Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

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.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

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

Search: