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
Not the person you replied to, but I'll give you a chance. I'm not American, but I do hunt and own guns.
Why are you against the government having a licensing program before giving access to firearms?
The American understanding of rights is that they are inherent and bestowed upon all of not by the government but by right at birth.
We have the right to criticize our government not because they let us but because that's a right all humans have. Even if the government decided tomorrow that the First Amendment doesn't apply anymore we would still have that right, because the First Amendment didn't grant us a right it simply acknowledged the existing right.
If your ability to practice a right is contingent on government approval your rights are being impeded.
People just don't understand or appreciate natural rights anymore and it saddens me.
Civics should be taught for much longer than it is in K-12.
It's in the top 3 issues I have with the current wave of leftist populism for sure.
Are you equating owning a gun with criticizing the government? Because I'm not seeing the connection.
The connection is both are natural rights recognized in the Bill of Rights that should be held with equal reverence. They are the second and first amendments respectively.
How is owning a gun a 'natural right' when guns didn't even exist for the vast, vast majority of human existence? That doesn't make sense either.
The natural right to own arms is nested in the natural right to defend oneself with the best means available. A few thousand years ago that might have only extended to sticks and stones, a few thousand in the future that might extend to laser rifles and plasma pistols.
Who gets to decide what the best means available is? What if I decide the best means to defend myself is a glass vial of ricin and a gas mask? Okay to use it if I feel threatened?
Owning a gun is the logical step from the natural right to defend your life. If you are under threat of death by another individual, why in the fuck would you ever willingly put yourself at a disadvantage. Does your moral grounds of guns = bad really overvalue the rest of your natural life?
Someone invades your home, you grab a knife, congratulations knives are far more dangerous than a gun for every participant of the struggle and you have now made it statistically more likely to accidentally kill yourself. You use your hands, disadvantaged against someone with a weapon, death.
The point is literally that you have a personal freedom from birth to keep yourself alive and in a world that has afforded us better and better tools to ensure that, use them.
https://www.safewise.com/resources/guns-at-home/
Doesn't sound like an advantage to me.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Someone might choose to own a firearm because they feel like they're at an elevated risk for victimization (ex. they've been threatened by a crazy ex) or someone who has suicidal ideation might go out an purchase a firearm for the purpose of commiting suicide. The acquisition of the firearm didn't cause either preexisting condition.
Please explain why exactly we shouldn't be doing everything we can to prevent suicide. This should be interesting.
My personal opinion on the matter is that we should target the motivation not the means. People are miserable, isolated, and feel less upwards mobility. We wouldn't try and solve the issue of people jumping off buildings with suicide nets.
Funny, people like you always say that, and yet when it's suggested that we massively fund mental health care, people like you always balk at that.
People like me? You literally don't even know me. And funding health care alone isn't going to fix the problem we also need economic reform to address the rising wealth disparity in the country.
Please do not try and lump everyone you encounter into boxes as a means of discrediting them. If you have an issue with anything I've said that's perfectly fine, but do not blame me for the actions of others.
I have yet to meet someone who believes gun ownership should be totally unrestricted and unregulated who doesn't also think we shouldn't have universal healthcare, but you could be the first.
Having a certain opinion on one topic doesn't proclude you from having a certain opinion on another topic. You have no duty to adhere to the party lines of political parties you didn't form.
Interesting way of avoiding what I suggested.
Or... and stop me if this is too complicated... we could make it so that it isn't as easy to buy a gun as it is to buy a plate of pancakes.
Blocked for bigotry.
That doesn't completely ring true. The Second was written to ensure the well-regulated militia (which has slowly morphed into a standing military) that would be needed to protect the free society.
The militia that was comprised of and armed by the people. That well regulated part meaning fully functional by being trained in tactics and doctrine to work with other militias and divisions. The Militia Act further confirmed the individual right to arms, outlining that the members were required to report with their own guns, ammo, and rations. While we may have a standing army now, and the reserves and Guard units, that doesn't change the fact that the Second was and is an individual right to military arms for personal and State protection. If anyone believes that we no longer need this, then find enough people that agree to amend the constitution. Until then, we don't get to pick and choose which rights get defended.
An individual right that you yourself seem to agree requires proper training in tactics and doctrine.
There's a huge gap between a well-trained, disciplined gun owner and these "guns as my personality" chucklefucks that have absolutely no discipline in their behavior.
Licensure is one tool to separate the wheat from the chaff, and it doesn't violate the above percepts as long as it doesn't impose a substantial financial burden.
You have my perspective slightly backwards. The trained militia is contingent on having an armed populace to draw from, not the other way around. It is not the right to be trained and then armed as a soldier, but the general right to bear arms. I do think that gun safety, training and handling should still be taught in school like it used to because there are more guns than people in this country, but don't believe that any of your natural rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights have any requirements to meet to practice. The "guns as a personality" chuckle fuck has the same right to bear arms that you or anyone else does, until or unless such time as he loses that right through criminal conviction. I also don't support losing voting rights, gun rights, or any rights for non-violent offenses, especially non-violent drug offenses which shouldn't be criminalized anyway. Innocent until proven guilty, without a need to establish a baseline of innocence first through taking a test or being investigated by the police.
Requiring licensure is an infringement that no other constitutional right requires. There is a huge gap between an educated journalist and a wacked out conspiracy theorist making vaccine conspiracy their entire personality too, but even though they indirectly or directly caused or contributed to an unknown percentage of millions of deaths, it is unconstitutional to require them to go take classes and get a license to speak on TV or on the internet or in public. If you have to ask permission from a governing body to exercise it, it's not a right it's a privilege. Freedoms come with risk, the founders knew this and thought it was worth it, which is why it was enshrined in our founding documents.
The licensing program is a defacto registration requirement. Registration = confiscation
Yeah, just like how they confiscate everyone's cars.
What are you talking about?
The post I'm replying to has "assault weapons" in the title. Guns, I'm talking about guns and gun laws. You're being obtuse and you know it.
If you need an example of registration leading to confiscation look at Australia and New Zealand. Regardless of how you feel about gun laws, or their effects in those two countries, it's a fact that confiscation would not have been as effective without a national register of gun owners.
Australia and New Zealand? You mean places that don't have mass shootings every day but do have national healthcare? I think I will look at them. They sound like good models.
If you had actually read my reply you'd see that I was not commenting on whether Australia or New Zealand had better or worse gun laws or healthcare. It's pretty clear that I actually went out of my way to stay away from commenting about whether I thought their laws were good or effective compared to the US. All I said was that registration made eventual confiscation more effective for them. A fact you have not disputed, so I'm glad we agree.
Believe it or not, I'm able to read between the lines.