• random@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 hours ago

    > First, not human right, American right.

    it’s one in my belive system (I didn’t really mean it as in the by the un defined human rights, just as some people belive abortion is a human right) and I don’t necesarily mean guns, I mean any weapon, so in ancient rome I’d be pro swoard rights for example

    > Second, the second amendment is invalid.

    have to agree with you there, however, I belive it to be a good thing

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      …I don’t necesarily mean guns, I mean any weapon, so in ancient rome I’d be pro swoard rights for example

      I understand your intent, and I also understand the feeling, and I largely agree with it. However, there must be limits. Should people be allowed RPGs, fighter jets, bombers, tanks, nukes, etc.? If not, where are we drawing the line, and for what reasons? Can those reasons apply further to other weapons? There are reasonable restrictions we must have. The issue is that every person is going to have a different idea of where the lines should be drawn. Some will draw it at a sword, some a handgun, some a machine gun, some a nuke.

      I don’t know what the answer is, but it obviously isn’t “all weapons” and probably shouldn’t be “no weapons.”