「黃家駒 Wong Ka Kui」(old account, migrated to Piefed)@sh.itjust.works to Showerthoughts@lemmy.world · 1 month agoIts illegal in the USA to advocate for the violent overthrow of the government, yet its legal to own and carry weapons that is meant to facilitate such acts of rebellion... 🤔message-squaremessage-square102linkfedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10
arrow-up11arrow-down1message-squareIts illegal in the USA to advocate for the violent overthrow of the government, yet its legal to own and carry weapons that is meant to facilitate such acts of rebellion... 🤔「黃家駒 Wong Ka Kui」(old account, migrated to Piefed)@sh.itjust.works to Showerthoughts@lemmy.world · 1 month agomessage-square102linkfedilink
minus-squaredaannii@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·1 month agoWell some historians say the 2nd amendment isn’t about guns, which everyone already had back then, but says states should have their own military. “Bear arms” means militarization. Not owning a gun. But using a gun. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment It actually was the nra lobbying that changed public and legal interpretation. Owning a gun does little against tyranny. But a state militia does. That’s what it actually meant. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment
minus-squarepsx_crab@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·1 month agoDoesn’t seems like it say “firearm” as well, so right to bear arm could just mean having a bear as a friend.
minus-square1D10@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 month agoOr just his arms, but bears ain’t got no arms therefore you get no rights.
minus-squareBrkdncr@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 month agoIf not for that comma this would be a lot easier to understand.
Well some historians say the 2nd amendment isn’t about guns, which everyone already had back then, but says states should have their own military.
“Bear arms” means militarization. Not owning a gun. But using a gun.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment
It actually was the nra lobbying that changed public and legal interpretation.
Owning a gun does little against tyranny.
But a state militia does.
That’s what it actually meant.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment
Doesn’t seems like it say “firearm” as well, so right to bear arm could just mean having a bear as a friend.
Or just his arms, but bears ain’t got no arms therefore you get no rights.
If not for that comma this would be a lot easier to understand.