News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
So then why are they banned in federal buildings? If they are not dangerous allow them everywhere, hypocrites
they area also banned at REPUBLICAN events like cpac.
I mean in reality they are allowed in federal buildings, just not for citizens. They're also banned at sporting events. I don't think anyone is arguing guns aren't dangerous any more then people argue cars aren't dangerous, but we're still allowed to legislate where you can and can't drive. No ones saying 'If cars are so safe why can't I drive on the sidewalk?' Because most people understand not everything should be allowed everywhere.
Property owners are still free to make their property gun free zones, this decision just means you don't need express consent to enter if there's no signage or rules stating that.
Just from a legal standpoint, that’s an especially bad example because nobody, anywhere in this country, has any right to drive anywhere, especially not a constitutionally-protected one. Driving is a privilege bestowed by the states.
In fact, if something so dangerous as driving a car is a highly regulated privilege, and not right, then maybe carrying a gun should be too.
What drives the rest of the world crazy, is Americans have the right to bare arms in order to stop a tyrannical government. Well guess what kind of government you have right now, and people aren’t doing shite.
That was only ever pro-gun misinformation to make unchecked private gun ownership sound not just reasonable, but HEROIC.
The 2A was explicitly and deliberately written to provide assistance for national defense AGAINST rebellions as an alternative to a standing army.
The 2A was explicitly and deliberately written to affirm the right of the "Militia" (i.e. the People) to defend the "free State" (i.e. themselves against tyranny).
The thing was written by people who had literally just finished rebelling against their legitimate government. You cannot credibly say they weren't pro-rebellion.
Fixed it for you.
Fixed that too.
People don't tend to write laws in code, actually.
When you write "security of a free state" and "well-regulated militia" in a legally binding text, what you mean ISN'T "defense against an oppressive state" and "well-regulated militias" ISN'T "everyone, regardless of whether they're in a well-regulated militia".
To quote someone who was as wrong about it as you are but could turn a phrase sometimes, your interpretation is pure applesauce.
Bullshit, I was right the first time. "Militia" means "every able-bodied adult male" and "well-regulated" means "well-trained."
Fuck your ahistorical revisionism. We know exactly what they meant when they wrote this shit because they explained themselves in the Federalist papers. Federalist #46, for instance, specifically discusses the militia as a check against Federal power.
Bottom line is this: I'm right, you're wrong, the end, bye-bye.
Nope. You just weren't.
No. Militia is a specific thing. Militia means militia. If they had meant "every able-bodied male", that's what they would have written, except they'd probably go with "man" like in the founding documents.
Again, regulation and training are different things, ESPECIALLY in a government context.
Besides, if the founding fathers intended to limit gun ownership to people who has had sufficient training ti responsibly store and handle them (which would be a great idea), WHY do pro-gun people only ever state so when trying to explain away the requirement for regulation in the text? Very curious 🤔
You're using the meme wrong. Using the word "actually" doesn't automatically make you the ackchyually guy regardless of context.
Then again, misunderstanding intention, meaning, and context in order to misrepresent the words of others seems to be your favorite thing 🙄
Right back at you.
I'm not revising anything. I'm explaining the literal and obvious meaning of language meant to be literal and obvious.
When writing law, having the literal text be the same as the intention is RULE ONE.
The only way your interpretation can possibly be correct is if the founding fathers were EXTREMELY bad at legislating.
The Federalist Papers weren't law, they were the equivalent of opinion columns.
When the law says one thing and an opinion piece says another, you go with what the law says.
Right back at you.
Everything you just wrote is a fucking lie. You are persistently trying to apply your 21^st^ century "understanding" to 18^th^ century writing and getting it objectively, factually, wrong. And then you're trying to draw bullshit conclusions based on that incorrect understanding!
Take this nonsense, for instance:
You think you found some sort of gotcha logical contradiction, but you can't get out of your own ass long enough to realize that, whoops, your premise is wrong because you didn't even read the "literal and obvious" plain text of the damn thing correctly. The "shall not be infringed" part does not depend on the "well-regulated" part, which means your "if" is false! "Well-regulated" is a reason and an aspiration, but it is not a requirement.
