Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset5

like 0

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators" ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters." ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh...." ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this" ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning" ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking" ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin" ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas." ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar." ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?" ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno" ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator" ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take" ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now..." ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people." ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?" ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth" ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth", ">\n\nThis has become the modern-day Vietnam war." ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth", ">\n\nThis has become the modern-day Vietnam war.", ">\n\n...easy answer to this is if Ukraine burns NATO supplies long range weapons." ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth", ">\n\nThis has become the modern-day Vietnam war.", ">\n\n...easy answer to this is if Ukraine burns NATO supplies long range weapons.", ">\n\nDo they actually plan on doing something about it? We've heard this for just short of an entire year now." ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth", ">\n\nThis has become the modern-day Vietnam war.", ">\n\n...easy answer to this is if Ukraine burns NATO supplies long range weapons.", ">\n\nDo they actually plan on doing something about it? We've heard this for just short of an entire year now.", ">\n\n\"...because we love Ukraine so much.\"" ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth", ">\n\nThis has become the modern-day Vietnam war.", ">\n\n...easy answer to this is if Ukraine burns NATO supplies long range weapons.", ">\n\nDo they actually plan on doing something about it? We've heard this for just short of an entire year now.", ">\n\n\"...because we love Ukraine so much.\"", ">\n\nWhat do you suppose would happen if NK was paid to say send 200,000 soldiers to Ukraine?" ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth", ">\n\nThis has become the modern-day Vietnam war.", ">\n\n...easy answer to this is if Ukraine burns NATO supplies long range weapons.", ">\n\nDo they actually plan on doing something about it? We've heard this for just short of an entire year now.", ">\n\n\"...because we love Ukraine so much.\"", ">\n\nWhat do you suppose would happen if NK was paid to say send 200,000 soldiers to Ukraine?", ">\n\n200000 dead or awol North Koreans. Most likely they would run away the first chance they get though" ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth", ">\n\nThis has become the modern-day Vietnam war.", ">\n\n...easy answer to this is if Ukraine burns NATO supplies long range weapons.", ">\n\nDo they actually plan on doing something about it? We've heard this for just short of an entire year now.", ">\n\n\"...because we love Ukraine so much.\"", ">\n\nWhat do you suppose would happen if NK was paid to say send 200,000 soldiers to Ukraine?", ">\n\n200000 dead or awol North Koreans. Most likely they would run away the first chance they get though", ">\n\n...yep it will burn with Ruzzian tanks and troops being trashed with Western weapons." ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth", ">\n\nThis has become the modern-day Vietnam war.", ">\n\n...easy answer to this is if Ukraine burns NATO supplies long range weapons.", ">\n\nDo they actually plan on doing something about it? We've heard this for just short of an entire year now.", ">\n\n\"...because we love Ukraine so much.\"", ">\n\nWhat do you suppose would happen if NK was paid to say send 200,000 soldiers to Ukraine?", ">\n\n200000 dead or awol North Koreans. Most likely they would run away the first chance they get though", ">\n\n...yep it will burn with Ruzzian tanks and troops being trashed with Western weapons.", ">\n\nDon’t worry the guy pushes people out windows is are guy too." ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth", ">\n\nThis has become the modern-day Vietnam war.", ">\n\n...easy answer to this is if Ukraine burns NATO supplies long range weapons.", ">\n\nDo they actually plan on doing something about it? We've heard this for just short of an entire year now.", ">\n\n\"...because we love Ukraine so much.\"", ">\n\nWhat do you suppose would happen if NK was paid to say send 200,000 soldiers to Ukraine?", ">\n\n200000 dead or awol North Koreans. Most likely they would run away the first chance they get though", ">\n\n...yep it will burn with Ruzzian tanks and troops being trashed with Western weapons.", ">\n\nDon’t worry the guy pushes people out windows is are guy too.", ">\n\nI mean, only the parts with Russians in them. I think we're all okay with that." ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth", ">\n\nThis has become the modern-day Vietnam war.", ">\n\n...easy answer to this is if Ukraine burns NATO supplies long range weapons.", ">\n\nDo they actually plan on doing something about it? We've heard this for just short of an entire year now.", ">\n\n\"...because we love Ukraine so much.\"", ">\n\nWhat do you suppose would happen if NK was paid to say send 200,000 soldiers to Ukraine?", ">\n\n200000 dead or awol North Koreans. Most likely they would run away the first chance they get though", ">\n\n...yep it will burn with Ruzzian tanks and troops being trashed with Western weapons.", ">\n\nDon’t worry the guy pushes people out windows is are guy too.", ">\n\nI mean, only the parts with Russians in them. I think we're all okay with that.", ">\n\nSo it's working, then! The more afraid Moscow is, the more threatening they become." ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth", ">\n\nThis has become the modern-day Vietnam war.", ">\n\n...easy answer to this is if Ukraine burns NATO supplies long range weapons.", ">\n\nDo they actually plan on doing something about it? We've heard this for just short of an entire year now.", ">\n\n\"...because we love Ukraine so much.\"", ">\n\nWhat do you suppose would happen if NK was paid to say send 200,000 soldiers to Ukraine?", ">\n\n200000 dead or awol North Koreans. Most likely they would run away the first chance they get though", ">\n\n...yep it will burn with Ruzzian tanks and troops being trashed with Western weapons.", ">\n\nDon’t worry the guy pushes people out windows is are guy too.", ">\n\nI mean, only the parts with Russians in them. I think we're all okay with that.", ">\n\nSo it's working, then! The more afraid Moscow is, the more threatening they become.", ">\n\nThat dork is just posturing for after Putin's death. He's been amazingly quiet the last 20 years." ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth", ">\n\nThis has become the modern-day Vietnam war.", ">\n\n...easy answer to this is if Ukraine burns NATO supplies long range weapons.", ">\n\nDo they actually plan on doing something about it? We've heard this for just short of an entire year now.", ">\n\n\"...because we love Ukraine so much.\"", ">\n\nWhat do you suppose would happen if NK was paid to say send 200,000 soldiers to Ukraine?", ">\n\n200000 dead or awol North Koreans. Most likely they would run away the first chance they get though", ">\n\n...yep it will burn with Ruzzian tanks and troops being trashed with Western weapons.", ">\n\nDon’t worry the guy pushes people out windows is are guy too.", ">\n\nI mean, only the parts with Russians in them. I think we're all okay with that.", ">\n\nSo it's working, then! The more afraid Moscow is, the more threatening they become.", ">\n\nThat dork is just posturing for after Putin's death. He's been amazingly quiet the last 20 years.", ">\n\nSo they're not trying to save Ukrainians from oppression any longer?" ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth", ">\n\nThis has become the modern-day Vietnam war.", ">\n\n...easy answer to this is if Ukraine burns NATO supplies long range weapons.", ">\n\nDo they actually plan on doing something about it? We've heard this for just short of an entire year now.", ">\n\n\"...because we love Ukraine so much.\"", ">\n\nWhat do you suppose would happen if NK was paid to say send 200,000 soldiers to Ukraine?", ">\n\n200000 dead or awol North Koreans. Most likely they would run away the first chance they get though", ">\n\n...yep it will burn with Ruzzian tanks and troops being trashed with Western weapons.", ">\n\nDon’t worry the guy pushes people out windows is are guy too.", ">\n\nI mean, only the parts with Russians in them. I think we're all okay with that.", ">\n\nSo it's working, then! The more afraid Moscow is, the more threatening they become.", ">\n\nThat dork is just posturing for after Putin's death. He's been amazingly quiet the last 20 years.", ">\n\nSo they're not trying to save Ukrainians from oppression any longer?", ">\n\nOh shiver me timbers!" ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth", ">\n\nThis has become the modern-day Vietnam war.", ">\n\n...easy answer to this is if Ukraine burns NATO supplies long range weapons.", ">\n\nDo they actually plan on doing something about it? We've heard this for just short of an entire year now.", ">\n\n\"...because we love Ukraine so much.\"", ">\n\nWhat do you suppose would happen if NK was paid to say send 200,000 soldiers to Ukraine?", ">\n\n200000 dead or awol North Koreans. Most likely they would run away the first chance they get though", ">\n\n...yep it will burn with Ruzzian tanks and troops being trashed with Western weapons.", ">\n\nDon’t worry the guy pushes people out windows is are guy too.", ">\n\nI mean, only the parts with Russians in them. I think we're all okay with that.", ">\n\nSo it's working, then! The more afraid Moscow is, the more threatening they become.", ">\n\nThat dork is just posturing for after Putin's death. He's been amazingly quiet the last 20 years.", ">\n\nSo they're not trying to save Ukrainians from oppression any longer?", ">\n\nOh shiver me timbers!", ">\n\nRussia's way of \"liberating\" you" ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth", ">\n\nThis has become the modern-day Vietnam war.", ">\n\n...easy answer to this is if Ukraine burns NATO supplies long range weapons.", ">\n\nDo they actually plan on doing something about it? We've heard this for just short of an entire year now.", ">\n\n\"...because we love Ukraine so much.\"", ">\n\nWhat do you suppose would happen if NK was paid to say send 200,000 soldiers to Ukraine?", ">\n\n200000 dead or awol North Koreans. Most likely they would run away the first chance they get though", ">\n\n...yep it will burn with Ruzzian tanks and troops being trashed with Western weapons.", ">\n\nDon’t worry the guy pushes people out windows is are guy too.", ">\n\nI mean, only the parts with Russians in them. I think we're all okay with that.", ">\n\nSo it's working, then! The more afraid Moscow is, the more threatening they become.", ">\n\nThat dork is just posturing for after Putin's death. He's been amazingly quiet the last 20 years.", ">\n\nSo they're not trying to save Ukrainians from oppression any longer?", ">\n\nOh shiver me timbers!", ">\n\nRussia's way of \"liberating\" you", ">\n\nMedvedev also dresses up and has tea time with his dolls. A lot of people are saying this, have you heard?" ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth", ">\n\nThis has become the modern-day Vietnam war.", ">\n\n...easy answer to this is if Ukraine burns NATO supplies long range weapons.", ">\n\nDo they actually plan on doing something about it? We've heard this for just short of an entire year now.", ">\n\n\"...because we love Ukraine so much.\"", ">\n\nWhat do you suppose would happen if NK was paid to say send 200,000 soldiers to Ukraine?", ">\n\n200000 dead or awol North Koreans. Most likely they would run away the first chance they get though", ">\n\n...yep it will burn with Ruzzian tanks and troops being trashed with Western weapons.", ">\n\nDon’t worry the guy pushes people out windows is are guy too.", ">\n\nI mean, only the parts with Russians in them. I think we're all okay with that.", ">\n\nSo it's working, then! The more afraid Moscow is, the more threatening they become.", ">\n\nThat dork is just posturing for after Putin's death. He's been amazingly quiet the last 20 years.", ">\n\nSo they're not trying to save Ukrainians from oppression any longer?", ">\n\nOh shiver me timbers!", ">\n\nRussia's way of \"liberating\" you", ">\n\nMedvedev also dresses up and has tea time with his dolls. A lot of people are saying this, have you heard?", ">\n\nI guess what else is left after you send in underfed conscripts who looted, raped, castrated, or executed everything they came across?\nThose crimes against humanities cases aren’t going to go away on their own." ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth", ">\n\nThis has become the modern-day Vietnam war.", ">\n\n...easy answer to this is if Ukraine burns NATO supplies long range weapons.", ">\n\nDo they actually plan on doing something about it? We've heard this for just short of an entire year now.", ">\n\n\"...because we love Ukraine so much.\"", ">\n\nWhat do you suppose would happen if NK was paid to say send 200,000 soldiers to Ukraine?", ">\n\n200000 dead or awol North Koreans. Most likely they would run away the first chance they get though", ">\n\n...yep it will burn with Ruzzian tanks and troops being trashed with Western weapons.", ">\n\nDon’t worry the guy pushes people out windows is are guy too.", ">\n\nI mean, only the parts with Russians in them. I think we're all okay with that.", ">\n\nSo it's working, then! The more afraid Moscow is, the more threatening they become.", ">\n\nThat dork is just posturing for after Putin's death. He's been amazingly quiet the last 20 years.", ">\n\nSo they're not trying to save Ukrainians from oppression any longer?", ">\n\nOh shiver me timbers!", ">\n\nRussia's way of \"liberating\" you", ">\n\nMedvedev also dresses up and has tea time with his dolls. A lot of people are saying this, have you heard?", ">\n\nI guess what else is left after you send in underfed conscripts who looted, raped, castrated, or executed everything they came across?\nThose crimes against humanities cases aren’t going to go away on their own.", ">\n\nMedvedev apparently have a serious condition. His digestive system is completely upside down.\n🤮💩" ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth", ">\n\nThis has become the modern-day Vietnam war.", ">\n\n...easy answer to this is if Ukraine burns NATO supplies long range weapons.", ">\n\nDo they actually plan on doing something about it? We've heard this for just short of an entire year now.", ">\n\n\"...because we love Ukraine so much.\"", ">\n\nWhat do you suppose would happen if NK was paid to say send 200,000 soldiers to Ukraine?", ">\n\n200000 dead or awol North Koreans. Most likely they would run away the first chance they get though", ">\n\n...yep it will burn with Ruzzian tanks and troops being trashed with Western weapons.", ">\n\nDon’t worry the guy pushes people out windows is are guy too.", ">\n\nI mean, only the parts with Russians in them. I think we're all okay with that.", ">\n\nSo it's working, then! The more afraid Moscow is, the more threatening they become.", ">\n\nThat dork is just posturing for after Putin's death. He's been amazingly quiet the last 20 years.", ">\n\nSo they're not trying to save Ukrainians from oppression any longer?", ">\n\nOh shiver me timbers!", ">\n\nRussia's way of \"liberating\" you", ">\n\nMedvedev also dresses up and has tea time with his dolls. A lot of people are saying this, have you heard?", ">\n\nI guess what else is left after you send in underfed conscripts who looted, raped, castrated, or executed everything they came across?\nThose crimes against humanities cases aren’t going to go away on their own.", ">\n\nMedvedev apparently have a serious condition. His digestive system is completely upside down.\n🤮💩", ">\n\nSo then whats the point of wanting to take it over if you’re just gonna incinerate the place first?" ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth", ">\n\nThis has become the modern-day Vietnam war.", ">\n\n...easy answer to this is if Ukraine burns NATO supplies long range weapons.", ">\n\nDo they actually plan on doing something about it? We've heard this for just short of an entire year now.", ">\n\n\"...because we love Ukraine so much.\"", ">\n\nWhat do you suppose would happen if NK was paid to say send 200,000 soldiers to Ukraine?", ">\n\n200000 dead or awol North Koreans. Most likely they would run away the first chance they get though", ">\n\n...yep it will burn with Ruzzian tanks and troops being trashed with Western weapons.", ">\n\nDon’t worry the guy pushes people out windows is are guy too.", ">\n\nI mean, only the parts with Russians in them. I think we're all okay with that.", ">\n\nSo it's working, then! The more afraid Moscow is, the more threatening they become.", ">\n\nThat dork is just posturing for after Putin's death. He's been amazingly quiet the last 20 years.", ">\n\nSo they're not trying to save Ukrainians from oppression any longer?", ">\n\nOh shiver me timbers!", ">\n\nRussia's way of \"liberating\" you", ">\n\nMedvedev also dresses up and has tea time with his dolls. A lot of people are saying this, have you heard?", ">\n\nI guess what else is left after you send in underfed conscripts who looted, raped, castrated, or executed everything they came across?\nThose crimes against humanities cases aren’t going to go away on their own.", ">\n\nMedvedev apparently have a serious condition. His digestive system is completely upside down.\n🤮💩", ">\n\nSo then whats the point of wanting to take it over if you’re just gonna incinerate the place first?", ">\n\nMedvedev really has an obsession with burning things, doesn't he?" ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth", ">\n\nThis has become the modern-day Vietnam war.", ">\n\n...easy answer to this is if Ukraine burns NATO supplies long range weapons.", ">\n\nDo they actually plan on doing something about it? We've heard this for just short of an entire year now.", ">\n\n\"...because we love Ukraine so much.\"", ">\n\nWhat do you suppose would happen if NK was paid to say send 200,000 soldiers to Ukraine?", ">\n\n200000 dead or awol North Koreans. Most likely they would run away the first chance they get though", ">\n\n...yep it will burn with Ruzzian tanks and troops being trashed with Western weapons.", ">\n\nDon’t worry the guy pushes people out windows is are guy too.", ">\n\nI mean, only the parts with Russians in them. I think we're all okay with that.", ">\n\nSo it's working, then! The more afraid Moscow is, the more threatening they become.", ">\n\nThat dork is just posturing for after Putin's death. He's been amazingly quiet the last 20 years.", ">\n\nSo they're not trying to save Ukrainians from oppression any longer?", ">\n\nOh shiver me timbers!", ">\n\nRussia's way of \"liberating\" you", ">\n\nMedvedev also dresses up and has tea time with his dolls. A lot of people are saying this, have you heard?", ">\n\nI guess what else is left after you send in underfed conscripts who looted, raped, castrated, or executed everything they came across?\nThose crimes against humanities cases aren’t going to go away on their own.", ">\n\nMedvedev apparently have a serious condition. His digestive system is completely upside down.\n🤮💩", ">\n\nSo then whats the point of wanting to take it over if you’re just gonna incinerate the place first?", ">\n\nMedvedev really has an obsession with burning things, doesn't he?", ">\n\nGet fucked buddy." ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth", ">\n\nThis has become the modern-day Vietnam war.", ">\n\n...easy answer to this is if Ukraine burns NATO supplies long range weapons.", ">\n\nDo they actually plan on doing something about it? We've heard this for just short of an entire year now.", ">\n\n\"...because we love Ukraine so much.\"", ">\n\nWhat do you suppose would happen if NK was paid to say send 200,000 soldiers to Ukraine?", ">\n\n200000 dead or awol North Koreans. Most likely they would run away the first chance they get though", ">\n\n...yep it will burn with Ruzzian tanks and troops being trashed with Western weapons.", ">\n\nDon’t worry the guy pushes people out windows is are guy too.", ">\n\nI mean, only the parts with Russians in them. I think we're all okay with that.", ">\n\nSo it's working, then! The more afraid Moscow is, the more threatening they become.", ">\n\nThat dork is just posturing for after Putin's death. He's been amazingly quiet the last 20 years.", ">\n\nSo they're not trying to save Ukrainians from oppression any longer?", ">\n\nOh shiver me timbers!", ">\n\nRussia's way of \"liberating\" you", ">\n\nMedvedev also dresses up and has tea time with his dolls. A lot of people are saying this, have you heard?", ">\n\nI guess what else is left after you send in underfed conscripts who looted, raped, castrated, or executed everything they came across?\nThose crimes against humanities cases aren’t going to go away on their own.", ">\n\nMedvedev apparently have a serious condition. His digestive system is completely upside down.\n🤮💩", ">\n\nSo then whats the point of wanting to take it over if you’re just gonna incinerate the place first?", ">\n\nMedvedev really has an obsession with burning things, doesn't he?", ">\n\nGet fucked buddy.", ">\n\nWhat were they going to do before? Jerk em off?" ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth", ">\n\nThis has become the modern-day Vietnam war.", ">\n\n...easy answer to this is if Ukraine burns NATO supplies long range weapons.", ">\n\nDo they actually plan on doing something about it? We've heard this for just short of an entire year now.", ">\n\n\"...because we love Ukraine so much.\"", ">\n\nWhat do you suppose would happen if NK was paid to say send 200,000 soldiers to Ukraine?", ">\n\n200000 dead or awol North Koreans. Most likely they would run away the first chance they get though", ">\n\n...yep it will burn with Ruzzian tanks and troops being trashed with Western weapons.", ">\n\nDon’t worry the guy pushes people out windows is are guy too.", ">\n\nI mean, only the parts with Russians in them. I think we're all okay with that.", ">\n\nSo it's working, then! The more afraid Moscow is, the more threatening they become.", ">\n\nThat dork is just posturing for after Putin's death. He's been amazingly quiet the last 20 years.", ">\n\nSo they're not trying to save Ukrainians from oppression any longer?", ">\n\nOh shiver me timbers!", ">\n\nRussia's way of \"liberating\" you", ">\n\nMedvedev also dresses up and has tea time with his dolls. A lot of people are saying this, have you heard?", ">\n\nI guess what else is left after you send in underfed conscripts who looted, raped, castrated, or executed everything they came across?\nThose crimes against humanities cases aren’t going to go away on their own.", ">\n\nMedvedev apparently have a serious condition. His digestive system is completely upside down.\n🤮💩", ">\n\nSo then whats the point of wanting to take it over if you’re just gonna incinerate the place first?", ">\n\nMedvedev really has an obsession with burning things, doesn't he?", ">\n\nGet fucked buddy.", ">\n\nWhat were they going to do before? Jerk em off?", ">\n\nI bet he is really really tall" ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth", ">\n\nThis has become the modern-day Vietnam war.", ">\n\n...easy answer to this is if Ukraine burns NATO supplies long range weapons.", ">\n\nDo they actually plan on doing something about it? We've heard this for just short of an entire year now.", ">\n\n\"...because we love Ukraine so much.\"", ">\n\nWhat do you suppose would happen if NK was paid to say send 200,000 soldiers to Ukraine?", ">\n\n200000 dead or awol North Koreans. Most likely they would run away the first chance they get though", ">\n\n...yep it will burn with Ruzzian tanks and troops being trashed with Western weapons.", ">\n\nDon’t worry the guy pushes people out windows is are guy too.", ">\n\nI mean, only the parts with Russians in them. I think we're all okay with that.", ">\n\nSo it's working, then! The more afraid Moscow is, the more threatening they become.", ">\n\nThat dork is just posturing for after Putin's death. He's been amazingly quiet the last 20 years.", ">\n\nSo they're not trying to save Ukrainians from oppression any longer?", ">\n\nOh shiver me timbers!", ">\n\nRussia's way of \"liberating\" you", ">\n\nMedvedev also dresses up and has tea time with his dolls. A lot of people are saying this, have you heard?", ">\n\nI guess what else is left after you send in underfed conscripts who looted, raped, castrated, or executed everything they came across?\nThose crimes against humanities cases aren’t going to go away on their own.", ">\n\nMedvedev apparently have a serious condition. His digestive system is completely upside down.\n🤮💩", ">\n\nSo then whats the point of wanting to take it over if you’re just gonna incinerate the place first?", ">\n\nMedvedev really has an obsession with burning things, doesn't he?", ">\n\nGet fucked buddy.", ">\n\nWhat were they going to do before? Jerk em off?", ">\n\nI bet he is really really tall", ">\n\nWe will burn it with north Korean flamethrowers \nEdit. The point is Russia is getting weapons from North Korea, Iran and who knows where else , but if Ukraine does the same things there are going to serious repercussions. Im not siding with Russia. Fuck Putin" ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth", ">\n\nThis has become the modern-day Vietnam war.", ">\n\n...easy answer to this is if Ukraine burns NATO supplies long range weapons.", ">\n\nDo they actually plan on doing something about it? We've heard this for just short of an entire year now.", ">\n\n\"...because we love Ukraine so much.\"", ">\n\nWhat do you suppose would happen if NK was paid to say send 200,000 soldiers to Ukraine?", ">\n\n200000 dead or awol North Koreans. Most likely they would run away the first chance they get though", ">\n\n...yep it will burn with Ruzzian tanks and troops being trashed with Western weapons.", ">\n\nDon’t worry the guy pushes people out windows is are guy too.", ">\n\nI mean, only the parts with Russians in them. I think we're all okay with that.", ">\n\nSo it's working, then! The more afraid Moscow is, the more threatening they become.", ">\n\nThat dork is just posturing for after Putin's death. He's been amazingly quiet the last 20 years.", ">\n\nSo they're not trying to save Ukrainians from oppression any longer?", ">\n\nOh shiver me timbers!", ">\n\nRussia's way of \"liberating\" you", ">\n\nMedvedev also dresses up and has tea time with his dolls. A lot of people are saying this, have you heard?", ">\n\nI guess what else is left after you send in underfed conscripts who looted, raped, castrated, or executed everything they came across?\nThose crimes against humanities cases aren’t going to go away on their own.", ">\n\nMedvedev apparently have a serious condition. His digestive system is completely upside down.\n🤮💩", ">\n\nSo then whats the point of wanting to take it over if you’re just gonna incinerate the place first?", ">\n\nMedvedev really has an obsession with burning things, doesn't he?", ">\n\nGet fucked buddy.", ">\n\nWhat were they going to do before? Jerk em off?", ">\n\nI bet he is really really tall", ">\n\nWe will burn it with north Korean flamethrowers \nEdit. The point is Russia is getting weapons from North Korea, Iran and who knows where else , but if Ukraine does the same things there are going to serious repercussions. Im not siding with Russia. Fuck Putin", ">\n\nUS is testing new weapons systems and trying to weaken Russia. At least, when Russia acquires one of the tanks, they can build theirs better." ]

[ "Medvedev is kind of a dick.", ">\n\nHe’s a special kind of dick", ">\n\nthe kind of dick with no balls", ">\n\nMedvedev talks too much.", ">\n\nHe talks too much in an attempt to terrify westerners with the prospect of WW3.", ">\n\nIt's for internal consumption", ">\n\nI think Medvedev and a lot of Russian propaganda isn't necessarily supposed to be for internal consumption. I think they're intentionally trying to come across as unreasonable and intransigent in the hopes that eventually over a long period of time the west will grow tired of supporting the war knowing that Russia cannot be reasoned out of Ukraine. \nThey're trying to make it known that the only way Russia is leaving is if they're kicked out physically and hope that maybe after a prolonged conflict the west will give up trying to do it and cut our losses. \nI hope and don't think it will work but no one can predict the future.", ">\n\nThe thing is, the only country with real losses that is supporting Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Everyone else is just kind of trading equipment for a weaker Russia, most of which is outdated anyway. That and monetary support, but that also goes towards weakening Russia, which is something I'm sure much of the west wants.\nI highly doubt Ukraine will give up, and I don't really see a reason for support to stop, as even outside the obvious moral reasons for it, the west enjoys weakening Russia without putting much at all on the line.", ">\n\nWest does want a weaker Russia. We are now seeing what happens when they have decades to gain strength. Ukraine isn't their only target.", ">\n\nWhy do people keep saying this?\nThey are having enough fun trying to take and hold Ukrainian land. They have no way to sell a massive war effort towards anywhere else unless attacked.", ">\n\nThis conflict is the proof that this wouldn't be the last time, if the international community had just let them do what they want. About five minutes ago they invaded and annexed Crimea, and everyone just shrugged, thinking that it might be a one off. Putin and his cronies didn't have to sell this conflict to anyone. Putin has control of the decision making organs of Russia. He just mumbled \"uh well nazis\" and the vast majority of the common people of his nation fell in line, both because they're down with it and because they have no other choice. The international community doesn't want WW3 so they won't intervene directly.\nIf everyone else had again done nothing, this would very likely already be over and Putin would be sniffing out the next ex-soviet country to invade. Dude has imperial ambitions and doesn't need anything else.\nBut of course the international community DID do something and thus for now Russia's capabilities have been curtailed. Mission partially successful at the moment from the perspective of everyone else, and now the goal is to bleed Russia as much as possible to buy a decade or two of reduced Russian ability to pull something like this again.", ">\n\ngreat explination, sums up the whole conflict nicely. I think if a lot of right wing Republicans were capable of understanding international politics they'd be a lot more willing to support Ukraine", ">\n\nIMO we are getting INCREDIBLE value for our money rn. If we shipped over half a trillion dollars of money and weapons we'd STILL be getting an amazing deal. We spend, what is it? Something like 800 billion a year to just be READY to go to war. An actual war would be far more expensive and actually cost us lives too, which isn't even factoring in how dangerous an open conflict between nuclear powers would be.\nI dislike war just as much as the next guy if not more so. And there are of course serious risks involved even in the present conflict, some of which have already materialized as less political and economic stability in Europe. But it had become clear that Putin wasn't just gonna stop if we asked nicely. That being the case, what we're spending to bleed him of his ability to further increase his territorial aggression is absolute peanuts, all things considered.", ">\n\nRussian attempt at genocide is foiled \nRussian yells about genocide 2.0 \nThat’ll show them pesky countries that deliver supplies and support", ">\n\nAgain? The problem with using the same threat every month for literally everything is that everyone just ignores it.", ">\n\nYou will burn for this!", ">\n\n\"and how much will burn if no more supplies?\"\nALL OF IT!", ">\n\nI thought they were rescuing Ukraine…I guess burning means the same in Russian.", ">\n\nWhatever happened to freeing Ukraine from Nazi's? I thought they were on a special liberation mission?", ">\n\nThey’re liberating Ukrainians from their sovereignty and ability to choose their own destiny. Also, their washing machines and toilets. Unfortunately, they’re too dense to realize that makes them villains.", ">\n\nSwitch 'Ukraine' with 'Russian invaders', please get on with the reality.", ">\n\nRussia's Medvedev says more US weapons supplies mean 'all of ~~Ukraine~~ Russian invaders will burn'\n\"Ah, fuck, how will we even fucking exist?\"- Dmitry Medvedev", ">\n\n“All ~~(Russia invaders in)~~ Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nWeren't they just forced to halt one of their advances because it had become a meat grinder where Ruzzian soldiers went in one end and fertilizer came out the other?\nProbably not the best time to be making threats.", ">\n\nHey, record it and send it to me when they grind Putin into fertiliser!", ">\n\nHis remains will be more like salt to the Earth I'm sure.", ">\n\n3,000 Grave Threats of Russia", ">\n\n3000 Final Warnings of Russia", ">\n\n3000 last calls for alcohols", ">\n\nWhy do Russian officials sound like the belligerent children in the COD lobby???", ">\n\nCause nlaws are noobtoobs. Use a proper gun.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just being loud and dumb on purpose. He plays the role of loud, obnoxious clown so that no one could doubt his \"patriotism.\" After all, he had many houses in Europe, and his son was a USA resident for years, so now he must shout really loud about his loyalty to Putin. Also, it is done as a protection from paranoid Putin. If he behaves dumb enough, no one will see him as a threat to replace Putin, especially as he was president before. Lastly, he currently has no real power, so he shouts weird obscenities to draw attention to himself as a \"patriotic citizen,\" hoping that someone gives him some measure of power because of it. So, there is no reason to pay attention to him whatsoever.", ">\n\nPlus, Putin's old court jester (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) died last year, so someone needs to step up as the crazy to make Putin seem restrained, and Medvedev needs to earn his loyalty by trying to seem like a insane choice for a replacement to Putin", ">\n\nIt's like they gotta know they're talking like they're James Bond Villains.. \nbut they're so narcissistic they probably actually think they are the good guys. =/", ">\n\nsomeone should deepfake the \"are we the baddies?\" sketch with putin and medvedev faces, lol.", ">\n\nhahaha XD", ">\n\nCan't wait to watch you swing.", ">\n\nFrom what?? We've seen your bribery-riddled weaponry.", ">\n\nMaybe he misspoke and meant to say half of Moscow will burn. Hey, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.", ">\n\nLike this?", ">\n\nUS will up the ante by providing more offensive weapons down the road so Russian soldiers will feel the wrath of Ukraine.", ">\n\nRussia needs to stop whining like a little bitch. The Russians are the ones who invaded and it is the Ukrainians who are being forced to fight.", ">\n\nYawn. \nThere was a time when I'd get seriously anxious about Russian threats. Nowadays they elicit at most an amused chuckle before I keep going with my day.", ">\n\nMedvedev just confirming that the Russians are just evil.", ">\n\n\nall of Ukraine will burn\n\nSounds like a nice guy, with the world's best interests at heart. \nThese Russian oligarchs and twisted beauraucrats make the QAnon-infested GOP look like cub scouts.", ">\n\nThis show sucks. Somebody tell me if they get a new writer.", ">\n\nOnly the bad guys talk like that in movies", ">\n\nThat doesn’t sound like something a liberating country would say hm", ">\n\nHe has to yap loudly to himself because no one has taken him seriously for a long time, both within the Russian government and abroad.", ">\n\nBlahBlahBlah", ">\n\nLeast genocidal Russian", ">\n\nIf I have to hear about Russia for another year, I will fly to Russia and stab these two old boomers in the face with a soldering iron, myself.", ">\n\nBurn more Russians to ash.", ">\n\nSomeone throw that barking dog a bone .", ">\n\nWhat a coincidence, that's exactly the same result if there were not more weapons supplies.", ">\n\nYknow what, just for that… F-16s are on their way", ">\n\nWhy the f16 not f15 though? Can someone shed some light", ">\n\nThis talk is to save himself from having an accident involving a window, special tea or self-inflicted gunwounds to his back \\^\\^ Gotta show his loyalty to mr Putin and his cause in Ukraine with as big words as possible.", ">\n\nIt may burn, but Russian bodies will be the fuel", ">\n\nAnd without US weapons all of Ukraine would be burned out in 2022.\nSlava Ukraini!", ">\n\nAll I know is that Russian invaders make great Ukrainian sunflower fertilizer", ">\n\nOnly the bits directly underneath russian war criminals…", ">\n\nMedvedev always saying dumb shit.", ">\n\nNah, they're actually pretty accurate", ">\n\nthey gonna burn them with russian bodies", ">\n\nMedvedev don’t realize that if Russia was worth a shit, all of the world would be taking it now that everyone knows their military is a joke.", ">\n\nRussia was already doing that when their so called \"little russians\" refused to submit, so might as well help Ukraine", ">\n\nHe'd sell out his country for a slice of toast.", ">\n\nHe really is a bad propagandist. \nHe's also petrified at the prospect of Russia facing US-made weapons. Medvedev knows Russia is not even remotely equipped to go up against modern weaponry with their 1970s technology.", ">\n\nI think he meant more Russian troops will die and Russia will go bankrupt losing a war.", ">\n\nWell, without Russia, it wouldn't burn at all.