first:
"Trump alleges 'stunning' Chinese election interference, deep state coverup"
FALSE
is of course incorrect, because Trump did in fact say that. So that statement is correct.
“China interfered with elections” is a different statement. Yes, it matters.
And your assessment follows simply from whom you chose to believe. There is no objective truth here, there are just two statements, one short by POTUS, one long, but without more substance, from NIC, which is not a bias free body.
You are highlighting _exactly_ the problem being solved. People often read these articles not knowing WHO to believe, because there's often no hard evidence behind the article. This platform attempts to solve that problem by doing the digging and analyzing the actual sources.
So long freedom, it’s been nice living in STASI free society for a while. Too bad power attracts the people who will make sure they keep it in their hands.
Honestly where do you even go if you want to get out from under this? The US was the option, but is clearly circling the drain. The EU is democracy theater at best, a democratic mandate that can be set aside any time it's inconvenient for Ashton Kutcher, and speedrunning the rebuilding of a new Soviet Union. Feels like a matter of time until they start building a new wall to keep you from leaving.
In all these places I imagine the people making these decisions are members of the populace. They need to be gently reminded that they are not more equal than others and people do not like their decision-making habits. The way anyone else engaging in anti-social behavior would be reprimanded.
Are you going to take your phone and laptop with you? If so, then it doesn't really matter where you're going. You'll be populating multiple surveillance systems regardless of where you choose to live.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It’s about the right.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, _because_ a well regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free State.
The point is to prevent the state from monopolizing violence, simple as.
> The point is to prevent the state from monopolizing violence, simple as.
Absolutely not. The state and the federal government definitely keep the monopoly of violence: you can't kill someone you believe raped your wife, the government can (under due process but still).
Refusing the government to have the monopoly of violence would mean that other groups independent from the state can exert violence on their fellow American citizens. That's was obviously not the intent here…
A single man is no threat to the state, so your example is wrong.
A militia could be.
To be able to form militia to resist the government, individuals have absolute right to be armed.
The mechanics is really pretty simple.
And yes, I believe that extends to all arms, as is written, otherwise the intent - to be able to form militia which can overpower the government - can not be fulfilled.
That is the constitution.
I am not saying I agree with it, but at the same time, without absolute right to bear arms, the government _will_ demilitarize the people.
> Refusing the government to have the monopoly of violence would mean that other groups independent from the state can exert violence on their fellow American citizens. That's was obviously not the intent here…
A well regulated militia would determine what types of guns, what ammo, what uniforms, what qualifies a member, etc.
Besides the freedom of the State means that its not subordinate to another State. Not that random people get to shoot at the duly elected State government.
regulation, as a constraint vs extremes of behaviour, keeping something within acceptable boundries.
duly elected or not, a government that persues an undue course of action is in need of regulation. the proximal context, a militia occupying cities to enforce the taking of taxes, liberties, and autonomy is a militia requiring regulation.
that regulation manifests as a resistance to application of force that is bane rather than boon to the social order.
that requires the bearing of arms that place the regulating faction [plebe] on equal terms with the offending militia.
Which part of “shall not be infringed” is hard to parse, exactly?
The question is not if you agree with it or not, the question is, if the constitution matters at all.
If your position is that constitution should be overridden by contemporary narratives as government sees fit, I guess that is a valid position, but then accept that your position is one which advocates for government totalitarianism without constitutional constraints.
Which part of "a well regulated militia" is hard to parse exactly?
The right to bear arms is the subordinate clause to the purpose of a well regulated militia.
Since the purpose of that militia is clearly defined as "being necessary for the security of the State", it seems to me that the regulating body is the State.
Seems to me that the right to bear arms is limited to circumstances when the State itself is under threat. It seems to me that anyone having a gun in their home when the state is not under attack is an open question not covered directly by "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed".
But that's because I'm looking at all the words of the actual amendment. I guess your position is that "only randomly selected phrases from the constitution matter if they help me get what I want, whole sentences and the whole document don't actually matter".
I remember the word "regulated" back in the day does not mean "regulated" like the FDA regulates foods, it means "regulated" like we still use it for regulating a mechanical watch. "To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning."
And you regulate a militia by making sure all the bits work together, for instance by standardizing weapons and ammo.
This is also a great argument for licensing - proving that you know how to properly work and use a gun seems like perfect militia regulation (in the proper functioning sense).
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, _because_ a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.
What an absurd thing to say. You just made my point - a well regulated militia vital to the amendment. So why in your vast wisdom are you opposed to regulations associated with a regulated militia?
Well, the amendment is definitely ambiguous hence all these discussions. And everyone interprets it to their liking.
Do I think the government needs internal counterforce? Absolutely and there are plenty of countries today to see why.
Do I think it’s great that every nutjob has a gun? Well no, I don’t.
I am not saying that the amendment is great, but I don’t believe the absolute right to bear arms was intended. That said, it could very well be that the authors did not see it coming that _anyone_ could have a gun, because that was most probably not the case back then. And perhaps here today’s liberal thinking hits the historic context.
Last but not least, one interpretation of “regulated” is this. I am not saying it is what was intended, but lots of people argue that:
"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight."
Also, the absolute right is the _precursor_ anyway, it is given such that militia can be formed, and the way the militia is organized is not a condition to the right. But admittedly, it is not clear to contemporary reader what they meant.
>That said, it could very well be that the authors did not see it coming that _anyone_ could have a gun, because that was most probably not the case back then.<
similar to the 3d printing issue, "back then" the production of a PMF was an achievable goal for anyone apriased of the technology, the use of modern smokeless powder steps up the tech requirements vs, manufacturing a blackpowder musket with twisted band iron approach.
the requirement of the right not being infringed, has the function of enabling the people to regulate the activities of a militia acting outside of its authority, as the final check.
A simple Google search would pull up explanations of how the amendment is literally phrased to grant an unconditional right. It’s not even controversial - the grammar is unambiguous.
A simple google search also pulls up explanations of the opposite. And plenty talking about how the grammar is extremely ambiguous.
I actually like this ruling. I just think the absurd level of zealotry and bad/stupid/illogical reasoning that comes from the ignorance worshiping 2A crowd is fucking embarrassing as a human.
Female-only spaces have practical reasons behind them, such as safety, freedom from harassment, privacy and specific biological needs. In these real world scenarios, there is no parallel to racial discrimination.
I mean just look at this court case. A man tried to access a female-only social app, was ejected, and is now using Australia's court system to harass the woman who said no. This pattern of harassing behaviour from a subset of males illustrates one significant reason why female-only spaces are needed, to help provide respite from this.
A single screen with no distractions really helps me focus. That said, dark terminal bg (which i like) kinda sucks for astigmatism (but that’s not unique to TUIs).
In late 90s we would have laughed if somebody proposed this was going to be a thing, let alone that linux community will just go with it. Heck, I would not have believed systemd was going to happen.
first: "Trump alleges 'stunning' Chinese election interference, deep state coverup" FALSE
is of course incorrect, because Trump did in fact say that. So that statement is correct.
“China interfered with elections” is a different statement. Yes, it matters.
And your assessment follows simply from whom you chose to believe. There is no objective truth here, there are just two statements, one short by POTUS, one long, but without more substance, from NIC, which is not a bias free body.
Choose whom you believe and “truth” follows.
Useless.