Hacker News

points by titzer 1 day ago | 0 comments

Not a peep from the second amendment types. Curious.

They're not all quiet: https://www.reddit.com/r/liberalgunowners/

I keep seeing that subreddit mentioned in a context that appears trying to push those against this to violent solutions. Almost as if it is an attempt at driving some sort of stochastic action.

[–] Computer0 1 day ago

I wouldn’t care if it was

[–] cyberjerkXX 1 day ago

The same political groups that support hate speech laws are now looking for support from the freedom of speech groups? That sounds like a temporary alliance at best. They aren't going to support you long term because they know leftists are authoritarians of a different color. AKA your rhetoric isn't going to work because you have no principles and they do.

[–] kannanvijayan 1 day ago

I see you brought up the freedom of speech group, but didn't address the potential implications of other similarly important groups such as fursuit afficianados and PETA and, most egregiously, the Taylor Swift fandom.

[–] harimau777 5 hours ago

Most people recognize that the freedom of speech is not absolute. Leftists arguing for hate speech laws are generally doing so from a reasoned position that hate speech falls within the "not absolute" area. You may disagree with them, but that doesn't mean that they are hypocrites.

On the other hand, there's not an apparent principled reason why the government's actions here wouldn't fall under the arguments made by the 2A advocates that the parent is referring to. Therefore, it appears to be hypocracy.

That being said, I run in fairly left wing crowds and the idea of passing hate speech laws almost never comes up. I'm sure that there are people who would support that, but there simply isn't any meaningful movement to actually try to make it happen.

[–] ecocentrik 1 day ago

Are "principles" how this administration justifies its less than principled behavior or how you justify rewarding that behavior?

[–] LightBug1 1 day ago

It's not "looking for support", it's pointing out the abject hypocrisy. But what's new. Have a great day.

[–] cyberjerkXX 1 day ago

No, it's Leftist rhetoric to use their principles against them. Leftists are trying to weaponize principles even though they don't share the same ones. They don't actually care about "hypocrisy" of their political opponents, it's a guilt tactic for political leverage.

[–] harimau777 5 hours ago

With respect, I think you might not spend much time in leftist spaces. Leftists are notoriously vicious in attacking people for ideological impurity. Is it possible that you are conflating leftists and liberals/mainstream democrats?

[–] LightBug1 1 day ago

I note that you do acknowledge the hypocrisy.

That's enough for me.

[–] cyberjerkXX 1 day ago

Double downing on it I see. Nice, makes my point.

[–] LightBug1 1 day ago

You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

But I'm pleased you live up to your profile name.

All best,

[–] bediger4000 1 day ago

Freedom of speech is a first amendment issue, my friend. The "second amendment types" OP refers to are the people who claim that citizen ownership of any and all types of firearms is a buttress against tyrannical government. Since the Trump admin is at least arguably a tyrannical government, it seems legit to at least ask where the previously vociferously pro-gun people are right now. Many should be at least warning of potential tyranny, but appear not to be doing so.

[–] throwawayfifo 1 day ago

>Since the Trump admin is at least arguably a tyrannical government, it seems legit to at least ask where the previously vociferously pro-gun people are right now.

False premise. The Trump administration is doing exactly what he was democratically voted in to do by the "vociferously pro-gun people": close the border and deport illegal immigrants.

[–] FireBeyond 1 day ago

By repeatedly ignoring the laws of the nation, because of the edicts of its leader, i.e. literally the definition of tyranny, "a ruler who governs without restriction".

DHS has been dragged into court hundreds of times now and literally stood in front of federal judges and said "we're ignoring your court order, what are you going to do about it?"

[–] bediger4000 1 day ago

This is an illegitimate argument in the context of Second Amendment. The "second amendment people" are pretty vocal proponents of strict adherence to the US constitution - hence the name of the group.

Whatever reasons Trump was voted in for, second amendment people should insist on him following the constitution. He's not. That's not even arguable on rhetorical grounds. Trump regularly defies court orders, spends money on things not authorized by Congress, and impounds money allocated by Congress. That behavior is the constitutional definition of tyranny. Therefore second amendment people should be at least metaphorically, if not literally, up in arms about him.

Again inarguably, they are not. Therefore their self proclaimed basis is a lie. They are just blowhards and we should disarm them ASAP. They have no sound reason for existing as an armed group.

[–] buellerbueller 1 day ago

The OPs point stands; why would anti-tyranny types want to stand with people who are (in their example) linguistic tyrants and thought police?

[–] watwut 1 day ago

Previously, they claimed they stand with nazi solely for free speech of everyone purposes, not because they would share the oppressive authoritarian ideology of nazi.

If that was true, that is why.

Now in reality, that was not true, they stood with nazi cause they themselves are nazi who want to bully others.

[–] cyberjerkXX 1 day ago

You keep using the term Nazi but I don't think you actually know what it means.

I can gauge how much of an authoritarian you are with one simple question, is it immoral to privately own the means of production?

[–] buellerbueller 1 day ago

>I can gauge how much of an authoritarian you are with one simple question, is it immoral to privately own the means of production?

You keep using the term authoritarian but I don't think you actually know what it means.

[–] watwut 1 day ago

I meant nazi. Yes I know what it means. Yes they exist and even on the rise.

And they were go to example of important free speech for years. The gauge was always defending nazi free speech, never defending communist free speech, radical feminists free speech or whoever else free speech.

