undefined | Better HN

0 points2OEH8eoCRo04y ago0 comments

Take social media activity into account during background checks. Increase the age to purchase to 21. 1 month waiting period.

I'm a gun owner btw.

I also wonder what interesting things would happen if in order to own a gun you must drill with a militia.

0 comments

23 comments · 6 top-level

buscoquadnary4y ago· 6 in thread

What do you mean by take social media activity into account?

Should people who have unfashionable or unpopular opinions be not allowed to purchase a firearm? Or is it that they made a threat of violence at some point?

KerrAvon4y ago

I think the latter should be somewhat disqualifying! Obviously, a standard would need to be created, but it's not impossible to draw that line.

jstream674y ago

only rich democrats would be allowed to own guns - for evidence see how concealed carry permits are handed out in blue areas. The government is incapable of wielding that level of power without massive corruption.

snerbles4y ago

A modest $90,000 in donations to a very specific charity in Santa Clara county, though in years before I've heard it can be had for a bit less if you're not in a rush.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/10/19/main-witness-in-santa...

2OEH8eoCRo0OP4y ago

Nope. When doing a background check for a clearance they do it just fine. I worked with all sorts of nutjobs in defense. They just weren't violent nutjobs.

vel0city4y ago

You don't have a constitutional right to work in the defense industry.

1 more reply

bifrost4y ago

It'd have to be threat of violence.

bifrost4y ago· 6 in thread

The age restriction is illegal, just ruled on by CA Supreme Court.

Social Media activity check is a violation of the 4th amendment.

You can't tax or gate a right by requiring someone to join a militia.

KerrAvon4y ago

The ruling you're talking about was not the CA supreme court, which would be unlikely to rule that way. It's a federal appeals court; it was a politically motivated 2-1 decision. https://news.yahoo.com/californias-under-21-gun-ban-23182808...

Checking your activity on social media during a firearms background check is not a violation of the 4th amendment.

You can certainly enforce the second amendment militia requirement, although it will require a vast different SCOTUS than the one we have now.

Zak4y ago

> Checking your activity on social media during a firearms background check is not a violation of the 4th amendment.

If it was non-public activity, I could imagine a court finding that it is. I could also imagine courts finding using social media activity that doesn't unambiguously indicate intent to commit a crime as part of a firearms background check to be a violation of the 1st and 2nd amendments.

bifrost4y ago

You cannot gate a right with a requirement to be in a militia. Even if you could, you only need one person to be a militia.

The government looking through your personal information requires due process, otherwise its a violation of the 4th amendment.

2 more replies

petschge4y ago

Just a thought: If the constitution prevents things that would work to prevent this problem form reoccuring, maybe the constitution needs fixing. After all it is rather old and contains a whole bunch of other bugs as well.

buscoquadnary4y ago

The constitution already has that in account however you need a constitutional amendment that would require 3/4 majority in both houses of Congress to approve that.

However right now trust in the government is so low that even if the constitution was amended many gun owners would probably be unlikely to accept the result.

1 more reply

AnimalMuppet4y ago

> contains a whole bunch of other bugs as well.

You might get agreement on that point. You won't get agreement on what the bugs are, though, so fixing them by changing the Constitution is rather difficult.

seiferteric4y ago· 4 in thread

My personal view is that anyone can own a gun but should be required to take mandatory "militia" training courses twice a year (like 8 hours). This alone will probably limit the number of people wanting to go through the process. Another thought is that people could keep their guns in their locally ran armory that they could go and practice whenever they want and checkout guns for hunting purposes. Also no semi-auto for hunting (so no need to checkout a semi-auto from the armory), we already limit shotgun capacity to 3 for bird hunting so maybe this could happen.

bifrost4y ago

Sorry, that requirement is illegal.

seiferteric4y ago

Never said it was legal, just what I think it ought to be. If you could ever amend the constitution, it would never be a ban of all guns, or even semi-autos, but perhaps you could bring people along by allowing people to have any kind of weapon they want (even full auto) if kept in an armory. Being locally run and not by the state or feds would also make it a bit more appealing. Basically strengthening the idea and legitimacy of the militia rather than being an antiquated concept. Personally I wouldn't actually mind going to training like this a coupe times a year, but ya still not likely to happen.

2OEH8eoCRo0OP4y ago

This is not how discussion works. Please try adding to the discussion.

akomtu4y ago

So anyone who can vote should take 8 hours long courses twice a year, with a deep dive into history and civics, right? Because, let's be honest, if the clueless crowd votes in a chaotic autocrat, the damage will far exceed those few thousand deaths by guns.

krapp4y ago· 1 in thread

>I also wonder what interesting things would happen if in order to own a gun you must drill with a militia.

Given the nature of American militias, likely white supremacist radicalization.

2OEH8eoCRo0OP4y ago

If everyone must? I think the opposite. Militias would become less white and less radical.

koolba4y ago

> Take social media activity into account during background checks.

Besides the blatant first amendment violations, this would be incredibly subjective and abuse prone.

> Increase the age to purchase to 21.

We should take away 18 year olds right to vote as well. If they’re incapable of owning a firearm then they’re clearly incapable of having a voice in deciding the rules around them.

KerrAvon4y ago

This is a great example of an actually productive, comparatively low-cost solution that we aren't willing to do as a society because of right-wing politics.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

23 comments · 6 top-level

buscoquadnary4y ago· 6 in thread

What do you mean by take social media activity into account?

Should people who have unfashionable or unpopular opinions be not allowed to purchase a firearm? Or is it that they made a threat of violence at some point?

KerrAvon4y ago

I think the latter should be somewhat disqualifying! Obviously, a standard would need to be created, but it's not impossible to draw that line.

jstream674y ago

snerbles4y ago

A modest $90,000 in donations to a very specific charity in Santa Clara county, though in years before I've heard it can be had for a bit less if you're not in a rush.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/10/19/main-witness-in-santa...

2OEH8eoCRo0OP4y ago

Nope. When doing a background check for a clearance they do it just fine. I worked with all sorts of nutjobs in defense. They just weren't violent nutjobs.

vel0city4y ago

You don't have a constitutional right to work in the defense industry.

1 more reply

bifrost4y ago

It'd have to be threat of violence.

bifrost4y ago· 6 in thread

The age restriction is illegal, just ruled on by CA Supreme Court.

Social Media activity check is a violation of the 4th amendment.

You can't tax or gate a right by requiring someone to join a militia.

KerrAvon4y ago

Checking your activity on social media during a firearms background check is not a violation of the 4th amendment.

You can certainly enforce the second amendment militia requirement, although it will require a vast different SCOTUS than the one we have now.

Zak4y ago

> Checking your activity on social media during a firearms background check is not a violation of the 4th amendment.

bifrost4y ago

You cannot gate a right with a requirement to be in a militia. Even if you could, you only need one person to be a militia.

The government looking through your personal information requires due process, otherwise its a violation of the 4th amendment.

2 more replies

petschge4y ago

buscoquadnary4y ago

The constitution already has that in account however you need a constitutional amendment that would require 3/4 majority in both houses of Congress to approve that.

However right now trust in the government is so low that even if the constitution was amended many gun owners would probably be unlikely to accept the result.

1 more reply

AnimalMuppet4y ago

> contains a whole bunch of other bugs as well.

You might get agreement on that point. You won't get agreement on what the bugs are, though, so fixing them by changing the Constitution is rather difficult.

seiferteric4y ago· 4 in thread

bifrost4y ago

Sorry, that requirement is illegal.

seiferteric4y ago

2OEH8eoCRo0OP4y ago

This is not how discussion works. Please try adding to the discussion.

akomtu4y ago

krapp4y ago· 1 in thread

>I also wonder what interesting things would happen if in order to own a gun you must drill with a militia.

Given the nature of American militias, likely white supremacist radicalization.

2OEH8eoCRo0OP4y ago

If everyone must? I think the opposite. Militias would become less white and less radical.

koolba4y ago

> Take social media activity into account during background checks.

Besides the blatant first amendment violations, this would be incredibly subjective and abuse prone.

> Increase the age to purchase to 21.

We should take away 18 year olds right to vote as well. If they’re incapable of owning a firearm then they’re clearly incapable of having a voice in deciding the rules around them.

KerrAvon4y ago

This is a great example of an actually productive, comparatively low-cost solution that we aren't willing to do as a society because of right-wing politics.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse