undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAcrobatic_Road4y ago0 comments

>Purchasing those arms isn't a civil right.

A ban on the purchasing of arms would definitely infringe on people's individual right to keep and bear them. Yes, an individual right, which is how 18th-19th century courts and political commentators viewed the 2nd before the 20th century "militia only" narrative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...

0 comments

3 comments · 2 top-level

tomrod4y ago· 1 in thread

Now go read the listed article ;-)

Acrobatic_RoadOP4y ago

As far as I can tell the author is just making the tired militia argument while pretending to support an individual right. "Americans have a right to defend their homes". Defend their homes with what exactly? He immediately moves on to hunting weapons and the right to hunt. So according to the author, we have the right to own fudd guns, and the right to self defense (but not with guns, and not outside our home). Yawn!

FireBeyond4y ago

This is the problem. When it comes to abortion, there's a notable portion of the populace (including Supreme Court Justices) that say "well it doesn't literally and explicitly call that out in the Consitution so no, it's not a guaranteed right".

... then when it comes to guns... "Well, of course it includes _purchasing_ those arms, even if it doesn't explicitly and literally say so, because it'd be hard to bear them otherwise, so it somehow _must_ guarantee that, too!"

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse