News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I’m still waiting on the militia to be “well regulated” like the law says.
Every time someone suggests a shred of safety regulations, the 2A people all scream bloody murder.
I'm still waiting on the "militia" at all. This guy wasn't a member of shit.
They try to have it both ways, they say that the phrase "well regulated" should be interpreted using a 1700s interpretation, so they say that "well regulated" actually doesn't refer to regulations, it refers to the militia being "in good working order". Nevermind that if your "militia" is shooting up schools, it's probably not "in good working order".
Then, they want the term "arms" to be interpreted using a modern interpretation, and they want the term "arms" to apply to weapons that can be used to kill or maim entire crowds of people, instead of the single-shot in-accurate muskets that were available at the time.
I, like most Americans, support gun rights with sensible regulations such as background checks and training requirements. It's also clear to me that this sentence written in the 1700s (the 2a) is being used as a thought-terminating cliche where they think they can just shout "2nd amendment" as if that's a mic drop and just walk away instead of actually justifying their viewpoint. It doesn't even come close to covering the complex modern realities.
If these 2nd amendment absolutists really want to take their inconsistent interpretation to it's logical conclusion, they're saying that Elon Musk should be able to build ICBMs tipped with nuclear warheads and the government can't infringe on that right.
Clearly he has the means to do so, and if the 2nd amendment means what they say it means then the constitution protects his right to do so.
No screaming here, just curious which rights a random person on the internet thinks we deserve vs have to earn. The stakes here couldn’t be lower.