this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2026
212 points (99.5% liked)

Not The Onion

21659 readers
775 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:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 14 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (2 children)

That might not even be the weirdest hypothetical DOJ has argued this year.

Trump DOJ Refuses to Rule Out Second Amendment Right to Nuclear Weapons

Now, to be clear, DOJ lawyers do not argue that nuclear weapons are currently protected by the Second Amendment. But that is based on the view that nukes could not become popular enough to be protected, not because of the unmistakable threat to public safety that civilian access to nuclear warheads would create. Under this dangerous logic, if nuclear weapons become more common, all bets are off: Civilians might then be constitutionally entitled to acquire and possess them. And though the Trump DOJ’s discussion of nuclear weapons may seem farfetched, the same logic would apply to a grenade launcher or bazooka.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

I don't see anything in the 2nd conditioning it on popularity!