\nMedvedev doesn't care, he just show Putin he doesn't deserve to fall from a window.", ">\n\nYeah I'm sure Ukraine would rather get no weapons while you murder and rape... you Russian dogs. Russia has really outed themselves as having diverged from civilization.", ">\n\nIf you send tanks you better believe we are going to send a 40 mile column of used cars and buses that will break down for 3 days.", ">\n\nIn other words, he’s aware that every single Ukrainian does not wish to submit to Russian rule.", ">\n\nOnly solidifies Russia is a terrorist state", ">\n\nAlcohol Delirium is a bitch.", ">\n\nIt’s for Tucker Carlson’s consumption.", ">\n\nThis is Medvedev's way of saying nothing will change.", ">\n\nI remember when he was the saner option", ">\n\nRussia is a country that will always threaten with a weapon or whatever. they usually do not carry it out because they do not have the weapons. If they threaten to burn you, they won’t as it’s more than likely someone forgot the matches", ">\n\nThe United States giving them weapons just frees up space for next gen weapons for the United States. \nIs a win- win\nThe weapons they're getting aren't old, they still are effective.", ">\n\nSTFU Medvedev, just stop. Your next stop is the Hague.", ">\n\n“I mean, I mean, we will save them from nazism. Yeah that’s what I mean” - Medvedev continued.", ">\n\nConveniently leaving out that it’s Russians who will burn inside of Ukraine. If they leave now, they will be fine.", ">\n\nAs if that wasn’t already their goal", ">\n\nHe's super serious this time you guys.", ">\n\nPutin's cockholster had time to open his mouth last week and all that came out was pro-war gurgling mixed with cum.", ">\n\nGood luck with that. Feel free to recklessly overextend yourself and kill off another hundred thousand Russians.", ">\n\nokay Medvedev, lets get you your meds and then get you up to bed...", ">\n\nThanks for all the money you wasted on all the world's politicians. None of it worked!", ">\n\nAll of ukraine will burn… with passion to fight for their country!!!!", ">\n\nBig talk.", ">\n\nInteresting cause I’m pretty sure it means the opposite", ">\n\nWell, the locations of Russian troops anyway.", ">\n\nWhy are we enabling this nutbar, the ruskys have to listen to him,but do we?", ">\n\nYou know, our expense totally worth the cost, in fact, it is incredibly cheap.\nWe get to test new tech against what we thought was a near-peer adversary, we get to observe their tactics all the way from manufacturing weapons to the logistics chain to get them to the front, their training and vulnerabilities, and weaken those systems without firing a shot. It also opens the door for special operations that can exist in the fog of war without making it's way back.", ">\n\nCorrection: the parts of Ukraine where Russians are will burn.", ">\n\nSore loser says he will commit more war crimes.", ">\n\nI think we need to melt Russia’s popsicle", ">\n\nLook at Syria… best of luck to Ukraine but as longer the war drags as more cruelty and barbarically encounters this country will see even worse then what we have seen until now. Also means that the country of Ukraine will be in ruins after such a long weary war.", ">\n\nLot of Baghdad Bob energy.", ">\n\ni feel like this guy's only purpose is to shout nuclear bullshit so that putin sounds smarter and more reasonable in comparison", ">\n\nLook what you made us do: Russia.", ">\n\nif all of ukraine burns you will burn, you don't want this to escalate", ">\n\nNah, it means Ukraine will be better equipped to kill your guys, which they will continue to do, to defend their homes and country from you miserable fucking invaders.\nSo what if you shut the fuck up and withdraw from Ukraine?", ">\n\nThen do it, quit talking", ">\n\nBut it also kinda means the opposite?", ">\n\nTime to retire “the boy who cried wolf” saying and replace it with “the Russian who threatened Ukraine will burn”", ">\n\nStop quoting this clown because by quoting you help to spread the harmful messages that are designed as a weapon. He says these things with the same intentions the former clown Zhirinovsky did. They work for RU state propaganda and their messages are designed to create an emotional illusion of general absurd, crisis, chaos, and total despair. This helps RU to influence minds with the goal of generating total distrust to the reality and to the common sense. RU's strategy thrives on distrust for decades. So don't help RU by reposting and quoting their messages.\nYou can respond to these messages if you understand how they work and what would be the proper counter defense to neutralize them. For example, I don't know how, so I try at least not to engage with them emotionally for my better good.\nIgnore theses weaponized messages, keep calm, and carry on with your long term mission.", ">\n\nWord", ">\n\nIf ukraine burns russia burns. If one ukrainian soldier dies 10 russian soldiers die. Get out if ukraine you pieces of shit!", ">\n\nWith people like Medvedev or Zakharova I have to wonder if vodka even affects them at this point. It scares me to think what people with their level of alcohol tolerance must drink in order to maintain their standard drunken demeanor.", ">\n\nI mean you’ve already blown up so much shit and tried to regime change the country. We all know your out of threats. \nEven your nuclear threats aren’t serious.", ">\n\nIt seems like mostly russian troops and gear is burning.", ">\n\nFacts, Almost like Zelwynski wants it all blown up so he can REbuild fancy", ">\n\nFact is Russia screwed the pooch and over 100,000 of their soldiers are dead. Fact is Putin thought he would own Ukraine in a month. That was a year ago and they control less territory than when they started. Fact is Russian soldiers have raped women and murdered children. Fact is Putin is a Kleptocrat. Fact is NATO and the EU are more united and stronger than they have ever been. Fact is Russia’s economy is a shambles and the common folk are suffering. Fact is hundreds of thousands of young men have left Russia to avoid conscription. Fact is Russia is a paper tiger and has already lost this war.", ">\n\nPls go read some russian history, They do NOT loose.", ">\n\nRusso Japanese war\nInvasion of Afghanistan\nInvasion by the Mongols\nEtc etc", ">\n\nAt a higher cost!", ">\n\nI have no clue what he is talking about. So far it means the opposite.", ">\n\nthey don’t have the balls to drop a tsar on ukraine", ">\n\nNot very good at math, this one.", ">\n\nFor infernal consumption, not meant for wholesome memes.", ">\n\nMedvedev is getting his name into the history books. Nothing positive though", ">\n\nYeah, with Russian wreckage! We should've followed Patton's plan.", ">\n\nAs if that was any different from his intentions before we gave them more shit… at this point most of the things I hear Moscow saying sound like they’re coming from a cartoon supervillain", ">\n\nAll fire needs fuel, and i guess the fuel in medvedevs gore is just a bunch of russian convicts and constripts.", ">\n\nI call him, \"mini-V\"", ">\n\nAs opposed to what exactly", ">\n\nMan I can't wait til it's his turn to fall down some stairs.", ">\n\nYou tried to do that already Medvedev. Almost an entire year ago. Look how well it went.", ">\n\nSo they abandoned the whole \"liberate Ukraine from Nazis/the West/the USA/corruption/the jews\" and \"integrating people into Russia\" - act to switch to a \"burn everything and everyone; we will nuke the whole world\" - narrative. RuZZia, Adolf Putin and Medvedev Göbbels really need to rethink their social media stance and public persona. This one has been done already back in ~1940 and didn't work so good.", ">\n\nNah, that’s just the smoke from your soldier incinerators", ">\n\nI guess they are gathering up the arsonists in Russian prisons now? Next it will be “MOAR WEPS AND UKRAINE…will have all its batteries and shampoo stolen.” And then they send in all their shoplifters.", ">\n\nMedvedev is just as full of $hit as any other Russian figurehead. Has everyone seen that clown Solovyev? He's like the Russian version of Rush Limbaugh....", ">\n\nJust as the pinus contorta dies in fire but it’s seeds are released and they are reborn after it. Ukraine will be reborn after this", ">\n\nYet an another Russia's final warning", ">\n\nMedvedev, stop drinking", ">\n\nDon't tread on me Metallica is my response to that Putin", ">\n\nAnother one of Medvdev's vodka-soaked regular useless verbal diarrheas.", ">\n\nOk. Next. Liar.", ">\n\nI love the way he casually disregards the fact that Russia conducted an aggressive invasion of Ukraine… “All of Ukraine will burn” if they are able to defend themselves from the Russian aggressor… so just roll over and let us do what we want.\nDo people actually buy into Medvedev’s bullshit?", ">\n\nDisco Inferno", ">\n\nDoesn't sound like a liberator", ">\n\nWell that's a risk we're willing to take", ">\n\nYeah, because Russia has been exercising restraint up to now...", ">\n\nIf we can’t have it, no one can. Such nice people.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy keep talking too much ?", ">\n\nMedvedev must be one of most hated persons on earth", ">\n\nThis has become the modern-day Vietnam war.", ">\n\n...easy answer to this is if Ukraine burns NATO supplies long range weapons.", ">\n\nDo they actually plan on doing something about it? We've heard this for just short of an entire year now.", ">\n\n\"...because we love Ukraine so much.\"", ">\n\nWhat do you suppose would happen if NK was paid to say send 200,000 soldiers to Ukraine?", ">\n\n200000 dead or awol North Koreans. Most likely they would run away the first chance they get though", ">\n\n...yep it will burn with Ruzzian tanks and troops being trashed with Western weapons.", ">\n\nDon’t worry the guy pushes people out windows is are guy too.", ">\n\nI mean, only the parts with Russians in them. I think we're all okay with that.", ">\n\nSo it's working, then! The more afraid Moscow is, the more threatening they become.", ">\n\nThat dork is just posturing for after Putin's death. He's been amazingly quiet the last 20 years.", ">\n\nSo they're not trying to save Ukrainians from oppression any longer?", ">\n\nOh shiver me timbers!", ">\n\nRussia's way of \"liberating\" you", ">\n\nMedvedev also dresses up and has tea time with his dolls. A lot of people are saying this, have you heard?", ">\n\nI guess what else is left after you send in underfed conscripts who looted, raped, castrated, or executed everything they came across?\nThose crimes against humanities cases aren’t going to go away on their own.", ">\n\nMedvedev apparently have a serious condition. His digestive system is completely upside down.\n🤮💩", ">\n\nSo then whats the point of wanting to take it over if you’re just gonna incinerate the place first?", ">\n\nMedvedev really has an obsession with burning things, doesn't he?", ">\n\nGet fucked buddy.", ">\n\nWhat were they going to do before? Jerk em off?", ">\n\nI bet he is really really tall", ">\n\nWe will burn it with north Korean flamethrowers \nEdit. The point is Russia is getting weapons from North Korea, Iran and who knows where else , but if Ukraine does the same things there are going to serious repercussions. Im not siding with Russia. Fuck Putin", ">\n\nUS is testing new weapons systems and trying to weaken Russia. At least, when Russia acquires one of the tanks, they can build theirs better.", ">\n\nWhat you smoking hombre?" ]

