[above image] : Abortion rights advocates protested the Supreme Court’s attack on women’s rights when it ended Roe. The Court is expected to intensify its attacks on democracy in the new term. Gemunu Amarasinghe/AP

    • worldwidewave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…

      Literally. It’s necessary to the security of our free state.

      • VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except for the fact that those militias were protection FOR the government rather than FROM the government and acting as an alternative to the standing army that the founders were vehemently opposed to and today’s right wing politicians worship.

        • Pratai@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nobody seems to understand this simple fact while they’re too busy misinterpreting the 2A.

          • VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, some people tend to ignore sentences, historical context and reality itself in order to maintain that their near-religious obsession with guns is justified and about freedom and safety.

            • Dkarma@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              But at the time it literally was about freedom and safety. The colonists needed guns in every house to be ready to fight any empirical powers.

              Now days it makes no sense considering the military and political might of the USA, but you can’t disregard Jeffersons words as out of context wrt to guns. Yes in those times they absolutely wanted everyone (white) armed.

              • VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Again: even assuming that, there’s a world of difference between the collective ownership and use of a militia’s weapons and personal ownership for personal use.

        • molotov@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This is a quote from Thomas Jefferson,

          “…The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants…

          • VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            No mention of guns or arming everyone. He was likely thinking of something like the French Revolution, which did NOT involve arming everyone with a gun.

    • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      who are you going to murder? All the Supreme Court Justices? So long as they’ve already passed the legislation it wouldn’t make a difference.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Obviously not, killing all of them would be irresponsible and unethical.

        Liberals can be perfectly fine allies against fascism, as long as they don’t get cut too deeply.