Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic...
by s1artibartfast on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @04:56PM
(#40860330)
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.
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.