Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Again, if you want to say "the Second Amendment is outdated and is no longer necessary" (or was never necessary in the first place — not a bad argument, given the generally abysmal performance of militias in the field) you can do that. But you cannot in good faith argue that the Second Amendment never referred to private ownership of guns or only referred to members of well-regulated militias, because those claims are simply counterfactual. It's not a matter of opinion or interpretation — that's what the people who wrote it meant at the time. (How this applies to any given policy proposal, on the other hand, is absolutely up for interpretation, but that's a different question.)
edited 27th Mar '18 9:16:18 AM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.![]()
Is it? As US vs Miller shows, the way the judges interpreted it was that it referred to the collective right of states to own weapons and arm militias, rather than an individual's right to own guns.
Also, the 2nd Amendment clearly has the two clauses of "well regulated militia" and "right to keep and bear arms" linked together in the same sentence, so they are most definitely related. You can't just claim to know what the writers meant at the time.
edited 27th Mar '18 9:27:56 AM by danime91
The reality is, not many people actually need guns in their lives, barring people who have to deal with dangerous wild animals on a regular basis.
The problem is that guns have become a symbol of freedom and power in the USA. Something which I feel contributes to a lot of people being ignorant about how dangerous guns really are.
Disgusted, but not surprisedAt the time the Constitution was written a state by state militia would have been responsible for all the defense needs of the country. The founding fathers considered standing armies tyrannical. Hence the “nessecary for the security of a free state” part. Whether that applies to personal ownership is debatable because of that aspect.
They should have sent a poet.Not getting into the gun control debate, due to my support of #Repeal The Second Amendment.
But in more worrying news, the rocket man had a successful launch. Full article text
That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw![]()
I’d argue it could be traced back to just around before WW 1
The problem was that while our militias and assorted conscripts did decently for the most part in early US history the advent of industrialized warfare made a more extensive support structure nessecary and required more full-time soldiers to keep everything running.
MSN: How the Parkland teens became villains on the right-wing Internet
D’Souza wrote another tweet, “Adults, 1, kids 0.” Combined, the two tweets have more than 25,000 likes and 8,000 retweets.
Now, five weeks after the Parkland school shooting, D’Souza’s tweets seem almost quaint. As Emma González, David Hogg and the other Parkland teens fighting for gun control have become viral liberal heroes, the teens are villains on the right-wing Internet and fair game for the mockery and attacks that this group usually reserves for its adult enemies.
Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post
That infamy reached a wider audience this past weekend around the time of their March for Our Lives protest, when a doctored image that showed González ripping up a copy of the U.S. Constitution (she actually ripped up a gun target) went mildly viral on the Trump-supporting parts of the Internet, defended as “satire” by those who shared it.
Here’s a look back at how the Parkland student activists became such a target:
Day 1: Conspiracy theorists
The first to target the Parkland students were the conspiracy theorists. When a mass shooting like Parkland happens, conspiracy theorists begin to search for signs of a false flag — proof that the shooting was actually staged and/or carried out for political reasons — pretty much right away. They’re following what online trolling expert Whitney Phillips calls a “tragedy script”: The establishment is trying to take away your guns, they’ll use mass shootings to do that, and here are the tricks they use to manipulate the public. Anything irregular becomes conspiracy fodder.
An anonymous 8chan user told the fringe chat board to look for “crisis actors” just 47 minutes after the shooting happened. And if closed chat rooms and fringey boards such as 8chan, 4chan and some subreddits on Reddit are where conspiracy theorists coordinate, then Twitter is where those conspiracy theories — and the harassment that comes with them — are performed for the public. Within hours, anonymous Twitter users were in the mentions of students tweeting from their classrooms during the shooting, accusing them of being part of the conspiracy:
One Twitter thread, made just after midnight on the night of the attack, claimed to contain “Bombshell” information about Parkland. @Magapill (an account once approvingly retweeted by President Trump) shared a video interview with a student that has become the basis of a debunked Parkland conspiracy theory. The thread was retweeted more than 3,000 times.
All this happened before the Parkland students calling for gun control began their ascent to viral iconography. When they emerged, the campaign to discredit and debunk the Parkland students expanded.
Week 2: #MAGA Internet
“EXPOSED: School Shooting Survivor Turned Activist David Hogg’s Father in FBI, Appears To Have Been Coached On Anti-Trump Lines,” read a headline on Gateway Pundit. The article was one of a handful on far-right publications to emerge after the first weekend following the shooting.
Hogg, along with González, had found their voices. In one CNN interview, the pair called for the National Rifle Association to “disband.” That interview was on the Monday after the attack. By Tuesday, an aide to Florida state Rep. Shawn Harrison (R-Tampa) was fired for telling a reporter that Hogg and González were “not students … but actors.” As evidence, the aide sent the reporter one of several You Tube videos promoting that conspiracy theory.
