I have a thing about boning up on firearms tech as rhetorical self-defense for dumb Facebook arguments and went on a research jag about this last week. I don’t think this is a supportable argument. People really do hunt with AR-15s, and do so because they’re better tools.https://twitter.com/emilymaxima/status/963939286474280962 …
-
-
The 2nd amendment was never about hunting - it's about arming yourself against a tyranical government. You can argue it's naïve, anachronistic, or not worth the cost in murders; but saying it's for hunting is a strawman.
-
The majority of all serving Supreme Court justices since the amendment was drafted disagree with you about that.
-
They think the authors of the Constitution were so concerned about hunting rights that they made the second amendment to protect hunters, while talking about militias but not about hunting?
-
No, the notion that 2A is about an individual right to resist a tyrannical government. Obviously, in a sense, all the amendments about resisting a tyrannical government, but 2A was for most of the last 200 years about states, not people.
-
"the right of the people" is a weird way to phrase an amendment about jurisdiction, but IANASCJ. In either case, hunting is still a strawman.
-
Heller is just 10 years old, and was a 5-4 decision. Every court before that found rational basis standard for 2A restrictions.
-
Even if that weren’t true, a 5-4 decision would strongly suggest this issue is nowhere nearly as simple as RKBAs say it is. But, no, 5-4 and 221 preceding years of jurisprudence.
-
To be clear, I have no interest in having an argument about the merits of the second amendment. I just cringe when it gets framed as if it's a conversation about balancing hunting vs murdering.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.