[]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”" ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically .." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied)." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?" ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal)." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution" ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility" ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility", ">\n\nJudeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?\nWell, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility", ">\n\nJudeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?\nWell, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me.", ">\n\nMarriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for" ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility", ">\n\nJudeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?\nWell, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me.", ">\n\nMarriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for", ">\n\nYou sue the hottest super model you can find. \nBut on a serious note, if you believe marriage is a right or not, there is no way the Founding Father's thought they could put down every right on paper." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility", ">\n\nJudeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?\nWell, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me.", ">\n\nMarriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for", ">\n\nYou sue the hottest super model you can find. \nBut on a serious note, if you believe marriage is a right or not, there is no way the Founding Father's thought they could put down every right on paper.", ">\n\nThe 9th amendment kind of does that" ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility", ">\n\nJudeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?\nWell, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me.", ">\n\nMarriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for", ">\n\nYou sue the hottest super model you can find. \nBut on a serious note, if you believe marriage is a right or not, there is no way the Founding Father's thought they could put down every right on paper.", ">\n\nThe 9th amendment kind of does that", ">\n\nThis is why I said to the original poster that your comment is why the Founders included the 9th Amendment." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility", ">\n\nJudeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?\nWell, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me.", ">\n\nMarriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for", ">\n\nYou sue the hottest super model you can find. \nBut on a serious note, if you believe marriage is a right or not, there is no way the Founding Father's thought they could put down every right on paper.", ">\n\nThe 9th amendment kind of does that", ">\n\nThis is why I said to the original poster that your comment is why the Founders included the 9th Amendment.", ">\n\n38% of the US think that it only contains 14 words. That is the root of the problem. \nNo amendment can be understood by selectively removing clauses to support your political beliefs." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility", ">\n\nJudeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?\nWell, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me.", ">\n\nMarriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for", ">\n\nYou sue the hottest super model you can find. \nBut on a serious note, if you believe marriage is a right or not, there is no way the Founding Father's thought they could put down every right on paper.", ">\n\nThe 9th amendment kind of does that", ">\n\nThis is why I said to the original poster that your comment is why the Founders included the 9th Amendment.", ">\n\n38% of the US think that it only contains 14 words. That is the root of the problem. \nNo amendment can be understood by selectively removing clauses to support your political beliefs.", ">\n\nDon't pretend a portion of society doesn't also stop at \"militia\" and ignore \"the right of the people.\"" ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility", ">\n\nJudeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?\nWell, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me.", ">\n\nMarriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for", ">\n\nYou sue the hottest super model you can find. \nBut on a serious note, if you believe marriage is a right or not, there is no way the Founding Father's thought they could put down every right on paper.", ">\n\nThe 9th amendment kind of does that", ">\n\nThis is why I said to the original poster that your comment is why the Founders included the 9th Amendment.", ">\n\n38% of the US think that it only contains 14 words. That is the root of the problem. \nNo amendment can be understood by selectively removing clauses to support your political beliefs.", ">\n\nDon't pretend a portion of society doesn't also stop at \"militia\" and ignore \"the right of the people.\"", ">\n\nThe people have the right to bear arms in a well organized militia. Full stop. That is exactly what it says. \nThe Army is that militia. As is the National Guard. Nobody disputes their right to carry weapons. \nLet's try another compound sentence:\n\"If someone arrives in your office for a prostate exam, place a single finger in their rectum. \"\nIn your mind, is the second half of the sentence meaningful without the first?" ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility", ">\n\nJudeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?\nWell, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me.", ">\n\nMarriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for", ">\n\nYou sue the hottest super model you can find. \nBut on a serious note, if you believe marriage is a right or not, there is no way the Founding Father's thought they could put down every right on paper.", ">\n\nThe 9th amendment kind of does that", ">\n\nThis is why I said to the original poster that your comment is why the Founders included the 9th Amendment.", ">\n\n38% of the US think that it only contains 14 words. That is the root of the problem. \nNo amendment can be understood by selectively removing clauses to support your political beliefs.", ">\n\nDon't pretend a portion of society doesn't also stop at \"militia\" and ignore \"the right of the people.\"", ">\n\nThe people have the right to bear arms in a well organized militia. Full stop. That is exactly what it says. \nThe Army is that militia. As is the National Guard. Nobody disputes their right to carry weapons. \nLet's try another compound sentence:\n\"If someone arrives in your office for a prostate exam, place a single finger in their rectum. \"\nIn your mind, is the second half of the sentence meaningful without the first?", ">\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" Reading it all together and giving meaning to every part of the sentence, it says that the people have the right to their own arms so that they can form militias if necessary.\nThe Army was (and is) distinct from the Militia. See the relevant Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, ratification debates, actual practice at the time, etc. The Militia could be \"called up\" to the Army, but it wasn't the standing army, nor was it really the \"select corp\" of officers and what we would not recognize as senior NCOs that the Federalists envisioned as necessary to get the Militia ready for duty when called.\nYour construction is an if/then statement, which is completely different from the structure of the 2A. Here's a compound sentence for you: A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy day, the right of the people to own and consume eggs and orange juice shall not be infringed. Who has the right to own and consume eggs and orange juice, the breakfast, the day, or the people?\nNinja edit: fixed a couple of fat thumb errors and clarified the first bit about the whole sentence." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility", ">\n\nJudeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?\nWell, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me.", ">\n\nMarriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for", ">\n\nYou sue the hottest super model you can find. \nBut on a serious note, if you believe marriage is a right or not, there is no way the Founding Father's thought they could put down every right on paper.", ">\n\nThe 9th amendment kind of does that", ">\n\nThis is why I said to the original poster that your comment is why the Founders included the 9th Amendment.", ">\n\n38% of the US think that it only contains 14 words. That is the root of the problem. \nNo amendment can be understood by selectively removing clauses to support your political beliefs.", ">\n\nDon't pretend a portion of society doesn't also stop at \"militia\" and ignore \"the right of the people.\"", ">\n\nThe people have the right to bear arms in a well organized militia. Full stop. That is exactly what it says. \nThe Army is that militia. As is the National Guard. Nobody disputes their right to carry weapons. \nLet's try another compound sentence:\n\"If someone arrives in your office for a prostate exam, place a single finger in their rectum. \"\nIn your mind, is the second half of the sentence meaningful without the first?", ">\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" Reading it all together and giving meaning to every part of the sentence, it says that the people have the right to their own arms so that they can form militias if necessary.\nThe Army was (and is) distinct from the Militia. See the relevant Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, ratification debates, actual practice at the time, etc. The Militia could be \"called up\" to the Army, but it wasn't the standing army, nor was it really the \"select corp\" of officers and what we would not recognize as senior NCOs that the Federalists envisioned as necessary to get the Militia ready for duty when called.\nYour construction is an if/then statement, which is completely different from the structure of the 2A. Here's a compound sentence for you: A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy day, the right of the people to own and consume eggs and orange juice shall not be infringed. Who has the right to own and consume eggs and orange juice, the breakfast, the day, or the people?\nNinja edit: fixed a couple of fat thumb errors and clarified the first bit about the whole sentence.", ">\n\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" The stated intent was so that the people culd form militias with their arms.\n\nYou don't need to interpret the \"started intent\".\nRead the words. \nThe ONLY reason that people have a \"right\" to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of being in a well organized militia. \nIndependent ownership, absent militia membership, is not implied or covered. \nI am using the actual words. You are jumping to some undocumented \"intent\" to back up your position." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility", ">\n\nJudeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?\nWell, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me.", ">\n\nMarriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for", ">\n\nYou sue the hottest super model you can find. \nBut on a serious note, if you believe marriage is a right or not, there is no way the Founding Father's thought they could put down every right on paper.", ">\n\nThe 9th amendment kind of does that", ">\n\nThis is why I said to the original poster that your comment is why the Founders included the 9th Amendment.", ">\n\n38% of the US think that it only contains 14 words. That is the root of the problem. \nNo amendment can be understood by selectively removing clauses to support your political beliefs.", ">\n\nDon't pretend a portion of society doesn't also stop at \"militia\" and ignore \"the right of the people.\"", ">\n\nThe people have the right to bear arms in a well organized militia. Full stop. That is exactly what it says. \nThe Army is that militia. As is the National Guard. Nobody disputes their right to carry weapons. \nLet's try another compound sentence:\n\"If someone arrives in your office for a prostate exam, place a single finger in their rectum. \"\nIn your mind, is the second half of the sentence meaningful without the first?", ">\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" Reading it all together and giving meaning to every part of the sentence, it says that the people have the right to their own arms so that they can form militias if necessary.\nThe Army was (and is) distinct from the Militia. See the relevant Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, ratification debates, actual practice at the time, etc. The Militia could be \"called up\" to the Army, but it wasn't the standing army, nor was it really the \"select corp\" of officers and what we would not recognize as senior NCOs that the Federalists envisioned as necessary to get the Militia ready for duty when called.\nYour construction is an if/then statement, which is completely different from the structure of the 2A. Here's a compound sentence for you: A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy day, the right of the people to own and consume eggs and orange juice shall not be infringed. Who has the right to own and consume eggs and orange juice, the breakfast, the day, or the people?\nNinja edit: fixed a couple of fat thumb errors and clarified the first bit about the whole sentence.", ">\n\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" The stated intent was so that the people culd form militias with their arms.\n\nYou don't need to interpret the \"started intent\".\nRead the words. \nThe ONLY reason that people have a \"right\" to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of being in a well organized militia. \nIndependent ownership, absent militia membership, is not implied or covered. \nI am using the actual words. You are jumping to some undocumented \"intent\" to back up your position.", ">\n\nHeller disagrees with you. Scalia breaks it down and shows why yours is a wrong interpretation of the clause." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility", ">\n\nJudeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?