News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Chinese forces prepare to use 'giant fork' on Hong Kong p... by rayiner on Friday August 16, 2019 @04:08PM (#20719197)
What the Second Amendment protects isn’t a matter of opinion and abstract line drawing. The Second Amendment by its terms protects the right to “bear arms.” It precludes banning “arms” as a category. Now you can draw lines about what is or is not an “arm” that someone may “bear.” (You probably can’t bear, i.e. carry, a nuclear weapon. On the other hand, the Constitution expressly contemplates private ownership of warships.) But you’re stuck drawing lines with respect to that term. And its hard to draw a line where handguns are “arms” but assault rifles are not.
Re:Chinese forces prepare to use 'giant fork' on Hong Kong p... by hundt on Saturday August 17, 2019 @07:57AM (#20723549)
I'm not sure I understand your argument. I assume you mean "assault weapons" because actual "assault rifles" (capable of automatic or burst fire) are not generally legal to own in the U.S. But your argument would apply equally well to these banned assault rifles (they are clearly "arms"), so doesn't that mean your argument is wrong?
Re:Chinese forces prepare to use 'giant fork' on Hong Kong p... by rayiner on Saturday August 17, 2019 @10:36AM (#20724226)
If fully automatic rifles are “clearly ‘arms’” (as you put it) then a blanket ban on them is unconstitutional.
Re:Chinese forces prepare to use 'giant fork' on Hong Kong p... by pinkfoot on Thursday August 22, 2019 @11:29AM (#20769172)
Presumably, so would a ban on shoulder-launched nuclear weapons?