• @ug02x@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      446 months ago

      It’s “murican” for the right to bear arms. Namely referring to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

      Somebody probably has shot it knowing this country.

      • @Mr_Blott@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        296 months ago

        Ah yes, that really old law. We have one in the UK like that, it says something like you can shoot a Scotsman in York on sight, but only with a bow and arrow or after midnight or something

        But it’s not enforced because it’s an old law and, well, WE’RE NOT FUCKING STUPID 😂

        • Transporter Room 3
          link
          fedilink
          English
          236 months ago

          Well, brexit.

          Just stupid in different ways.

          We can all be morons together. separately if you don’t want to risk stray bullets from this side.

        • @shadowSprite@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          56 months ago

          Since it’s still on the books, could that be used as a legal defense? (Just curious, I’m neither in the UK nor wish to kill anyone with a bow and arrow after midnight)

          • @prayer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            116 months ago

            Common law is based on precedent more than written law (code law), so the fact that no scottsman has been killed in over 100 years and used this law as a defence is proof enough that it isn’t valid legislation.

          • gid
            link
            fedilink
            English
            56 months ago

            No, you couldn’t use it as a valid legal defense. There are a lot of old laws like this in the UK that, while technically on the books, have been replaced by more recent legislation.

          • @Evia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            36 months ago

            No, common law is set in precident and there’s no legal precident for it currently.

            • @Asafum@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              7
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              One thing a lot of people are concerned about is the current state of politics, it’s incredibly difficult to get that process going and once we open that can of worms you better believe that billionaire assholes that have already been trying to influence politics will have their favorite atrocious shit put into the constitution.

              It’s more like “let’s legislate our issues first.” If we have to change the constitution I’m pretty sure we’re going to end up with an amendment that requires all citizens to buy Koch products, abolish the EPA and make those kinds of departments unconstitutional, or some other absurd nonsense.

    • @drcobaltjedi@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      46 months ago

      Second amendment of the US constitution. It’s text is:

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      And what that means is up to “interpretation” and some think it means that everyone with no restrictions what so ever should be able to buy guns on a moments notice. Its the main reason why we have this problem state side.