Even a former U.S. congressman, Jack Kingston, joined in on Twitter: “O really? ‘Students’ are planning a nationwide rally? Not left-wing gun control activists using 17yr kids in the wake of a horrible tragedy? #Soros #Resistance #Antifa #DNC”
The conspiracy spread quickly, and the algorithms noticed. Soon, a video claiming that Hogg was an actor was the No. 1 trending video on You Tube.
Week 3: Fights with social media companies
In early March, the conspiracy Internet — and some of its Trump supporters — turned the conspiracy theories surrounding the Parkland students into a crusade against what they saw as censorship on major Silicon Valley platforms.
After a conspiracy video trended on You Tube, the platform cracked down on videos and creators who were promoting the false belief that the Parkland students were hired actors or reading from scripts to promote gun control. Enter Alex Jones.
Jones’s main You Tube channel has more than 2 million subscribers, and he made several videos about Hogg, such as “David Hogg Can’t Remember His Lines In TV Interview,” in the weeks after the shooting.
After CNN reported that the channel was 2 strikes away from a You Tube ban for violating the platform’s community guidelines, Jones started talking about censorship. He claimed his channel was about to be deleted (it wasn’t); he fundraised to support a fight against his enemies. This blitz became a week-long news cycle that captured the attention of Infowars’ supporters and opponents alike.
March for Our Lives: The memes go mainstream
On the eve of the March for Our Lives, the NRA delivered a message to the Parkland students who organized it: “No one would know your names” if a gunman hadn’t killed 17 people at their school, said a host on NRATV.
The Parkland teens, as they took on such a polarizing issue, were always going to have opponents — including from more conservative Parkland students who also survived the massacre. But the deeply personal, conspiracy-minded attacks targeting Hogg, González and their fellow classmate activists have gone from the conspiracy fringes to a larger audience.
And after the viral image of González ripping up the Constitution, Rep. Steve King’s campaign Facebook page (R-Iowa) shared a mocking meme about her. The post refers to a patch of the Cuban flag on her jacket worn during the march:
“This is how you look when you claim Cuban heritage yet don’t speak Spanish and ignore the fact that your ancestors fled the island when the dictatorship turned Cuba into a prison camp, after removing all weapons from its citizens; hence their right to self defense.”
![]()
![]()
Speaking of that, this
actually goes into detail about a specific botnet saying that the shooter was a DACA recipient, and is worth a read.
edited 27th Mar '18 10:05:43 AM by megaeliz
You know, I think it's one thing to be skeptical about the students being involved or taking the initiative with nation wide rallies. Unnecessarily dismissive, but still kind of understandable. But then there's the implication that being 17 means you can't have any of your own thoughts on a traumatic even that actually happened to you and have to be used to prop up some other agenda. Even in crazy loony world I'm hard-pressed to see how that works.
Well, that is unless the students are joining your side and are anti-gun control, as has happened a few times I've heard. Then they're totally thinking on their own.
edited 27th Mar '18 10:08:16 AM by LSBK
It was also a shitshow of a legal case where the district judge ruled in Miller's favor with basically no actual legal justification, specifically so that it would be kicked to the Supreme Court, where Miller would be unable to mount a defense because he was busy running for his life from the gang of bank robbers he was part of and had already testified against. (This is indeed what happened, and Miller was murdered before the SCOTUS case— in which no defense was mounted — was ruled on.) So probably not the best case to use as an example of good jurisprudence.
In any case, even if it did reach the conclusion you say, it would have since been overturned by DC vs Heller
, McDonald vs Chicago
, and Caetano vs Massachusetts
. This is what I was referring to when I said that the issue had been litigated multiple times.
On the militia thing, I could see an argument being made that the right to own a firearm so that one can join a militia is the only right noted.
So the right is only for that purpose, as such you could legislate that such guns must be kept under lock and key unless needed for militia use.
As the spirit was that everyone would have guns so that when a militia was called them had said guns at hand, for that there’s no requirement for them to take their gun out in public.
The right to own a gun doesn’t inherently mean the right to take your gun anywhere or use it for anything other than militia duties.
edited 27th Mar '18 10:16:04 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
![]()
You say that US vs Miller is a bad example of jurisprudence, but then cite McDonald vs Chicago, which was a suit brought forth by the NRA and an old dude who wanted a handgun and didn't want to register it, and Caetano vs Massachusetts, which was an utterly ridiculous case, and besides didn't even pertain to whether or not individual ownership is covered by the 2nd Amendment, only what constituted "arms" and that the 2nd Amendment extended to the States as well, which was actually a blow against regulation.
