Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, those get old. I prefer:
Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.
Between Ronald Reagan and Karl Marx, where do you fall on the issue of gun control? 😆
A "well regulated militia" had a different meaning back then. Also, there's a comma in the middle of the amendment that means the first phrase is only a clarification. The second clause stands on its own.
Ah yes, because the founders wrote in modern American english that is wholly objective and unassailable in its original meaning. it is for this reason alone that no new laws have been passed or enforced since the penning of the Constitution.
Alright, we can discuss the first clause. Here is another comment I made in the thread on that topic: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/4356959
I just attended a lecture about this specific comma today. It was there as a rhetorical pause, not to separate clauses. A great example of how ambiguity in punctuation can cause thousands of deaths.
Yup. I'll go with the linguists on this one.
And what is this even supposed to mean in a way that would contradict the originalist viewpoint? The definition of "militia" in the period is already understood to mean all able-bodied men that are suitable for military conscription. And by extension, a "well-regulated" meant said militia having proper equipment and knowledge of how to use said equipment. Quoting this changes nothing.
Also a side note: you should look at some of the arguments above the one you quoted in this link. There were 2 based on the State of New York discriminating against people, particularly racial minorities and LGBTQ individuals, which have the most need for the ability to defend themselves
It meant "properly equipped," not "heavily restricted."
The people that spout the second part are only slightly more annoying than the people that spout the first part. Both sides are idiots who think they have a "gotcha!". Rhetorical geniuses.
The second amendment exists. The courts have upheld it to mean the right of individual ownership. There is zero wiggle room here. If anyone wants to debate how it is vs. how it should be, I welcome that conversation! But be warned, we'll be arguing opinions, not these two facts.
The next comment is where some kid, fresh out of Remedial PolySci, tells us all that amendments can be changed. Who knew? Of course they can't explain the method by which that happens or propose a path forward in the foreseeable future. (Hint: The point is entirely moot.)
Yeah the genie is already waaaay out of the bottle in the US. It would be logistically impossible to get rid of guns, nice as that would be. This is something both extremes refuse to accept, because they wouldn't have a cause or solution to rally around. No, Bubba, nobody's going to take your guns. No Stewart, we can't just ban guns and wash our hands of it. Other countries have indeed mostly eradicated firearms in normal society, but nowhere near on the scale that the US has.
Ok, I'm not saying you need to agree with the principle, but the grammar clearly states that the citizens get guns because the government has a military (which is the well-regulated militia).
Again, not starting a debate on if that's good or bad, just grammar.
No, the "well-regulated militia" actually referred to a desire to have all able-bodied men of military age to commonly have most of the skills needed to fight in a war in case of a draft, such as marksmanship and survival skills, as well as already owning most of the necessary equipment.
What's important to note is that the US had a very small standing military for most of its history. It relied on being able to conscript a large number of recruits whenever a war started, and sent them home whenever the war was over. This requires a lot of the citizenry to already know most of the skills they'd need to raise an army quickly.
Oh, so because the state had a military people were allowed to have guns? That's shockingly similar to what I said.