Skip to content
Better HN
Top
Best
Ask
Show
New
Jobs
Search
⌘K
0 points
foldr
10mo ago
0 comments
Save
Share
The Bill of Rights was never repealed, so there’s no “used to” about it.
0 comments
2 comments · 1 top-level
top
newest
oldest
brigandish
10mo ago
· 1 in thread
That's a sophist's argument. There's a reason it's qualified as the
1689
Bill of Rights, because it doesn't exist as a bill of rights any more. Parts of it were subsumed by other laws, parts of it repealed - where is your right to bear arms?
foldr
OP
10mo ago
> That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
This part of it could hardly have been retained unaltered.
j
/
k
navigate · click thread line to collapse