• Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I did think that since it’s a standard basis for arguing against the 2nd. The only issue with the language is people ignoring the separation between the justification of the right and the right itself. It doesn’t matter what they said the right was for, whether it be for self defense or a militia for defense of the nation. The right stands on its own as the right to keep and bear arms.

    It’s a deliberate misinterpretation.

    • Rhaedas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      And that is how a document for rights turns into scripture. “It doesn’t matter why the words say what they say, the words are holy and unchangeable.” The Founders themselves would disagree with your assessment, they said as much that the Constitution is imperfect and can’t possibly predict the needs for the future.

      As for the idea that someone questioning the Second Amendment must be against gun ownership, that shows the echo chamber you’re coming from. So many gun owners are left wing/liberal/socialist/whatever label you want, but aren’t as vocal as the right because they understand that with ownership of dangerous things comes responsibility and regulation. Sure seems like a parallel with how the right views other things too…they only like regulation when it works in favor of their beliefs, not for the greater good of the public.

      • skulbuny@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        As an anarchist socialist, Marx was right. Emphasis my own.

        Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary