No, it’s definitely this gun nut arguing the intent of a law does not matter.
We know what a militia is for. We know why randos owning guns was necessary, to raise a militia. But we don’t do that anymore. We have a standing army. The second amendment might as well say “slave revolts are dangerous, so everybody’s gotta get armed.”
But this guy’s trying to pretend the need for food must be exactly as important as his need for guns, and that nobody will notice his analogy friggin’ blows.
Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that “the need for food must be exactly as important” as my need for guns. I used different wording to illustrate that the right is granted to the people, not the militia. That you don’t understand the Second Amendment, even when reworded so that even a kindergartner would understand it, is telling.
Says someone ignoring half the sentence. The stated rationale, right up-front, is ‘because the government needs a militia.’
There is no other reason to include them in the sentence. Otherwise it’s “bananas being yellow, free speech.” Like any part of the declaration of rights is decorative.
If your food isn’t for breakfast, that law has nothing to do with it.
Invoking other arguments for eating would be a fallacy. Your own stupid analogy just says: breakfast.
Who’s to say what food is breakfast food? I kinda think that’s part of the point being made here.
No, it’s definitely this gun nut arguing the intent of a law does not matter.
We know what a militia is for. We know why randos owning guns was necessary, to raise a militia. But we don’t do that anymore. We have a standing army. The second amendment might as well say “slave revolts are dangerous, so everybody’s gotta get armed.”
But this guy’s trying to pretend the need for food must be exactly as important as his need for guns, and that nobody will notice his analogy friggin’ blows.
Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that “the need for food must be exactly as important” as my need for guns. I used different wording to illustrate that the right is granted to the people, not the militia. That you don’t understand the Second Amendment, even when reworded so that even a kindergartner would understand it, is telling.
Says someone ignoring half the sentence. The stated rationale, right up-front, is ‘because the government needs a militia.’
There is no other reason to include them in the sentence. Otherwise it’s “bananas being yellow, free speech.” Like any part of the declaration of rights is decorative.
Debating this with you is obviously pointless. Nowhere does the amendment state that arms are only to be used within a militia.
‘Because an army is necessary to maintain democracy, people should have guns.’
The whole thing is one sentence long, and there’s only one stated reason in that sentence.