this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
595 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19135 readers
2364 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Hawaii Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion on Wednesday declaring that its state constitution grants individuals absolutely no right to keep and bear arms outside the context of military service. Its decision rejected the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, refusing to interpolate SCOTUS’ shoddy historical analysis into Hawaii law. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discussed the ruling on this week’s Slate Plus segment of Amicus; their conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (13 children)

The modern use of "regulated" isn't the same as it was then.

Regulation had to do with training and equipment. The idea was that militias, as opposed to a standing ("Regular") army, weren't always trained and armed when they were called to arms. The idea of a "well-regulated militia" was for civilians to already have weapons and understand their use if they were needed.

So a requirement for a well-regulated militia is for civilians to have the right to own and use weapons.

Is it antiquated? Maybe. But saying that "well-regulated" militia was meant to limit access to firearms is an argument based on either ignorance or dishonesty.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (8 children)

Well not quite. Well regulated did also include training and they did not consider the average person to be well trained enough to qualify for the phrase.

[–] xenspidey@lemmy.zip 1 points 9 months ago (5 children)

False, George Mason quote "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason wrote a draft of what became the second amendment

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Well yeah, a militia is a bunch of armed people with a goal.

A well regulated one knows how to use those weapons effectively, and as a group. In my opinion the law as it stands falls short of the mandate: The US should provide public weapons training and make sure its citizens know what the hell they're doing. That might actually save a few lives that are currently lost to accidents.

[–] dankm@lemmy.ca 3 points 9 months ago

The USA should just do what many other countries do: universal compulsary military service for a time during early adulthood. That'd meet the mandate.

[–] GhostedIC@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We have the man who wrote those words expanding upon them to say what he meant, and you're still saying "actually he meant something else."

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I'm saying the words that made it into the bill of rights he championed explicitly say more than that, probably because it was written by James Madison and then cut down by Congress.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)