• MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    The thing about the NRA and especially of GOA is that both seem to have it backwards. The elevation of a weapon of war comes before the 2nd Amendment, rather than the 2nd Amendment determining the role guns should play in society

    How so is it backwards for them to advocate for our rights?

    • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Because regardless of the copious innocent deaths and superfluous destruction the object of their advocacy wreaks, they still lift up that right in every circumstance. Their principled stand for gun ownership is completely removed from reality. Neither the NRA nor the GOA are pragmatic, which would mean traingulating between the injurious realities of firearm ownership and the limits Scalia has referenced. Instead, it’s guns, everywhere, all the time.

      Rights are only useful if they can be exercised. Between mass shootings, an epidemic of domestic violence, and just casual violence over football games and road rage incidencts, I’m hardpressed to see how they’re firearm advocacy as “protective” of anything. Dead people have no need of rights because they can’t use them.