4 ms·
If you don't like people defending themselves against plain clothed intruders with guns they legally bought, then maybe you need to revoke the 2A. Most cops do
by acallaghan 6y ago
If you don't like people defending themselves against plain clothed intruders with guns they legally bought, then maybe you need to revoke the 2A.
Most cops don't need guns. Almost no normal civilians need guns. The entire developed world that's not the USA gets by just fine without the 'right' to own a semi-automatic machine gun.
- 082349872349872 6y agoThe tech debt is so legacy in those amendments that it predates SCCS. See the git blame for "three-fifths", or ponder the fate of the "Equal Rights Amendment". Note: Where I live, most young men, and some young women, have assault rifles at home. Cops still don't kill people. (might savoir-vivre have something to do with this juxtaposition?) (speaking of refactoring tech debt, the Duke of Wellington was one of the signatories to an international treaty which may have helped inspire the "Monroe Doctrine". [flagged] discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23359754 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23359754 )
- trfhuhg 6y agoWithout 2A, people like Breonna would have to rely on gentlemen like those that visited her apartment to defend themselves. For some reason I'm skeptical about this idea. Abolishing 2A would greatly increase safety for the rich, who will get to keep guns and armed guards regardless of any laws, and correspondingly reduce safety for the poor.
- acallaghan 6y agoThis is madness, no other developed country do you need a gun to feel safe. Safety, or lack thereof, is a problem with policing. If more guns solved this problem, i think the USA would be the safest country in the world, but it's most clearly not. 2A is for 'well regulated militia', it was not written for just everyone to own assualt rifles.