re: #316 Obdicut

It doesn’t sort it out. It says that, legally, the part about militias, the purpose of the law, doesn’t invalidate the law itself. That doesn’t sort out the fact that the reason the 2nd amendment exists, the reason it is there, is because the founding fathers believed militias were necessary for the existence of a free state. This is not true. So, philosophically, does the 2nd amendment have relevance? What is the reason for it, since the original reason is gone?

That may be because the 2nd amendment clearly states the reason for its existence, and that reason isn’t true.

Again: I am not arguing from a legal perspective. I’m not saying that because there are no militias anymore and because the reasoning given in the amendment is completely untrue that therefore the amendment is invalid. That is absolutely not how the law works and I know it.

What I’m saying is that the 2nd amendment does not provide a philosophical justification for gun ownership being prized above all other rights to own dangerous shit, and so if you want to actually put a convincing argument together about why— not about the legality of it, but about why— then the 2nd is a broken reed.

.

Other kinds of “dangerous shit” don’t support self defense. The winning interpretation by the court combined with the obvious strength of the human right to protect yourself and others like family are no “broken reed”.

Archaic language is what we have. We just have to deal with it.