People say the second amendment was made in the era of muskets so obviously an automatic rifle isn't what the founders were talking about
While the first amendment was made in the era of newspapers, so obviously the right to speech doesn't extend to Telegrams, Radio, TV, or Digital communication
It seems perfectly reasonable for someone from the 1700s to think "hmm, muskets, yeah, that's something everyone should have on hand", but then get sent forward to the 2000s, have modern firearms shown to them, and say "oh whoa, yeah, no way, that seems like a terrible idea".
It also seems perfectly reasonable for someone from the 1700s to think that freedom of speech and the press is a good idea, and then get sent forward to the 2000s, see all of our modern forms of communication and speech, and say, "yeah, that's just a reasonable evolution of things, and should be covered".
Obviously we'll never know; so far we can't do time travel, so we don't know what they'd think today. This is why I think this sort of reasoning about the constitution is kinda dumb. Even if we could divine what the Founders thought, frankly I don't think it's all that relevant. They are not exactly experts on how government should work. Yes, they did the best they could at the time, but with all the biases and issues of the time. As an example, they also thought that only white landowners should vote, but advocating for that today would get you smacked down pretty quickly.
And regarding 2A, it'd also be reasonable to expect that same person from the 1700s didn't actually think every random person should have a musket, but that only people who are a part of a "well-regulated militia" should have access to one.
It's worth mentioning that individuals could legally (and some did) own cannons and warships back then as well - it wasn't limited to muskets. The reference in the Constitution to "letters of marque and reprisal" refer to government licenses to attack and capture ships, ie a government license to be a pirate.
> And regarding 2A, it'd also be reasonable to expect that same person from the 1700s didn't actually think every random person should have a musket, but that only people who are a part of a "well-regulated militia" should have access to one.
It would not be reasonable to expect that. It's hard for most modern people to understand to what extent a gun was considered a necessary tool for non-urban people, which was a much larger proportion of the population.
The real problem we've run into is cultural. Americans used to run around with actual TOMMY GUNS without mass shootings. It's absolutely insane to think about how easily these people - many of them involved in criminal rings - could have killed hundreds of people if they had woke up one day and decided to. But they didn't.
Now we live in a broken and depraved culture and limiting gun access is about the only obvious tool we have to reduce the problem, or at least that symptom of it.
Not sure what the relevance of the above is. As I already said, people who say either of those are making a bad disingenuous argument.
I'm not saying either of those though, and didn't in my comment you responded to. I said that people who say a "well regulated militia" is not the same as "random individual who likes guns" are making an argument exactly in the intended spirit of the constitution.
Nothing to do with a disingenuous argument about "gun technology then vs now" or "press means just printing presses or newspapers".
So, yeah, if those rednecks form a actual state-run or even citizen-run militia they could have their guns, nice modern guns, in the context of that militia and for the purposes of that militia (and with the proper precautions and rules like police or army has for its guns).
I don't see where the constitutional's expression, as written, allows them to just have whetever guns they like as private individuals, even less so guns for fun and entertainment.
I'd go one better: what some document from 4 centuries ago says, should have no absolute hold to what the law is in a country 4 centuries later. It was what they came up with at the time, to respond to the problems of the time, as they saw them in the viewpoints of the time. All of them are dead now, and the demographics and issues are absolutely not even close to being them same.
Thanks CNN for informing us about the largest known online disinformation operation harassing Americans
Next up, China and Saudi Arabia chairing the United Nations Human Rights Council informing us about how the rights of humans are being trampled
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political battle. That's not allowed here, whatever your politics are*. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
* as a matter of fact, I don't even know what they are—we don't scan the comments for that
A lot of people who are supposed to be held in high status are actually held in contempt. Republicans hating Fauci and Biden no matter how much of an expert high status they are. And Democrats calling Trump or Bush #notmypresident means they won't recognize his authority no matter how much education either of them got
Those are out of sight out of mind companies
As long as those rare earth mines are in Africa and they are assembled in China it doesn't count as environmental damage. It's only if those mines or factories are in our country do we need to shut them down for the sake of the Earth
Seeking of suppression of desire and sexual deviants, is that what you would tell to people who want to change their gender? Would you tell them it would be healthier for society if they didn't become transgender?
This just seems like a very natural back and forth
You complain on social media about your employer and how they mistreated you
They fire you for making them look bad by describing how they treated you
Your view of them as a bad employer is reinforced and you warn people not to work for them
Their view of you as a bad employee is reinforced and they earn people not to hire you.
In both cases people's views are reinforced by reality. Where's the bug?
Punishing people who were never victimizers and promoting people who were never victims for the sake of equity doesn't address the problems of a single parent household and the consequences it has for children, but that is proposed for the sake of Equity all the time
Greater equality is not a "punishment". It's simply a necessity for a functional, just, compassionate society.
In any case, we are all beneficiaries or victims of the past. Children don't start from equal positions. "average per capita wealth of White Americans was $338,093 in 2019 but only $60,126 for Black Americans" https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2022/how-the-racial-w...
As stated by the linked article, this is actually a vast improvement from 150 years ago. But let's not pretend that the existence of the racial gap wasn't the result of historical factors. Arguing that we're all equal now would just be sticking one's head in the sand and pretending that history didn't exist.
"Punishing people" is an immature way of looking at public policy. When the government uses my tax money to pay for prisons, is that punishing me? The point is that the policy is meant for the public benefit, and we can debate the merits of each policy on their outcomes.
What addresses the problems of a single parent household then? Let's hear your solutions.
Media can thrive on negativity and the economy can be in rough shape with young people not being able to buy a home or start a family. Just look at American fertility, it's more dramatic if you exclude first and second generation immigrants out of the number and see how large the delta is between the number of kids people want to have and the number they actually do
My current (purchased in 2015) home, with a view like Jackson Hole, cost a bit more than I paid for the first home in 1982 or so. Both in California. We were in our 30's so only one child, but that was location-independent. Both homes are/were three bedroom. WFH is pretty liberating for many.
People raise families and work here, and the kids get lots and lots of outdoor activity. At 74, I hike tails I cut out of brush daily, with some 100ft. (10 flights of stairs) elevation gain or loss. Ignore the negative things I had to say on a different HN post. For better or worse, Walmart and such are 50 miles away. Many people like that.
So what does their data say about the cost of a house in 2019 vs today? The cost of a vehicle in 2019 vs today? it could just be the BLS not fully capturing inflation
The CPI is composed of a basket of goods, and there's always going to be items in that basket that's rising higher than average, so there's always going to be things you can cherry pick and complain about "the BLS not fully capturing inflation".
>The cost of a vehicle in 2019 vs today
BLS data says it's 30% higher. Does that seem about right?
Houses aren't directly in the CPI for complicated reasons, but the short version is that they're an investment. Americans buy 401ks too, but it would make little sense to factor in the S&P 500 into the CPI. Housing is factored in though, through imputed rents and rental prices.
> and there's always going to be items in that basket that's rising higher than average
This argument is so weak. Housing is unlike those other items in that it's both by far most households' largest expense, and difficult or impossible to substitute a cheaper version: you can move to a cheap area, but there are no decent-paying jobs there, leaving you in the same or worse boat.
And there are precious few cheaper areas left: even Vegas, long known for low cost of living, is approaching $500k for a just-ok home. At today's interest rates, that's like $3300-4100 per month all-in. Almost no one can reasonably afford that; even software development jobs barely crack $100k here.
>This argument is so weak. Housing is unlike those other items in that it's both by far most households' largest expense
that's reflected in the CPI basket construction. "Rent of shelter" which includes rent and OER makes up 34.8% of the CPI basket.
> and difficult or impossible to substitute a cheaper version: you can move to a cheap area, but there are no decent-paying jobs there, leaving you in the same or worse boat.
that's also factored in because they sample prices according to where people actually are. They're not taking prices across 50 states and doing a simple average.
OER also does not capture the cost of buying a house today, but of renting an already owned home. Rents do not seem to have gone up nearly as much as prices + interest rates.
Health Insurance is another fun/annoying one, because it's not like you can reliably standardize 1 standard unit of insurance and it's difficult to compare across plans. (Perhaps by design, the Confusopoly at work.)
That said, BLS is starting to tweak how they measure health care costs. [0]
My understanding, as someone who bought health insurance on the healthcare.gov marketplace, is that the ACA did in fact standardize health insurance into “bronze,” “silver,” and “gold” tiers. The tiers are defined by actuarial math that I don’t recall at the moment.
Government is how we got into this mess by limiting the supply of housing through zoning.
Allow people to build up the unit in their backyard or in their garage and you'll unlock a whole new section of housing supply that will drive the bottom of the market down
