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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
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.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
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
We no longer need a well regulated militia, we have a permanent standing army capable of answering any threat, anywhere in the world within 24 hours.
Might be time for an update on the ole constitution, the problems of 1780 aren't really the problems we have today.
Maybe if we still had a more militia like system we wouldn't be engaged in an eternal state of war in countries across the globe. The Founding Father's critiques of standing armies were made because they didn't want to become what they overthrew.
Sure, and we can debate the merits of that all day. Fact is that right now the US' primary export is force, our primary industry is war, and far behind that is literally anything else.
I would love if we cut the size of the military to admit a tenth of it's current size, and spent all of that money on social programs.
As it happens, that would probably cripple the American economy for decades.
But if you can figure out how to uncouple the US from it's military industrial complex, going to a Swiss militia style home defense network wouldn't be a bad idea. Give everyone a rifle, require they train with it so many hours a year, call it good.
The Constitution is not a sacrosanct document, we’ve major changes before, including repealing amendments. We shouldn’t be afraid of changing it if it’s doing more harm than good. The President and Vice President are elected differently now, the 3/5ths compromise was repealed by the 14th Amendment, and 18th Amendment, enacting Prohibition, was struck down by the 21st.
It's my belief that the reason nobody has seriously tried to change the Constitution to remove or modify the 2nd amendment is that they know it's currently impossible. Changing the Constitution requires a serious amount of working together and agreement between the state and federal governments, and that just doesn't exist right now.
That's why some states are trying to pass unconstitutional laws, it's easier to do that and get away with it at least for a little bit than it is to change the construction.
The second amendment also doesn't create a well regulated militia.
What use is a militia of morbidly obese men who can't even demonstrate basic firearm safety, whose entire contribution is "have gun"?
I don't know why we're suppose to politely play along with the hero fantasies of people who wouldn't even wear masks in a pandemic but insist they'd lay down their lives to liberate people from the fascists that they enthusiastically voted for.
The well regulated militia that's referenced in the amendment is the army. That's what the amendment is meant to protect us from.
You think the second amendment is to protect us from what it calls "necessary to the security of a free State"?
You might want to go read it again.
Yes, you need a military to defend your country from other countries. And yes, it's to protect us from an oppressive government. Remember the revolutionary war lil buddy?
Oh, so your interpretation is just mind-bendingly stupid. Got it.
Aw someone realized they are wrong
If a government does any oppressing, it's almost always done with its military, not in spite of it.
No shit. That's what the second amendment is for
Wait, so you're arguing that the second amendment is designed for arming an oppressive military?
No, the second amendment is designed to enable citizens to protect themselves in the event of an oppressive military.
Okay, I'm really struggling to make any sense of what you're saying here. If you're suggesting that it should be read as "while a militia is necessary to a free state, the people should be armed against it", that just doesn't track at all.
First, the militia was the people. When the second amendment was first written in 1789, the Continental Amy had been disbanded for six years, and it would be another three before Congress created a standing army.
Second, it just doesn't pass regular reading muster. The first half is building up in support of the second, not against it. There's no language to suggest that the right of the people to bear arms should be in opposition to the militia (which, remember, was the people).
It doesn't matter if you're struggling with it or not as the supreme court has already ruled on it.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-4/ALDE_00013264/.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
This is the correct interpretation. The purpose of the supreme Court was exactly for clarification of that nature regarding constitutional matters.
If people have a problem with that then a constitutional amendment is needed. But that would require hard work and bipartisan communication and agreement.
Article I Section 8 part 12 discusses the army. Parts 15 and 16 discuss the militia. They are two separate and distinct entities.
Constitutionally, "militia" refers to the obligations of every American person to provide the security of the state, individual and collectively.