you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 36 points 1 year ago (5 children)

It is this kind of thing that made me decide to ignore my city's municipal codes regarding protest gear. It outlaws the wearing of bulletproof vests, helmets, protective visors, hearing protection, gas masks, and so on. To say the least, I cannot respect a law that is designed to permit bullies to injure or kill people who did nothing wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    how is it legal to stop people from wearing bulletproof vests in public!? Why aren't 2nd amendment mfs screaming about this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    "See, the second amendment specifically says you have a right to bear arms, and that means any kind of gun I want to buy should be legal."

    "However, there is no amendment saying you have a right to wear armor. So being protected isn't a constitutional right".

    "Oh? This supressor I want to put on my gun? That should be allowed by the second amendment. Wait, what do you mean there is no constitutional right to gun accessories?!"

    It usually goes something like that. I'd like to point out here that there isn't a constitutional right to wear pants or eat bacon either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • It usually goes something like that. I’d like to point out here that there isn’t a constitutional right to wear pants or eat bacon either.

    One could similarly say that the right to wield violence does not mean that you have the right for that violence to actually succeed. Some situations allow for the legal use of deadly force, but that still does not mean the explicit right to kill. If a threat is neutralized and they survive, you can't "make sure" that they don't.

  • source
  • parent