• mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If your food isn’t for breakfast, that law has nothing to do with it.

    Invoking other arguments for eating would be a fallacy. Your own stupid analogy just says: breakfast.

      • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, it’s definitely this gun nut arguing the intent of a law does not matter.

        We know what a militia is for. We know why randos owning guns was necessary, to raise a militia. But we don’t do that anymore. We have a standing army. The second amendment might as well say “slave revolts are dangerous, so everybody’s gotta get armed.”

        But this guy’s trying to pretend the need for food must be exactly as important as his need for guns, and that nobody will notice his analogy friggin’ blows.

        • BaldProphet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that “the need for food must be exactly as important” as my need for guns. I used different wording to illustrate that the right is granted to the people, not the militia. That you don’t understand the Second Amendment, even when reworded so that even a kindergartner would understand it, is telling.

    • BaldProphet@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Debating this with you is obviously pointless. Nowhere does the amendment state that arms are only to be used within a militia.