• mindbleach
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    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.

    • BaldProphet@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • mindbleach
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.