660
Biden says it’s ‘time to outlaw’ AR-15 after Trump assassination attempt
(www.independent.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
660 points (94.4% liked)
politics
19135 readers
2188 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Nope. Judging by how they used militias at the time, they meant it for defending the federal government against both invasions and rebellions. The "defense against tyranny" reason is just an invention of people trying to justify their guns.
Nope. There WAS no federal army at the time. They used militias IN STEAD OF a standing army, not as a check on an existing one. Which of course invalidates the entire amendment now that the country has the biggest and most advanced military in the history of humanity.
All of that being said, I consider assassination of a tyrant you can't rid the people of in any other way the only form of murder that's acceptable as it serves the common good.
Putin is one such tyrant, Orban probably is, and Donald Trump DEFINITELY is. The world would have been a much better place if Crooks had been a better shot.
I mean, that's the exact opposite of what the federalist papers said. We don't have to speculate what the founders intended, they wrote it down. But don't take my word for it. Let's ask Alexander Hamilton from federalist 29
The Federalist Papers were a bunch of editorials, not laws. The amendment itself clearly says that it's for the security of the nation and doesn't mention tyranny at all.
Alexander Hamilton's opinion on standing armies is not the second amendment.
It's a bunch of editorials, written by the same people who wrote the constitution, explaining their thought process and exactly what they intended when writing the constitution.
I do admire your gumption, pretending to know the rationale behind the 2nd amendment better than Alexander fucking Hamilton.
Fun fact: sometimes the founding fathers didn't agree on everything.
The section of his editorial you quote doesn't say that it's the rationale behind the second amendment. It doesn't mention it OR tyranny.
The amendment, which specifically spells out the reason before the conclusion does NOT reference standing armies or tyranny.
You're just assuming connections that aren't there and then accusing ME of pretending to be a mind reader 🤦
The entirety of federalist 29 is about the second amendment. I think it's safe to assume the paragraph I quoted from federalist 29 also is.
Calling militias "the best possible defense" against a standing federal army seems pretty cut and dry. No mind reading necessary, just regular reading.
Suuure it is 🙄
Except that's not what the amendment itself says. That's Alexander Hamilton's opinion, NOT the rationale that was agreed on when drafting the text
And a bit of imagination to make the unconnected pieces fit together to mean what you want them to mean.
You're acting no better than the libertarian nutjobs who insist that taxation is theft and also unconstitutional.
If my choices are the opinion of one of the guys who wrote the amendment vs the opinion of some teenager on Lemmy, I'm gonna have to go with the former
the opinion of one of the guys who wrote the amendment ≠ the amendment OR the reason for the amendment, which explicitly mentions the ACTUAL reason.
That shouldn't be so difficult a concept to grasp.
Ok champ