undefined | Better HN

0 pointsfoldr9mo ago0 comments

The Bill of Rights was never repealed, so there’s no “used to” about it.

0 comments

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 Parts of it were subsumed by other laws, parts of it repealed - where is your right to bear arms?

foldrOP8mo 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

0 comments

brigandish8mo ago

foldrOP8mo 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