Your question supposed to determine authoritanianism shows the same fallacy - nazi and other fascists wont count as an authoritarian. If I think all women should be locked at home and be under control of husbands, you wont count me as authoritarian either.

[–] laweijfmvo 1 day ago

turns out, they’re into it. they were in favor of it in the 60’s and still are.

the 2nd amendment (the entire Bill of Rights) was written to protect us from our own government, but it’s way more convenient to just shoot brown people or people who speak a different language.

[–] sentientlaserbe 1 day ago

> The Mulford Act is a 1967 California statute which prohibits public carrying of loaded firearms without a permit.[2] Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford and signed into law by governor of California Ronald Reagan, the law was initially crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther Party, which was conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods in what would later be termed copwatching.[3][4] They garnered national attention after Black Panthers members, bearing arms, marched upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.[5][6]

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

Just to add color to your comment. These folks were directly exercising 2nd amendment rights against oppressive state forces and that Act was the response to them exercising it.

[–] fedpost 1 day ago

Go join your local Pink Pistols/Brown Berets/SRA/whatever chapter.

The leftist gun community is mostly focused on arming the LGBTQ community at the moment though. Your chances of getting canoed while trying to stab a trans woman are way up over the past couple years.

[–] appreciatorBus 1 day ago

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6182901

[–] culi 1 day ago

Since most people aren't gonna have context on this part of the literature.

This paper is heavily rejected by mainstream criminologists. It relies on victim memorial lists for a count of victims and it relies on a database made by an anti-Trans group for the perpetrator count. This leads to both a significant undercount of victims and overcount of perpetrators.

The ONS has come out against it and said that official homicide data does not track transgender status so there is no official data to back this research up on.

None of this has stopped rightwingers from heavily circulating this paper of course. Somehow I doubt science is the goal here.

[–] fedpost 1 day ago

Idk about the paper but I know a lot of trans women and I don't think any of them haven't been stabbed/assaulted for being trans at least once.

[–] culi 12 hours ago

Trans people are also statistically overrepresented in houseless populations in the US which makes statistics like these particularly challenging to investigate

[–] buellerbueller 1 day ago

Why is the paper not available?

[–] dmm 1 day ago

What do you mean by this? This article seems to be mostly about govt surveillance and not gun rights.

[–] ram1500natrluvr 1 day ago

A stated core purpose of the second amendment is for ordinary people to be able to keep a government in check by force or threat of force.

Some people view the actions of ICE, like in this article, to be crossing a line that would normally provoke a response from second amendment types.

[–] HumblyTossed 1 day ago

The people who would normally argue "but muh 2A!" are either applying to be on ICE, are on ICE, or just support what they're doing, completely oblivious to the obvious.

[–] Computer0 1 day ago

Certainly some

[–] MisterMunchkin 1 day ago

Those people are the people who want gun control and therefore don’t have any guns.

[–] chasd00 1 day ago

Agreed. I'm pro-second amendment, what is the there to comment on here about guns? seriously asking.

[–] harimau777 5 hours ago

A major portion of vocal 2A advocates cite the need to own guns in order to protect against government overreach. The argument being made is that the government is now overreaching but the 2A advocates aren't actually using their guns to protect against it.

[–] krapp 4 hours ago

I mean, a major portion of vocal 2A advocates voted for the government overreach, or else don't actually care either way as long as the government doesn't touch their guns.

But they'll still lecture you should you ever dare question the utility and necessity of it. They'll still claim their guns are the only thing holding America back from tyranny even as ICE and the police pick them off like ducks.

[–] Computer0 1 day ago

Hmm what was the reason for the second amendment?

It wasn’t self defense, it wasn’t for recreational fun, it is to provide a physical check on government overreach. Therefore it’s sensible to discuss it during times of government overreach.

[–] chasd00 1 day ago

But I don't bring up the second amendment when complaining about income taxes either. Again, what part of what ICE is doing infringes on the second ammendment?

[–] sixothree 1 day ago

The #1 reason sighted by 2nd amendment loyalists for needing such liberal gun rights is to protect us all from government overreach. I assume that's what he means.

[–] hamdingers 1 day ago

Common misunderstanding. The reason is to protect themselves from government overreach (and other threats), not you or anyone else. You were supposed to get your own gun to protect yourself, that's why the right needs to extend to everyone.

(disclaimer: this is not my opinion I'm just explaining their logic)

[–] nonethewiser 1 day ago

Someone who thinks ICE is lawfully investigating people who obstruct enforcement or attacked a facility has no reason to take issue with this.

[–] jareklupinski 1 day ago

no one poopoos the golem when its on their side

it might listen, and turn...

[–] smallmancontrov 1 day ago

Not without work it won't. Trump II has been using "Who won the 2020 election?" as a shibboleth to fill the ranks with True Believers. Nobody gets power without answering "Trump" to that question.

[–] cuttysnark 1 day ago

Q: “Who won the 2020 election?” A: “I’m not a biologist”

[–] unethical_ban 1 day ago

As part of an imminent, concerted, collective effort with peers during civil unrest? Sure. Most people aren't ready to Luigi themselves to jail for life as a statement.

[–] lenerdenator 1 day ago

There have been multiple instances of people doing things with weapons. It's not good, but it has been done.

[–] fedpost 1 day ago

Deny defend depose I suppose

[–] lioeters 1 day ago

Careful, if you say that phrase three times you'll summon a gang of evil clowns.