The best way to combat it, is to try and make people see reason rather than shoving them underground.

What YT/Twitter was doing with contentious/conspiracy content before by tagging them and saying: "Hey, this sounds kinda unreasonable, maybe check out some of the stuff you're being told" is probably the best idea of a system to combat it they've had.

Or it flags it with a 'qanon conspiracy' tag and links to some relevant debunking/challenge to the content's voracity.

Very true, just seems like it was a manipulative way to play with people’s emotions. I know some people that were into it and they weren’t unreasonable or has bad intentions they truly just wanted to help.

Had*

The reason it's such a problem is because in effort to get as much traffic and ad revenue they can, these companies only want to put you in an echo chamber of like-minded ideology.

Right. I could see that.

You can see this in action if you go to any political commentary, suddenly your recommended feed is full of the same sort of ideologic content.

@Maw in my opinion relegating it to the dark corners of the internet did more harm than good

it creates a persecution complex reinforcing beliefs

and removes any and all people from providing counterpoints

For sure, hence why I said the tagging system they started was the best option.

Rather than suppression.

I don't even follow that logic. Especially since the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court has been pretty clear that the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments apply the States just as they do the Federal Government. It has also ruled that portions of the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments also apply to the States.

The question really is what did the Framer's of the Constitution intend. If you look at State Constitutions like Pennsylvania and Vermont specifically list the right of self defense and hunting. This is important because they were written just 12 years prior to the 2nd Amendment and many of the very same people had a hand in the drafting of each.

To "bear arms" literally means "“to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight," per the Oxford Dictionary (a pretty good source considering that the blokes that wrote our Founding Documents were, in fact, subject of the British Crown at one point.

Again, stop using modern definitions of words that were different 250 years ago.

so are you making an originalist argument?

or a textualist

YouTube thinks I want to see Newsmax, NTD and epic wedding fail compilations. Thanks for 2 of the 3, R&R.

Textualist.

I'm taking the originalist stance.

yes i take the originalist stance as well

even if you use a textualist stance it still supports it

if you follow the definitions at the time

wtf What did you watch to recommend the latter?

regulated meant well supplied, not with governmetn regulation

im trying to find scalias opinion on it

As entertaining as those comedians/magicians are I had prefer to rely on what the Supreme Court has said on the matter... But ya its a fun show.

its very well written

Um... that definition is not modern... Oxford Dictionary traces "bear arms" all the way back to its original Latin. Its not a modern definition, Love.

also warships and cannons were in private ownership at the time

so any control on the 'type' of arms is also not intended

We've already shown you when they said militia, they meant civilians.

I've even shown it to you in the US Code, current law.

Yes... Scalia basically said you can own a fucking battleship

Hence why "the people" is also used in there.

since I'm land-locked I'll take a tank instead but thanks anyway

@JD~Jordan no he didnt

'well regulated' pours some sand in the pistons. Js

@Zuluzeit no it doesnt

@Zuluzeit well regulated meant well supplied

I absolutely agree with that... yes. They meant citizens because their was no standing army. There was a great divide among the founders on how we wanted to split up military power with the state or the federal or a combination.

So yes... they do not mean that you have to be in the military to "bear arms" but they clearly recognized that the right to do so was only to further the preservation of a Well Regulated Militia