Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think it is pretty clear.

It is hard to see why a state would feel the need to include the government's ability to own weapons at all, let alone in a document listing rights and protections for individual citizens. Furthermore, the statements already draw a distinction between the people and an army controlled by the government.



The document wasn’t for individuals. That’s quite the misunderstanding of basic history here.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: