this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
470 points (99.4% liked)
Not The Onion
12378 readers
308 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not sure how your comment applies to
Can you explain?
The Second Amendment was written with the expectation that the United States would not have a standing army. That's why why the first clause is there. The well-regulated Militia in this context means (potentially) every citizen with a gun willing to fight in the defense of the state. Essentially, the amendment guarantees every capable and trustworthy person access to weapons of war for the explicit reason that if a large portion of the populace is armed, then it becomes impossible to forcefully occupy the country.
No, the decades of propaganda weren't so sophisticated. My opinion comes from a reading by an anarchist who closely studied the writings of the founding fathers, and based his interpretation on that and the context of who now qualities as a "person" (women and people of colour). It's very obviously influenced by what he wants it to mean, but it's not an unreasonable interpretation.
This is the funniest lecture on reading comprehension I've ever gotten. Not a whole lot of competition, but still.
You clearly didn't understand what I said, even slightly.
You realize that in order to maintain a militia, the average citizen needs to have access to firearms without relying on issuance of them by the state? A militia "in good working order" requires people to occasionally take their personally owned firearm and train with it. How the fuck do you do this without allowing people to freely purchase them?
How the fuck do you maintain a militia "in good working order" while also banning their existence in peace time?
The state doesn't own arms for a militia. Look up the fucking definition of a militia. They are ran by civilians and are not an official military organization (they are paramilitary), but can still be leveraged by state governors.
The state already funds for arms separately for their state National Guard using public tax money funded by the local tax payer, and mandate training on them. They don't care if a militia doesn't hold regular training, as long as they are capable of taking orders from the governor and can maneuver in an organized manner.
Militias are necessary for when the feds leverage their militarized entities to supplant democratic process.
You are a dipshit that needs to work on reading comprehension instead of non-sequiturs to grasp a "win" in this argument.
Also, you didn't answer my question, so I assume you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and everyone here should simply ignore you.
Ok Ill read the edits and get back to you with a rebuke or agreement.
Okay so I read some of your edits and I see many holes in your arguments about not allowing everyone to own guns.
That being said, I cannot deny that societies that have restricted firearms ownership across the board have less homicides.
The factor that no one considers is that those societies are mostly homogenous, whereas the USA is not only more diverse than all countries combined, it's also difficult to secure due to the size. Pandora's box was opened long ago and it's too fucking late to disarm the entire population.
I guess I'll have to say this again:
Scroll the fuck up and read what I asked and come back with an answer instead of wasting everyone's time.
Black people and women aren't mentioned in the Constitution either you fucking moron. We had to fight fuckheads like you to finally give them the rights they deserve. You want to follow it literally? Go back to your shithole trailer you MAGA inbred fuck.
Here we can agree.
No, not at all; I asked you to clarify what you meant, and explained my perspective to you twice.
Huh? What? How the fuck did you come to that conclusion?! I implied that I associate with Anarchists and consume anarchist media. I don't think I've said a single thing about you except that you lack reading comprehension.
I'm going to assume you're a troll, and maintain that assumption unless your next comment is even halfway decent.
Blocked.