We were arguing about the intent of the founding fathers. Now you're trying to pretend the documents where they literally explained their intent somehow don't count because "that's just, like, their opinion, man." That is just blatant bad faith. You don't give a fuck about what's true or correct or right; you're just trying to beat me into submission with a gish gallop of bullshit.
Again, the law doesn't say what you think it says, and never did.
Speaking of which: why are you so Hell-bent on promoting tyranny, anyway? Why do you apparently so love the idea of The People not being able to defend themselves against The State? Why are you carrying water for the fascists by dogmatically pushing your sick, twisted, authoritarian misinterpretation of the law?
I've read most of it as an impartial judge and here's my verdict: you're both mixing some valid arguments with bullshit, you both lost focus long time ago and your stupid style of replying is impossible to follow.
The reality is simply that the US constitution is an outdated document that should not serve as the basis for laws in a modern country. It was great at creating an extremely stable system but unfortunately the system it created sucks. It completely failed at granting meaningful rights to it's citizens and preventing fascism. Arguing about how some slave rapists envisioned the state should handle semi automatic rifles has as much sense as arguing about maximum possible Warp speed or something. It's all fantasy because founding fathers had no idea what the country will look like 200 years later and didn't prepare the laws for it.
The argument I've been participating in has been about what the Second Amendment was at the time it was written. The original intent of the people who wrote it. There is only one correct interpretation of that (which is mine, BTW), and modern interpretations have absolutely fuck-all to do with it.
The original intent was to allow people to own muskets because US didn't have a standing army. What's there to argue? You're just playing fantasy politics trying to guess how this law would apply to situations it wasn't meant for.
Because the founders explicitly didn't want the US to have a standing army, explicitly to prevent the Federal government from being able to subjugate the People. That's an important distinction.
Again, right back at you.
I can explain it to you, (and I have, clearly, accurately, and exhaustively so) but I can't understand it for you.
It very much does. The amendment is structured as [reason for conclusion], [conclusion.
If the conclusion had been inherently true regardless of the reasoning of the first part, the first part would have been superfluous and thus omitted.
The fact that it wasn't means that it's not superfluous, which means that it's the basis for the conclusion.
What utter nonsense! In law as well as in any other logically coherent statement, something can't be a reason for the conclusion being reached without being necessary AKA a requirement for the conclusion to be reached.
Otherwise, "shall not be infringed" is the equivalent of a biblical commandment and the rest of the amendment is just a superfluous afterthought.
That's NOT how secular law works.
We were arguing about the intent of the law, which is what the law says. Otherwise, it's useless.
Fixed it for you. There's no rhetorical hocus pocus fancy enough to make the statements of opinion in the Federalist match the text of the law and in cases of legal dispute, the text of the law itself takes precedence over the opinions of colleagues.
Yes. That's what an opinion piece is, and the Federalist Papers were opinion pieces.
Opinion isn't law no matter whose opinion.
Nope. That's a good faith explanation of the difference between opinion pieces and law.
That reality is inconsistent with your pet theory isn't the fault of reality or the way in which I'm explaining it to you
This you?
Again with your counterfactual crusade against logic and reading comprehension 🙄
Holy strawman/false dichotomy combo, Batman!
Must be running out of less obvious ways to deny objective reality when you're resorting to fallacies THAT blatant! 😄
I never said or even implied anything of the sort.
The people being able to defend themselves against the most powerful military in the history of humanity ≠ allowing any untrained idiot with delusions of grandeur or paranoia about their neighbors trying to kill them to own and carry deadly tools of violence.
Again, I'm doing no such thing, and never have.
The vast majority of the fascists and their followers agree with your pet theory over my reality-based reading of plain and clear English.
It's not my fault that the ones most loudly pretending to be the holy protectors of liberty are in fact the most ardent supporters of the tyrannical kakistocracy that is the fascist Trump administration.
Once again, you're displaying an uncanny ability to come to the exact opposite conclusion to one based in reality.
"Dogmatically pushing their sick, twisted, authoritarian misinterpretation of the law" describes most of the "guns for everyone no matter what" crowd, which are almost always the same people who want to disenfranchise and abuse every persecuted minority group and allow cops to murder with impunity.
I've read most of it as an impartial judge and here's my verdict: you're both mixing some valid arguments with bullshit, you both lost focus long time ago and your stupid style of replying is impossible to follow.
