undefined | Better HN

0 pointsMaursault4y ago0 comments

> the second amendment enshrines the ability for those such as the disabled and women to have a fighting chance against a violent attacker

The 2nd Amendment never had anything to do with crime and self-defense prior to DC v. Heller 2008. Militias do not enforce law. It also, fwiw, has nothing to do with hunting. The sole original purpose of the 2nd was to be a check against tyranny. That is all it ever was until Justice Scalia invented the idea that the 2nd Amendment was a right of self-defense because most Americans (incorrectly) believed that it was... but it was not and is not true that most Americans believed a right of self-defense was included in the 2nd, only those repeating the false propaganda of the NRA.

> Since we've gone off to the first amendment, do you believe "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" only applies to an organized militia and not individual people?

You missed the point, but I'd like to see a single individual try to peacefully assemble.

0 comments

quantumBerry4y ago

So which people are allowed to peaceably assemble? How about my wife and I? What if we also want to bear arms?

Having the ability to defend against tyranny with a weapon doesn't mean you drop your right to self defense. The 2nd amendment absolutely protects the right to bear arms as a check against tyranny. I don't understand your bone to pick as to why someone bearing arms couldn't defend themselves with them.

Edit: The bill of rights doesn't outright state a right to self defense. I'd like to see you argue why someone who bears arms (which is their right per 2A) shouldn't be able to defend their life with the arms that they have. If someone starts violently attacking my kid with a knife, do you seriously think I shouldn't be able to use arms to protect them because that's not the tyranny of the government? 2A doesn't say you have the right to keep and bear arms except in self defense. Fortunately for me, I'll be killed or imprisoned for life before someone like you takes my right to armed self defense away -- because that is the only way I'll ever stop keeping my means of self defense.

MaursaultOP4y ago

So you believe that prior to 1788 no right of self-defense existed? Do you then believe that one can't defend oneself without a gun? Surely you mustn't.

Again, the 2nd only concerns tyranny, and prevents the government from disarming militias in order to have a check on tyranny.

If you'd like another reason why self-defense was not nor should be included in the 2nd, I see no right to breathe in the Bill of Rights. I guess we have no right to breathe and we better pass an amendment giving us that right before we pass out.

The Bill of Rights was not intended to limit rights to those enumerated in the BoR, and I would say a right of self-defense is already included under self-evident and inalienable rights along with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

quantumBerry4y ago

>2nd only concerns tyranny

The 2A was written with tyranny in mind but the 2A does not mention tyranny. It recognizes militia, recognizes security of free state (which can come from foreign sources), and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

If you start with the right to self defense, and add a right to bear arms => you now have self defense + a gun. But your argument is you're not allowed to use it for your "right" to self defense?

>So you believe that prior to 1788 no right of self-defense existed?

The framers of the constitution believed the bill of rights merely codified natural human rights that have always existed.

>Again, the 2nd only concerns tyranny, and prevents the government from disarming militias in order to have a check on tyranny.

The right to keep and bear arms is ascribed to the people.

In practice, rights are whatever you can get away with. You have the right to travel freely in most public land, but you may be eaten by a bear. But the legal distinction helps in restraining the government, to the point that they acknowledge them. If the government stops acknowledge the right of people to bear arms then you're left with the result those of us that can get away with it will and the rest will be killed or imprisoned.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsMaursault4y ago0 comments

> the second amendment enshrines the ability for those such as the disabled and women to have a fighting chance against a violent attacker

> Since we've gone off to the first amendment, do you believe "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" only applies to an organized militia and not individual people?

You missed the point, but I'd like to see a single individual try to peacefully assemble.

0 comments

quantumBerry4y ago

So which people are allowed to peaceably assemble? How about my wife and I? What if we also want to bear arms?

MaursaultOP4y ago

So you believe that prior to 1788 no right of self-defense existed? Do you then believe that one can't defend oneself without a gun? Surely you mustn't.

Again, the 2nd only concerns tyranny, and prevents the government from disarming militias in order to have a check on tyranny.

quantumBerry4y ago

>2nd only concerns tyranny

If you start with the right to self defense, and add a right to bear arms => you now have self defense + a gun. But your argument is you're not allowed to use it for your "right" to self defense?

>So you believe that prior to 1788 no right of self-defense existed?

The framers of the constitution believed the bill of rights merely codified natural human rights that have always existed.

>Again, the 2nd only concerns tyranny, and prevents the government from disarming militias in order to have a check on tyranny.

The right to keep and bear arms is ascribed to the people.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse