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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When DoorDash or whatever courier comes to a restaurant, they pick up “order number”. That order number is in essence just private IP. Courier translates it to address=public ip.
It follows that the restaurant writes the address on every delivery. Do they ID each recipient?
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.