The reality is simply that the US constitution is an outdated document that should not serve as the basis for laws in a modern country. It was great at creating an extremely stable system but unfortunately the system it created sucks. It completely failed at granting meaningful rights to it's citizens and prevent fascism. Arguing about how some slave rapists envisioned the state should handle semi automatic rifles has as much sense as arguing about maximum possible Warp speed or something. It's all fantasy because founding fathers had no idea what the country will look like 200 years later and didn't prepare the laws for it.
Can't say I agree with your first paragraph, but these parts of your second are 100% true and much more important than our whole preceding argument:
Begging the question, asssumes the conclusion that the other person is intent on promoting tyranny.
Strawman, misrepresents the other person's argument.
Red herring, attempts to change the subject under debate from interpretation of the 2A to if the other person is supporting fascists.
And the whole paragraph is a kind of ad hominem/appeal to emotion.
Hey, I'm not here to say if you're right or wrong about your interpretation of the 2A. I'm just here to tell you you're being a fallacious asshole.
Good luck convincing anyone of anything 😏
Congrats on ignoring three paragraph of substantive arguments to focus on the addendum that wasn't part of the argument at all.
The three paragraphs regarding the topic that I explicitly stated that I wasn't engaging with you about?
The focus on the addendum that you didn't have to include but did anyway?
You don't seem to understand that everything you say in an argument is part of the argument. You done fucked up by letting your emotions get the best of you, and if you think that doesn't impact your chances of successfully convincing another person about something, you're just fooling yourself. Humans are emotional creatures, and whether you're right is, at most, the same importance as maintaining the other person's willingness to accept that you're right. Yeah, that's fucked up, emotions should have nothing to do with whether something is correct or incorrect. If you're right, you're right... Right?
Case in point: you know I'm right, but you're pissed off at me and don't want to admit it (but maybe you will, now that I've called you out on it, just to spite me)
Well fuck, now I have to spite you by not admitting it!
Except that, like so many others, they changed their tune as soon as they were the ones in power. See: whiskey rebellion
(this ignores even the vaguest hints of nuance, of course)
Well if were speaking legally one of those is legally protected by an amendment to the constitution and one is a privilege added far after the writing of the document. Its not the fault of the firearm that no one called a constitution convention about cars.
woosh
Ran out of rebuttal already?
"Hmph! Had enough of my wit?" they smugly replied with crossed arms, staring directly into the lifeless, beady eyes of a strawman. But rather than straw, it was excrement. And rather than the shape of a man, it instead was a toddler. Baffled onlookers wrinkled their noses before finding another place to be.
Unbothered by the foul odor or soiling on their hands and trousers, their chuckles echoed off the walls of an empty room. "These kids never learn," they smirked.
rebut what? the fact that you completely misunderstood what I said?
I don't feel like debating someone who clearly doesn't understand me or the subject under discussion. it would bee exhausting and pointless, and I have better things to do.
So yes.
well, if you're just going to keep making things up that I didn't say, then you hardly need me to participate.
bye, troll. and blocked.
Take care stomping out of the room, try not to let the door hit ya.
You literally have no rebuttal, argument, or defense.
You are replying to someone without reading their comment in the slightest
That's precisely my argument. I don't think people need to be carrying them at all
'This shouldn't be allowed everywhere' and 'This should be allowed nowhere' are not the same arguement though, I don't see how my quote fits your argument at all tbh.
Why are guns only allowed places where they are not, yet they champion their rights every where else. They can't have it both ways. Either we are responsible people with the rights to carry guns places, or we shouldn't have them. I don't know why there is this grey zone, that is conveniently where they happen to be at all times, yet we are the ones constantly put in danger due to the lax gun laws and regulations
So your saying we should be able to carry guns either nowhere or everywhere?
Do you also believe we should be allowed to shout 'fire!' either everywhere or nowhere or do you think its okay that you can't do that in crowded places when there's no fire?
It is not a fringe opinion in the American gun space that all firearms should be allowed anywhere, all existing gun laws should be dismantled, and any politician who tries to legislate guns should be tried for treason, or just shot.
Don't know why you're getting downvoted, because that is exactly the mindset the gun lobby has.
[Edit] And are spending their lobbying money on to try and get approved into legislation, I should add.
Wow what a shit take