This gave me a good chuckle
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (13)
sorted by:
I am torn on the legitimacy of the 2A.
My anarchist side says the right exists outside of any constitution. It's what is actually practiced in culture that is legitimate. Also the 2A is failing those in certain states (and in the US). Not quite a protected right like a constitution enumerated to be.
My conservative side says that the reason we, as Americans, do still have a culture of gun-ownership is because the forefathers bothered to enumerate the right in the 2A.
No other country seems to have anywhere near the freedom and culture when it comes to guns. I think humans just demand to be ruled
I acknowledge this. I also acknowledge that gun-rights (both legally and culturally-exercised) have been overall advanced since the '94 AWB. I am not sure if the state (or the 2A) was a necessary mechanism to advance gun-ownership, or if the state was just an adversary to gun-ownership.
My overall faith is in the American people. They chose to exercise their rights when the state removed it's restrictions. I hope they choose to hold their ground if any new restrictions are imposed. But for that to happen, their decision will need to be on the fundamental right, not on what the state chose to ratify (the 2A).
Every commie constitution has the same basic clause about the right of people to be armed. The difference is that the people in this country were based enough to actually aquire them.
The right does exist outside of the constitution. They enumerated it into the bill of rights because they knew human nature, and how positions of power attracts a certain type of person.
Right and wrong exist. Humans can go extinct, and right and wrong will still exist.
You have a right to defend yourself from aggression.
It's unfortunate that you are retarded.