\nWell, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me.", ">\n\nMarriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for", ">\n\nYou sue the hottest super model you can find. \nBut on a serious note, if you believe marriage is a right or not, there is no way the Founding Father's thought they could put down every right on paper.", ">\n\nThe 9th amendment kind of does that", ">\n\nThis is why I said to the original poster that your comment is why the Founders included the 9th Amendment.", ">\n\n38% of the US think that it only contains 14 words. That is the root of the problem. \nNo amendment can be understood by selectively removing clauses to support your political beliefs.", ">\n\nDon't pretend a portion of society doesn't also stop at \"militia\" and ignore \"the right of the people.\"", ">\n\nThe people have the right to bear arms in a well organized militia. Full stop. That is exactly what it says. \nThe Army is that militia. As is the National Guard. Nobody disputes their right to carry weapons. \nLet's try another compound sentence:\n\"If someone arrives in your office for a prostate exam, place a single finger in their rectum. \"\nIn your mind, is the second half of the sentence meaningful without the first?", ">\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" Reading it all together and giving meaning to every part of the sentence, it says that the people have the right to their own arms so that they can form militias if necessary.\nThe Army was (and is) distinct from the Militia. See the relevant Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, ratification debates, actual practice at the time, etc. The Militia could be \"called up\" to the Army, but it wasn't the standing army, nor was it really the \"select corp\" of officers and what we would not recognize as senior NCOs that the Federalists envisioned as necessary to get the Militia ready for duty when called.\nYour construction is an if/then statement, which is completely different from the structure of the 2A. Here's a compound sentence for you: A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy day, the right of the people to own and consume eggs and orange juice shall not be infringed. Who has the right to own and consume eggs and orange juice, the breakfast, the day, or the people?\nNinja edit: fixed a couple of fat thumb errors and clarified the first bit about the whole sentence.", ">\n\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" The stated intent was so that the people culd form militias with their arms.\n\nYou don't need to interpret the \"started intent\".\nRead the words. \nThe ONLY reason that people have a \"right\" to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of being in a well organized militia. \nIndependent ownership, absent militia membership, is not implied or covered. \nI am using the actual words. You are jumping to some undocumented \"intent\" to back up your position.", ">\n\nHeller disagrees with you. Scalia breaks it down and shows why yours is a wrong interpretation of the clause.", ">\n\nI knew you'd just follow the NRA talking points!\nSo:\n\n\nIn which year was the 1st Ammendment ratified\n\n\nIn which year did a Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge \"define\" what it meant. \n\n\nThen tell me how many centuries (you can round down) passed between the will of the Founding Father's words, and Scalia's." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility", ">\n\nJudeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?\nWell, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me.", ">\n\nMarriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for", ">\n\nYou sue the hottest super model you can find. \nBut on a serious note, if you believe marriage is a right or not, there is no way the Founding Father's thought they could put down every right on paper.", ">\n\nThe 9th amendment kind of does that", ">\n\nThis is why I said to the original poster that your comment is why the Founders included the 9th Amendment.", ">\n\n38% of the US think that it only contains 14 words. That is the root of the problem. \nNo amendment can be understood by selectively removing clauses to support your political beliefs.", ">\n\nDon't pretend a portion of society doesn't also stop at \"militia\" and ignore \"the right of the people.\"", ">\n\nThe people have the right to bear arms in a well organized militia. Full stop. That is exactly what it says. \nThe Army is that militia. As is the National Guard. Nobody disputes their right to carry weapons. \nLet's try another compound sentence:\n\"If someone arrives in your office for a prostate exam, place a single finger in their rectum. \"\nIn your mind, is the second half of the sentence meaningful without the first?", ">\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" Reading it all together and giving meaning to every part of the sentence, it says that the people have the right to their own arms so that they can form militias if necessary.\nThe Army was (and is) distinct from the Militia. See the relevant Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, ratification debates, actual practice at the time, etc. The Militia could be \"called up\" to the Army, but it wasn't the standing army, nor was it really the \"select corp\" of officers and what we would not recognize as senior NCOs that the Federalists envisioned as necessary to get the Militia ready for duty when called.\nYour construction is an if/then statement, which is completely different from the structure of the 2A. Here's a compound sentence for you: A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy day, the right of the people to own and consume eggs and orange juice shall not be infringed. Who has the right to own and consume eggs and orange juice, the breakfast, the day, or the people?\nNinja edit: fixed a couple of fat thumb errors and clarified the first bit about the whole sentence.", ">\n\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" The stated intent was so that the people culd form militias with their arms.\n\nYou don't need to interpret the \"started intent\".\nRead the words. \nThe ONLY reason that people have a \"right\" to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of being in a well organized militia. \nIndependent ownership, absent militia membership, is not implied or covered. \nI am using the actual words. You are jumping to some undocumented \"intent\" to back up your position.", ">\n\nHeller disagrees with you. Scalia breaks it down and shows why yours is a wrong interpretation of the clause.", ">\n\nI knew you'd just follow the NRA talking points!\nSo:\n\n\nIn which year was the 1st Ammendment ratified\n\n\nIn which year did a Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge \"define\" what it meant. \n\n\nThen tell me how many centuries (you can round down) passed between the will of the Founding Father's words, and Scalia's.", ">\n\nAnd I knew you wouldn't have an actual argument against the decision but resort to ad hominem.. weak" ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility", ">\n\nJudeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?\nWell, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me.", ">\n\nMarriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for", ">\n\nYou sue the hottest super model you can find. \nBut on a serious note, if you believe marriage is a right or not, there is no way the Founding Father's thought they could put down every right on paper.", ">\n\nThe 9th amendment kind of does that", ">\n\nThis is why I said to the original poster that your comment is why the Founders included the 9th Amendment.", ">\n\n38% of the US think that it only contains 14 words. That is the root of the problem. \nNo amendment can be understood by selectively removing clauses to support your political beliefs.", ">\n\nDon't pretend a portion of society doesn't also stop at \"militia\" and ignore \"the right of the people.\"", ">\n\nThe people have the right to bear arms in a well organized militia. Full stop. That is exactly what it says. \nThe Army is that militia. As is the National Guard. Nobody disputes their right to carry weapons. \nLet's try another compound sentence:\n\"If someone arrives in your office for a prostate exam, place a single finger in their rectum. \"\nIn your mind, is the second half of the sentence meaningful without the first?", ">\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" Reading it all together and giving meaning to every part of the sentence, it says that the people have the right to their own arms so that they can form militias if necessary.\nThe Army was (and is) distinct from the Militia. See the relevant Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, ratification debates, actual practice at the time, etc. The Militia could be \"called up\" to the Army, but it wasn't the standing army, nor was it really the \"select corp\" of officers and what we would not recognize as senior NCOs that the Federalists envisioned as necessary to get the Militia ready for duty when called.\nYour construction is an if/then statement, which is completely different from the structure of the 2A. Here's a compound sentence for you: A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy day, the right of the people to own and consume eggs and orange juice shall not be infringed. Who has the right to own and consume eggs and orange juice, the breakfast, the day, or the people?\nNinja edit: fixed a couple of fat thumb errors and clarified the first bit about the whole sentence.", ">\n\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" The stated intent was so that the people culd form militias with their arms.\n\nYou don't need to interpret the \"started intent\".\nRead the words. \nThe ONLY reason that people have a \"right\" to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of being in a well organized militia. \nIndependent ownership, absent militia membership, is not implied or covered. \nI am using the actual words. You are jumping to some undocumented \"intent\" to back up your position.", ">\n\nHeller disagrees with you. Scalia breaks it down and shows why yours is a wrong interpretation of the clause.", ">\n\nI knew you'd just follow the NRA talking points!\nSo:\n\n\nIn which year was the 1st Ammendment ratified\n\n\nIn which year did a Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge \"define\" what it meant. \n\n\nThen tell me how many centuries (you can round down) passed between the will of the Founding Father's words, and Scalia's.", ">\n\nAnd I knew you wouldn't have an actual argument against the decision but resort to ad hominem.. weak", ">\n\nBe specific, and point out exactly where I attacked your personal character (the definition of ad hominem).\nYou can just copy and paste my exact words in your response, to avoid confusion. \nNo need for interpretation, inference, commentary, or anything of that nature. Just show me my exact words." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility", ">\n\nJudeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?\nWell, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me.", ">\n\nMarriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for", ">\n\nYou sue the hottest super model you can find. \nBut on a serious note, if you believe marriage is a right or not, there is no way the Founding Father's thought they could put down every right on paper.", ">\n\nThe 9th amendment kind of does that", ">\n\nThis is why I said to the original poster that your comment is why the Founders included the 9th Amendment.", ">\n\n38% of the US think that it only contains 14 words. That is the root of the problem. \nNo amendment can be understood by selectively removing clauses to support your political beliefs.", ">\n\nDon't pretend a portion of society doesn't also stop at \"militia\" and ignore \"the right of the people.\"", ">\n\nThe people have the right to bear arms in a well organized militia. Full stop. That is exactly what it says. \nThe Army is that militia. As is the National Guard. Nobody disputes their right to carry weapons. \nLet's try another compound sentence:\n\"If someone arrives in your office for a prostate exam, place a single finger in their rectum. \"\nIn your mind, is the second half of the sentence meaningful without the first?", ">\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" Reading it all together and giving meaning to every part of the sentence, it says that the people have the right to their own arms so that they can form militias if necessary.\nThe Army was (and is) distinct from the Militia. See the relevant Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, ratification debates, actual practice at the time, etc. The Militia could be \"called up\" to the Army, but it wasn't the standing army, nor was it really the \"select corp\" of officers and what we would not recognize as senior NCOs that the Federalists envisioned as necessary to get the Militia ready for duty when called.\nYour construction is an if/then statement, which is completely different from the structure of the 2A. Here's a compound sentence for you: A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy day, the right of the people to own and consume eggs and orange juice shall not be infringed. Who has the right to own and consume eggs and orange juice, the breakfast, the day, or the people?