Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by cygx 29 days ago
Per Wikipedia, at least at one point in time, it was supposed to be. Quote:

Prosecutors produced group chat logs showing that the participants had debated at length whether they should bring guns. The former reservist allegedly wrote that "Cops are not trained or equipped for more than one rifle, so it tends to make them back off." Other chat participants argued that a noise demonstration was low risk and the assumptions about how police would respond were "way over the top".
1 comments
KaiserPro 29 days ago
Ok, but isn't this textbook second amendment?

as in well organised militia’s right to bear arms? They demonstrated a level of organisation much higher level than Rittenhouse ever did.

link
mvdtnz 28 days ago
Americans are given the right to bear arms so they can overthrow a tyrannical government. Doesn't mean the government has to sit there and take it. And it certainly doesn't mean you can shoot cops and get away with it.
link
KaiserPro 28 days ago
The USA is a common law system, so some actions have precedence, and shape how laws are applied. (hence why the supreme court is able to have split opinions about the 14th amendment)

If you are able to use a stungun on a cop and get a pardon, then why not this? (actually pardons are usually not precedent setting, but forgive the stupid legal interpretation. )

link