It’s a stereotype, maybe even a generalization. It’s not “very true”. It can’t be; there’s about 130,000 men in the world who play soccer professionally or semi-professionally.
Just because certain cultures incentivize hooligan behavior (looking at you, London), doesn’t mean all everywhere do.
I actually love this one, because it's technically correct but not in the way people who use it mean, so you can turn it around easily.
Yes, you did get cancer for a reason. Because you insisted on maintaining your suntan every winter. Or perhaps merely because you pissed off the wrong banana.
We’re taught that intelligence is performative. So most people think intelligence is answer driven, clever people know that it’s question driven. But a gameshow where contestants ask the right questions might not do as well as Jeopardy.
Edit: my dumb ass picks the gameshow where you famously have to literally ask the right questions as an example.
Ok, I’m not saying you need to agree with the principle, but the grammar clearly states that the citizens get guns because the government has a military (which is the well-regulated militia).
Again, not starting a debate on if that’s good or bad, just grammar.
No, the “well-regulated militia” actually referred to a desire to have all able-bodied men of military age to commonly have most of the skills needed to fight in a war in case of a draft, such as marksmanship and survival skills, as well as already owning most of the necessary equipment.
What’s important to note is that the US had a very small standing military for most of its history. It relied on being able to conscript a large number of recruits whenever a war started, and sent them home whenever the war was over. This requires a lot of the citizenry to already know most of the skills they’d need to raise an army quickly.
A “well regulated militia” had a different meaning back then. Also, there’s a comma in the middle of the amendment that means the first phrase is only a clarification. The second clause stands on its own.
I just attended a lecture about this specific comma today. It was there as a rhetorical pause, not to separate clauses. A great example of how ambiguity in punctuation can cause thousands of deaths.
Textualism and originalism
A group of linguistics scholars describe developments in the field of corpus linguistics, which did not exist when District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago were decided, that have allowed for a new understanding of the language used in the Second Amendment. Researchers in American and English history have digitally compiled thousands of Founding-era texts, making it possible, for the first time, to search and examine specific terms and usage from the period. The resulting evidence demonstrates that “keep and bear arms” had a “collective, militaristic meaning” in the late 18th century. The scholars write that, consistent with that meaning, Founding-era voters would have understood the right to be subject to regulation.
The resulting evidence demonstrates that “keep and bear arms” had a “collective, militaristic meaning” in the late 18th century.
And what is this even supposed to mean in a way that would contradict the originalist viewpoint? The definition of “militia” in the period is already understood to mean all able-bodied men that are suitable for military conscription. And by extension, a “well-regulated” meant said militia having proper equipment and knowledge of how to use said equipment. Quoting this changes nothing.
Also a side note: you should look at some of the arguments above the one you quoted in this link. There were 2 based on the State of New York discriminating against people, particularly racial minorities and LGBTQ individuals, which have the most need for the ability to defend themselves
It’s just people saying it wrong, like “bone apple tea” instead of " bon appetit". It’s supposed to be “I couldn’t care less”. But I mean come on, these are the same people who searched for “Michael Jackson Billy’s Jeans” so often on YouTube that it became a recommended search term. Lol.
Especially when you consider that it was coined to refer to literally impossible action. It's not meant to be about self-reliance or whatever, it's something that cannot be done.
I think you’re misunderstanding it. Do what you do, you’re going to break something anyways just don’t half-ass it. Just like there’s a graveyard behind every doctor, there’s a pile of mistakes behind every sysadmin.
Add comment