated all the time. It failed. That means that having the "last resort" option doesn't prevent our government from violating our rights. The second does not protect the first.

A last resort isn't effective at defending our freedoms under the government we have. It just maybe gives us a very very small chance to throw the old system away and replace it with something new that would restore our rights.

Personally, I'd like to think that it's still possible to vote our freedoms back, but there's been a lot of efforts made to reduce or prevent our ability to accomplish that and recently voter suppression efforts appear to be escalating alongside talk of "third terms" and election canceling. It's certainty not encouraging. In my case, under an absolute worst case scenario, the most effective use of a gun would be suicide. At best it might save me from looters. I can't imagine it being any use against a drone strike.

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

#83

Post by jjtheblunt » Wed, Apr 29, 2026, 10:32 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #76

PowerElectronix wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second protects the first

Weird how the NRA party is currently trampling on freedom of the press, freedom of expression and protest, but America's well armed patriots are just sitting around polishing their barrels about it.

Do you mean the Democrats, because of the 2013 Obama administration repealing of the act preventing domestic news manipulation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_United_State...

(personally i think both parties suck, but what you wrote i think refers to that)

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

#84

Post by krapp » Wed, Apr 29, 2026, 10:44 PM UTC

jjtheblunt wrote: post #83

krapp wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird how the NRA party is currently trampling on freedom of the press, freedom of expression and protest, but America's well armed patriots are just sitting around polishing their barrels about it.

Do you mean the Democrats, because of the 2013 Obama administration repealing of the act preventing domestic news manipulation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_United_State... (personally i think both parties suck, but what you wrote i think refers to that)

No. I'm talking about the current administration, which has done far worse in attacking first amendment rights than Obama ever did by any sane measure.

If you're going to do a whataboutism at least try to make it work. America's gun owners were practically chomping at the bit to start shooting over Obama's imaginary Marxist revolution, as much as they couldn't care less about Trump's actual authoritarianism today.

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

#85

Post by JCTheDenthog » Wed, Apr 29, 2026, 11:08 PM UTC

doodlebugging wrote: post #70

JCTheDenthog wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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]

[dead]

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

#86

Post by JCTheDenthog » Wed, Apr 29, 2026, 11:16 PM UTC

nullocator wrote: post #52

trollbridge wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nitpick: the court isn’t “packed”; it’s has 9 members since 1869. The VRA wasn’t struck down either. The court just ruled that race based gerrymandering isn’t legal if it results in partisan advantage in such a district.

That's a funny way of saying they ruled that race-base gerrymandering is legal in effectively all circumstances. The supreme court's ruling is basically: "Racial gerrymandering is insulated from legal recourse as long as it's packaged as partisan mapmaking"

[dead]

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

#87

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Apr 29, 2026, 11:42 PM UTC

doodlebugging wrote: post #80

15155 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Bullshit" - also known as: "settled jurisprudence I don't agree with."

You're wrong here. I was commenting on your short post and the short post of another user that made nearly exactly the same comment within a pretty short time period. This is you. '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? This is the ot…

[deleted]

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

#88

Post by cucumber3732842 » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 12:03 AM UTC

mananaysiempre wrote: post #11

15155 wrote: post #8

Who knew that the "well ackshually, technically, we're not banning guns, we're just requiring a serial number! (one that you cannot legally apply)" strategy wouldn't work. "Neener neener neener" isn't a valid legal theory.

> "Neener neener neener" isn't a valid legal theory. Works surprisingly (depressingly) well when there’s no pushback. We’re not controlling news media, we’re just issuing broadcast licenses. It’s not a movie and videogame censor, it’s just a state agency for mandatory age ratings. (In at least one Western country that was literally a rebrand.) Or closer to TFA’s locale, we’re not regulating commercial activity within…

>We’re not controlling news media, we’re just issuing broadcast licenses

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

#89

Post by doodlebugging » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 12:04 AM UTC

15155 wrote: post #81

doodlebugging wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're wrong here. I was commenting on your short post and the short post of another user that made nearly exactly the same comment within a pretty short time period. This is you. '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? This is the ot…

That other fellow more or less cloned my comments after half an hour, I have no idea why. This doesn't make the underlying English analysis inaccurate: the prefatory clause does not somehow restrict the rest of the sentence. > You don't know me. You will never know me. I'll continue manufacturing firearms, and you'll continue being able to do nothing about it.

I called you a parrot in a reply to that guy since he only spent the time to downvote my reply.

I was wrong in that reply to him if you were the first to post that bullshit example that I was calling out in my reply to both of you. Please accept my apology. He was obviously the parrot and since he didn't reply he's probably the laziest parrot ever.

>This doesn't make the underlying English analysis inaccurate: the prefatory clause does not somehow restrict the rest of the sentence.

I'm pretty sure that you think I argued that the "A well regulated militia, ..." had been interpreted wrong or that I disagreed with it. That was you misinterpreting my reply in which I merely pointed out that two posters, one of them you, had used the same bullshit example in their reply to a different poster at nearly the same time. I thought that interesting since we all know HN threads get overrun by people on other topics when those topics are (geo)political.

>I'll continue manufacturing firearms, and you'll continue being able to do nothing about it.

I'm not sure why you think I give a flying fuck at a bird's ass what you do with your time, resources, and energy. We both know that there is a long tradition of gunsmithing in this country dating back well before the Revolution. You are continuing a tradition that predates our republic, one that was vital to our ancestor's success on the frontier. Is it necessary for citizens to be able to work with local gunsmiths today? Of course it is just as it was back in the day.

I was just pointing out that the self-portrait that you painted with that bullshit example wasn't as flattering as you might be thinking. I noted that you had done a better job in a different post though your bias still shined brightly. Hopefully you can understand that your arguments will be stronger when you argue in good faith using comparisons that make sense to the audience instead of bullshit examples that sound like a team of drunk assholes picked the one that made them think the longest until the first guy chuckled, someone farted, and the rest of them ROFL.

I appreciate you sticking with this. I feel like you have a bright future. I'm no expert though so don't read too much into any of this.

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

#90

Post by cucumber3732842 » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 12:05 AM UTC

chroma wrote: post #31

15155 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW: this isn't a universally-applicable statement, plenty of states forbid DWI during any and all operation of motor vehicles, including on private property.

I think in almost all states DUI applies to private roads accessible to the public, such as parking lots and driveways. Mythbusters drove drunk on a closed course in California and that was legal. Only a few states absolutely forbid operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (I know Washington is one). That said, you’d have to do something pretty absurd to attract the attention of law enforcement if you’re staying o…

>That said, you’d have to do something pretty absurd to attract the attention of law enforcement if you’re staying on your own land.

That's just BS. If the cops show up for any reason and they think they can get a DUI out of it they will try and write one.