[above image] : Abortion rights advocates protested the Supreme Court’s attack on women’s rights when it ended Roe. The Court is expected to intensify its attacks on democracy in the new term. Gemunu Amarasinghe/AP

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    31 year ago

    You’re projecting the fact that you’re unreasonably assuming he meant personal ownership and use onto me by claiming that I’m unreasonably assuming that he didn’t.

    The fact of the matter is that “let them take arms” in no way means “let them personally own guns for their own personal use”.

    In fact, given the historical context, it’s much more likely that he meant as militias fighting a guerilla war or using them in a coordinated revolutionary effort, neither of which necessitates personal ownership of guns.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -21 year ago

      I never unreasonably assumed he meant personal ownership. I just thought you know, since you can read a dead mans mind and know he was talking about the French revolution or something you must really, really know what you’re talking about.

      “Let them take arms” can be reasonably construed to mean “let them own guns”. Saying “in no way” is categorically incorrect. Saying it might not mean that is not unreasonable, but saying it definitely doesn’t is absolutely unreasonable, which is what you’re saying.

      What he meant, what was going on in his head, we can’t know. Well, except for you apparently, because you really know what you’re talking about. But the rest of us, all we can do is take his words at face value.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        This is not going anywhere except nitpicking, clarification and more nitpicking etc, so let’s just stop now rather than continue to waste each other’s time.