\nNinja edit: fixed a couple of fat thumb errors and clarified the first bit about the whole sentence.", ">\n\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" The stated intent was so that the people culd form militias with their arms.\n\nYou don't need to interpret the \"started intent\".\nRead the words. \nThe ONLY reason that people have a \"right\" to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of being in a well organized militia. \nIndependent ownership, absent militia membership, is not implied or covered. \nI am using the actual words. You are jumping to some undocumented \"intent\" to back up your position.", ">\n\nHeller disagrees with you. Scalia breaks it down and shows why yours is a wrong interpretation of the clause.", ">\n\nI knew you'd just follow the NRA talking points!\nSo:\n\n\nIn which year was the 1st Ammendment ratified\n\n\nIn which year did a Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge \"define\" what it meant. \n\n\nThen tell me how many centuries (you can round down) passed between the will of the Founding Father's words, and Scalia's.", ">\n\nAnd I knew you wouldn't have an actual argument against the decision but resort to ad hominem.. weak", ">\n\nBe specific, and point out exactly where I attacked your personal character (the definition of ad hominem).\nYou can just copy and paste my exact words in your response, to avoid confusion. \nNo need for interpretation, inference, commentary, or anything of that nature. Just show me my exact words.", ">\n\nFirst you dismissed what I said as \"nra talking points\".\nSecond you dismiss Scalia as just a \"Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge\".\nThat is ad hominem.\nEdit: the fact you blocked me says it all. Stop acting like you are the smartest person in the room" ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility", ">\n\nJudeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?\nWell, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me.", ">\n\nMarriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for", ">\n\nYou sue the hottest super model you can find. \nBut on a serious note, if you believe marriage is a right or not, there is no way the Founding Father's thought they could put down every right on paper.", ">\n\nThe 9th amendment kind of does that", ">\n\nThis is why I said to the original poster that your comment is why the Founders included the 9th Amendment.", ">\n\n38% of the US think that it only contains 14 words. That is the root of the problem. \nNo amendment can be understood by selectively removing clauses to support your political beliefs.", ">\n\nDon't pretend a portion of society doesn't also stop at \"militia\" and ignore \"the right of the people.\"", ">\n\nThe people have the right to bear arms in a well organized militia. Full stop. That is exactly what it says. \nThe Army is that militia. As is the National Guard. Nobody disputes their right to carry weapons. \nLet's try another compound sentence:\n\"If someone arrives in your office for a prostate exam, place a single finger in their rectum. \"\nIn your mind, is the second half of the sentence meaningful without the first?", ">\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" Reading it all together and giving meaning to every part of the sentence, it says that the people have the right to their own arms so that they can form militias if necessary.\nThe Army was (and is) distinct from the Militia. See the relevant Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, ratification debates, actual practice at the time, etc. The Militia could be \"called up\" to the Army, but it wasn't the standing army, nor was it really the \"select corp\" of officers and what we would not recognize as senior NCOs that the Federalists envisioned as necessary to get the Militia ready for duty when called.\nYour construction is an if/then statement, which is completely different from the structure of the 2A. Here's a compound sentence for you: A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy day, the right of the people to own and consume eggs and orange juice shall not be infringed. Who has the right to own and consume eggs and orange juice, the breakfast, the day, or the people?\nNinja edit: fixed a couple of fat thumb errors and clarified the first bit about the whole sentence.", ">\n\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" The stated intent was so that the people culd form militias with their arms.\n\nYou don't need to interpret the \"started intent\".\nRead the words. \nThe ONLY reason that people have a \"right\" to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of being in a well organized militia. \nIndependent ownership, absent militia membership, is not implied or covered. \nI am using the actual words. You are jumping to some undocumented \"intent\" to back up your position.", ">\n\nHeller disagrees with you. Scalia breaks it down and shows why yours is a wrong interpretation of the clause.", ">\n\nI knew you'd just follow the NRA talking points!\nSo:\n\n\nIn which year was the 1st Ammendment ratified\n\n\nIn which year did a Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge \"define\" what it meant. \n\n\nThen tell me how many centuries (you can round down) passed between the will of the Founding Father's words, and Scalia's.", ">\n\nAnd I knew you wouldn't have an actual argument against the decision but resort to ad hominem.. weak", ">\n\nBe specific, and point out exactly where I attacked your personal character (the definition of ad hominem).\nYou can just copy and paste my exact words in your response, to avoid confusion. \nNo need for interpretation, inference, commentary, or anything of that nature. Just show me my exact words.", ">\n\nFirst you dismissed what I said as \"nra talking points\".\nSecond you dismiss Scalia as just a \"Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge\".\nThat is ad hominem.\nEdit: the fact you blocked me says it all. Stop acting like you are the smartest person in the room", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was never \"a problem\" until uppity blacks started to exercise their constitutional right and defend themselves against governmental violence perpetrated aka cops. \nRemember, the biggest supporter of gun control was Regan in California. \nNow history repeats itself where the government apparatus and the media conspire to keep the people disarmed and servile \n\n“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible" ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility", ">\n\nJudeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?\nWell, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me.", ">\n\nMarriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for", ">\n\nYou sue the hottest super model you can find. \nBut on a serious note, if you believe marriage is a right or not, there is no way the Founding Father's thought they could put down every right on paper.", ">\n\nThe 9th amendment kind of does that", ">\n\nThis is why I said to the original poster that your comment is why the Founders included the 9th Amendment.", ">\n\n38% of the US think that it only contains 14 words. That is the root of the problem. \nNo amendment can be understood by selectively removing clauses to support your political beliefs.", ">\n\nDon't pretend a portion of society doesn't also stop at \"militia\" and ignore \"the right of the people.\"", ">\n\nThe people have the right to bear arms in a well organized militia. Full stop. That is exactly what it says. \nThe Army is that militia. As is the National Guard. Nobody disputes their right to carry weapons. \nLet's try another compound sentence:\n\"If someone arrives in your office for a prostate exam, place a single finger in their rectum. \"\nIn your mind, is the second half of the sentence meaningful without the first?", ">\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" Reading it all together and giving meaning to every part of the sentence, it says that the people have the right to their own arms so that they can form militias if necessary.\nThe Army was (and is) distinct from the Militia. See the relevant Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, ratification debates, actual practice at the time, etc. The Militia could be \"called up\" to the Army, but it wasn't the standing army, nor was it really the \"select corp\" of officers and what we would not recognize as senior NCOs that the Federalists envisioned as necessary to get the Militia ready for duty when called.\nYour construction is an if/then statement, which is completely different from the structure of the 2A. Here's a compound sentence for you: A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy day, the right of the people to own and consume eggs and orange juice shall not be infringed. Who has the right to own and consume eggs and orange juice, the breakfast, the day, or the people?\nNinja edit: fixed a couple of fat thumb errors and clarified the first bit about the whole sentence.", ">\n\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" The stated intent was so that the people culd form militias with their arms.\n\nYou don't need to interpret the \"started intent\".\nRead the words. \nThe ONLY reason that people have a \"right\" to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of being in a well organized militia. \nIndependent ownership, absent militia membership, is not implied or covered. \nI am using the actual words. You are jumping to some undocumented \"intent\" to back up your position.", ">\n\nHeller disagrees with you. Scalia breaks it down and shows why yours is a wrong interpretation of the clause.", ">\n\nI knew you'd just follow the NRA talking points!\nSo:\n\n\nIn which year was the 1st Ammendment ratified\n\n\nIn which year did a Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge \"define\" what it meant. \n\n\nThen tell me how many centuries (you can round down) passed between the will of the Founding Father's words, and Scalia's.", ">\n\nAnd I knew you wouldn't have an actual argument against the decision but resort to ad hominem.. weak", ">\n\nBe specific, and point out exactly where I attacked your personal character (the definition of ad hominem).\nYou can just copy and paste my exact words in your response, to avoid confusion. \nNo need for interpretation, inference, commentary, or anything of that nature. Just show me my exact words.", ">\n\nFirst you dismissed what I said as \"nra talking points\".\nSecond you dismiss Scalia as just a \"Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge\".\nThat is ad hominem.\nEdit: the fact you blocked me says it all. Stop acting like you are the smartest person in the room", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was never \"a problem\" until uppity blacks started to exercise their constitutional right and defend themselves against governmental violence perpetrated aka cops. \nRemember, the biggest supporter of gun control was Regan in California. \nNow history repeats itself where the government apparatus and the media conspire to keep the people disarmed and servile \n\n“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible", ">\n\nIt very obviously specifically protects the rights of individuals to have firearms but there is political interest in removing these rights from individuals and because of this there is incentive to interpret this amendment differently." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility", ">\n\nJudeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?\nWell, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me.", ">\n\nMarriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for", ">\n\nYou sue the hottest super model you can find. \nBut on a serious note, if you believe marriage is a right or not, there is no way the Founding Father's thought they could put down every right on paper.", ">\n\nThe 9th amendment kind of does that", ">\n\nThis is why I said to the original poster that your comment is why the Founders included the 9th Amendment.", ">\n\n38% of the US think that it only contains 14 words. That is the root of the problem. \nNo amendment can be understood by selectively removing clauses to support your political beliefs.", ">\n\nDon't pretend a portion of society doesn't also stop at \"militia\" and ignore \"the right of the people.\"", ">\n\nThe people have the right to bear arms in a well organized militia. Full stop. That is exactly what it says. \nThe Army is that militia. As is the National Guard. Nobody disputes their right to carry weapons. \nLet's try another compound sentence:\n\"If someone arrives in your office for a prostate exam, place a single finger in their rectum. \"\nIn your mind, is the second half of the sentence meaningful without the first?", ">\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" Reading it all together and giving meaning to every part of the sentence, it says that the people have the right to their own arms so that they can form militias if necessary.