4 ms·
The 2nd Amendment is always a great point in these kind of debates if any other right had half as many restrictions on it people would be on the streets. Requir
by tick_tock_tick 5y ago
The 2nd Amendment is always a great point in these kind of debates if any other right had half as many restrictions on it people would be on the streets. Requiring an ID to vote is viewed as completely unacceptable by many but the very same people think it's perfectly reasonable to require it for other rights.
- anaerobicover 5y agoThe right of voting is more essential, however, it is the sine qua non of all the others. If we fall down to the point where guns are required to indeed defend the rights, they functionally are not existing any more.
- einpoklum 5y agoOn the contrary. Many other key rights in the US are curtailed and restricted - like security against unreasonable search and seizure, the subject of this story - while the right to bear arms has been expanded massively in recent decades beyond the context of allowing for a well-regulated militia. Also, people _have_ been in the streets in the US last year, a lot...
- tick_tock_tick 5y ago> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. > the right of the people to keep and bear Arms I don't understand how you could read that and interpret it as a right for anything other than the people?
- einpoklum 5y agoI'm not interpreting it as anything, it was the US supreme court.
- nnvvhh 5y agoAlthough to distinguish the 2nd Amendment, its the language specifically mentions firearm ownership in connection with a "well regulated militia." There are disagreements about the effect of that part of the text, but it's worth mentioning.