DC vs Heller I can't really say anything about, other than that it had a ridiculous basis for allowing ownership of handguns ("Common use", meaning that since everyone was already doing it, it should be protected. What?) and that Scalia was one of the worst Justices to progress.
edited 27th Mar '18 10:30:30 AM by danime91
https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/2018/03/27/day-432/
1/ The 2020 census will ask respondents if they are United States citizens, despite concerns from Census Bureau. Inclusion of a citizenship question could prompt immigrants who are in the country illegally not to respond, resulting in an undercount of the population, which would effect government agencies and groups that rely on the census data. The effects could also effect redistricting of the House and state legislatures over the next decade. It's been 70 years since the government has included a question about citizenship on the census. (New York Times)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/us/politics/census-citizenship-question-trump.html
2/ California sued the Trump administration, arguing that the question about citizenship in the 2020 Census violates the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution requires a census every 10 years to count the "number of free persons" in each state. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra alleges the change violates the constitutional requirement of "actual Enumeration" of every person in every state, every 10 years, and that "California simply has too much to lose for us to allow the Trump Administration to botch this important decennial obligation." (Washington Post)
3/ The White House is investigating whether two loans – totaling more than $500 million – to Jared Kushner's family business violated federal ethics regulations. A letter from the Office of Government Ethics, made public Monday, revealed that White House attorneys are looking into whether a $184 million loan from Apollo Global and a $325 million loan from Citigroup Inc. violated rules and laws governing the conduct of federal employees. (Wall Street Journal)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-probes-loans-to-kushners-business-1522101516
4/ Trump has been telling some of his advisers that he hopes Rob Porter will return to the West Wing. Porter stepped down after allegations surfaced that he abused both of his ex-wives, but Trump has stayed in touch with Porter since his departure. (New York Times)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/us/politics/trump-rob-porter.html
5/ Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens called for a repeal of the Second Amendment, saying the right to bear arms is outdated and misunderstood. (The Hill / New York Times)
poll/ 21% of Americans support a repeal of the Second Amendment. 46% favor modifying the Second Amendment to allow for stricter regulations. (Washington Post)
poll/ 47% of Americans say they approve of how Trump is handling the economy. 46% approve of Trump's tax policy. (Associated Press)
https://apnews.com/4bc3a50f60b44e0f98791ee3f3b4e1ae
poll/ 63% of Americans believe the women who have alleged affairs with Trump over the president's denials. 21% say they believe Trump. 16% say they have no opinion. (Politico)
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/26/trump-women-stormy-daniels-487097
Notables.
Paul Ryan denies that he will resign later this year. Nevada Republican Mark Amodei said there is a rumor going around that Ryan will resign in the next 30 to 60 days. "The speaker is not resigning," a spokesperson for Ryan said. (CNN / The Hill / Washington Post)
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/26/politics/paul-ryan-steve-scalise-mark-amodei/index.html
Trump is reportedly planning to fire Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin admit several investigations into Shulkin's alleged spending abuses. An unnamed White House official said the chance of Shulkin being pushed out in the next few days is about "50-50." (Associated Press)
https://apnews.com/1e805ce49e5b46c6b34f7e66d05d4055
Two more attorneys have declined offers to join Trump's legal team. Trump reached out to Tom Buchanan and Dan Webb and asked them to represent him. Both refused the offer. Buchanan and Webb said in a statement that they were "unable to take on the representation due to business conflicts." (The Daily Beast)
The NRA confirmed that it accepts foreign donations but denied that it uses the money for election purposes. The Federal Election Commission is investigating whether a top Russian banker with Kremlin ties illegally funneled money to the NRA to aid Trump's campaign for president. (NPR)
Mark Zuckerberg will testify before Congress. Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has invited Zuckerberg, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to a hearing on data privacy on April 10. (CNN)
http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/27/technology/mark-zuckerberg-testify-congress-facebook/index.html
The author of the Trump dossier provided a report to the FBI asserting that Putin's former media czar was beaten to death by hired thugs in Washington, DC. The assertion contradicts the US government's official finding that RT founder Mikhail Lesin died by accident. (Buzz Feed News)
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jasonleopold/christopher-steele-mikhail-lesin-murder-putin-fbi
![]()
I never got that logic. "Yeah, we received money from shady sources, but don't worry, we didn't use it for the election." Well then, what did you use it for? Because if it's doing anything other than sitting in a corner collecting dust, you used it for something, meaning the money you would have originally used for it could then be spent for elections. There's no difference.
I suppose you'd just add another amendment that applies adjustments to a previous amendment.
edited 27th Mar '18 10:44:34 AM by danime91

Property rights and human rights are extremely different things: that they are lumped together in the Bill of Rights is one of the odder aspects of our Constitution.
Heck, you could make a case for allowing some forms of personal firearm ownership under the Fourth Amendment, simply on the basis that the government can't take away your stuff without due process — due process in this case meaning that the burden of proof is on the government as to why you shouldn't get to have something you want. There are also intimations of this concept in the 3rd: the government can't just decide to use or seize your property whenever it feels like.
I'm not going to play the slippery slope argument, since it's almost always a fallacy. I'll just say that at no point were we ever even remotely close to attempting a repeal of the 4th or 5th; the problem was that the courts were getting pretty lax about enforcing them (notably unlike the 2nd).
edited 27th Mar '18 9:06:07 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"