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
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?
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.