\nThe Army was (and is) distinct from the Militia. See the relevant Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, ratification debates, actual practice at the time, etc. The Militia could be \"called up\" to the Army, but it wasn't the standing army, nor was it really the \"select corp\" of officers and what we would not recognize as senior NCOs that the Federalists envisioned as necessary to get the Militia ready for duty when called.\nYour construction is an if/then statement, which is completely different from the structure of the 2A. Here's a compound sentence for you: A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy day, the right of the people to own and consume eggs and orange juice shall not be infringed. Who has the right to own and consume eggs and orange juice, the breakfast, the day, or the people?\nNinja edit: fixed a couple of fat thumb errors and clarified the first bit about the whole sentence.", ">\n\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" The stated intent was so that the people culd form militias with their arms.\n\nYou don't need to interpret the \"started intent\".\nRead the words. \nThe ONLY reason that people have a \"right\" to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of being in a well organized militia. \nIndependent ownership, absent militia membership, is not implied or covered. \nI am using the actual words. You are jumping to some undocumented \"intent\" to back up your position.", ">\n\nHeller disagrees with you. Scalia breaks it down and shows why yours is a wrong interpretation of the clause.", ">\n\nI knew you'd just follow the NRA talking points!\nSo:\n\n\nIn which year was the 1st Ammendment ratified\n\n\nIn which year did a Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge \"define\" what it meant. \n\n\nThen tell me how many centuries (you can round down) passed between the will of the Founding Father's words, and Scalia's.", ">\n\nAnd I knew you wouldn't have an actual argument against the decision but resort to ad hominem.. weak", ">\n\nBe specific, and point out exactly where I attacked your personal character (the definition of ad hominem).\nYou can just copy and paste my exact words in your response, to avoid confusion. \nNo need for interpretation, inference, commentary, or anything of that nature. Just show me my exact words.", ">\n\nFirst you dismissed what I said as \"nra talking points\".\nSecond you dismiss Scalia as just a \"Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge\".\nThat is ad hominem.\nEdit: the fact you blocked me says it all. Stop acting like you are the smartest person in the room", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was never \"a problem\" until uppity blacks started to exercise their constitutional right and defend themselves against governmental violence perpetrated aka cops. \nRemember, the biggest supporter of gun control was Regan in California. \nNow history repeats itself where the government apparatus and the media conspire to keep the people disarmed and servile \n\n“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible", ">\n\nIt very obviously specifically protects the rights of individuals to have firearms but there is political interest in removing these rights from individuals and because of this there is incentive to interpret this amendment differently.", ">\n\nAs an American, I can confirm what the rest of the folks in this discussion are saying: we don't really agree on the other Amendments either. 2A is just a recurring issue because we have so many mass shootings that Republicans are ok to ignore." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility", ">\n\nJudeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?\nWell, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me.", ">\n\nMarriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for", ">\n\nYou sue the hottest super model you can find. \nBut on a serious note, if you believe marriage is a right or not, there is no way the Founding Father's thought they could put down every right on paper.", ">\n\nThe 9th amendment kind of does that", ">\n\nThis is why I said to the original poster that your comment is why the Founders included the 9th Amendment.", ">\n\n38% of the US think that it only contains 14 words. That is the root of the problem. \nNo amendment can be understood by selectively removing clauses to support your political beliefs.", ">\n\nDon't pretend a portion of society doesn't also stop at \"militia\" and ignore \"the right of the people.\"", ">\n\nThe people have the right to bear arms in a well organized militia. Full stop. That is exactly what it says. \nThe Army is that militia. As is the National Guard. Nobody disputes their right to carry weapons. \nLet's try another compound sentence:\n\"If someone arrives in your office for a prostate exam, place a single finger in their rectum. \"\nIn your mind, is the second half of the sentence meaningful without the first?", ">\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" Reading it all together and giving meaning to every part of the sentence, it says that the people have the right to their own arms so that they can form militias if necessary.\nThe Army was (and is) distinct from the Militia. See the relevant Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, ratification debates, actual practice at the time, etc. The Militia could be \"called up\" to the Army, but it wasn't the standing army, nor was it really the \"select corp\" of officers and what we would not recognize as senior NCOs that the Federalists envisioned as necessary to get the Militia ready for duty when called.\nYour construction is an if/then statement, which is completely different from the structure of the 2A. Here's a compound sentence for you: A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy day, the right of the people to own and consume eggs and orange juice shall not be infringed. Who has the right to own and consume eggs and orange juice, the breakfast, the day, or the people?\nNinja edit: fixed a couple of fat thumb errors and clarified the first bit about the whole sentence.", ">\n\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" The stated intent was so that the people culd form militias with their arms.\n\nYou don't need to interpret the \"started intent\".\nRead the words. \nThe ONLY reason that people have a \"right\" to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of being in a well organized militia. \nIndependent ownership, absent militia membership, is not implied or covered. \nI am using the actual words. You are jumping to some undocumented \"intent\" to back up your position.", ">\n\nHeller disagrees with you. Scalia breaks it down and shows why yours is a wrong interpretation of the clause.", ">\n\nI knew you'd just follow the NRA talking points!\nSo:\n\n\nIn which year was the 1st Ammendment ratified\n\n\nIn which year did a Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge \"define\" what it meant. \n\n\nThen tell me how many centuries (you can round down) passed between the will of the Founding Father's words, and Scalia's.", ">\n\nAnd I knew you wouldn't have an actual argument against the decision but resort to ad hominem.. weak", ">\n\nBe specific, and point out exactly where I attacked your personal character (the definition of ad hominem).\nYou can just copy and paste my exact words in your response, to avoid confusion. \nNo need for interpretation, inference, commentary, or anything of that nature. Just show me my exact words.", ">\n\nFirst you dismissed what I said as \"nra talking points\".\nSecond you dismiss Scalia as just a \"Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge\".\nThat is ad hominem.\nEdit: the fact you blocked me says it all. Stop acting like you are the smartest person in the room", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was never \"a problem\" until uppity blacks started to exercise their constitutional right and defend themselves against governmental violence perpetrated aka cops. \nRemember, the biggest supporter of gun control was Regan in California. \nNow history repeats itself where the government apparatus and the media conspire to keep the people disarmed and servile \n\n“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible", ">\n\nIt very obviously specifically protects the rights of individuals to have firearms but there is political interest in removing these rights from individuals and because of this there is incentive to interpret this amendment differently.", ">\n\nAs an American, I can confirm what the rest of the folks in this discussion are saying: we don't really agree on the other Amendments either. 2A is just a recurring issue because we have so many mass shootings that Republicans are ok to ignore.", ">\n\nYeh, and the other thing we don't really agree on - the definition of mass shootings - just so the American media and anti-gun-rights advocates can say things like we have so many mass shootings that Republicans are ok to ignore. At this point every gang shooting is a mass shooting." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility", ">\n\nJudeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?\nWell, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me.", ">\n\nMarriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for", ">\n\nYou sue the hottest super model you can find. \nBut on a serious note, if you believe marriage is a right or not, there is no way the Founding Father's thought they could put down every right on paper.", ">\n\nThe 9th amendment kind of does that", ">\n\nThis is why I said to the original poster that your comment is why the Founders included the 9th Amendment.", ">\n\n38% of the US think that it only contains 14 words. That is the root of the problem. \nNo amendment can be understood by selectively removing clauses to support your political beliefs.", ">\n\nDon't pretend a portion of society doesn't also stop at \"militia\" and ignore \"the right of the people.\"", ">\n\nThe people have the right to bear arms in a well organized militia. Full stop. That is exactly what it says. \nThe Army is that militia. As is the National Guard. Nobody disputes their right to carry weapons. \nLet's try another compound sentence:\n\"If someone arrives in your office for a prostate exam, place a single finger in their rectum. \"\nIn your mind, is the second half of the sentence meaningful without the first?", ">\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" Reading it all together and giving meaning to every part of the sentence, it says that the people have the right to their own arms so that they can form militias if necessary.\nThe Army was (and is) distinct from the Militia. See the relevant Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, ratification debates, actual practice at the time, etc. The Militia could be \"called up\" to the Army, but it wasn't the standing army, nor was it really the \"select corp\" of officers and what we would not recognize as senior NCOs that the Federalists envisioned as necessary to get the Militia ready for duty when called.\nYour construction is an if/then statement, which is completely different from the structure of the 2A. Here's a compound sentence for you: A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy day, the right of the people to own and consume eggs and orange juice shall not be infringed. Who has the right to own and consume eggs and orange juice, the breakfast, the day, or the people?\nNinja edit: fixed a couple of fat thumb errors and clarified the first bit about the whole sentence.", ">\n\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" The stated intent was so that the people culd form militias with their arms.\n\nYou don't need to interpret the \"started intent\".\nRead the words. \nThe ONLY reason that people have a \"right\" to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of being in a well organized militia. \nIndependent ownership, absent militia membership, is not implied or covered. \nI am using the actual words. You are jumping to some undocumented \"intent\" to back up your position.", ">\n\nHeller disagrees with you. Scalia breaks it down and shows why yours is a wrong interpretation of the clause.", ">\n\nI knew you'd just follow the NRA talking points!\nSo:\n\n\nIn which year was the 1st Ammendment ratified\n\n\nIn which year did a Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge \"define\" what it meant. \n\n\nThen tell me how many centuries (you can round down) passed between the will of the Founding Father's words, and Scalia's.", ">\n\nAnd I knew you wouldn't have an actual argument against the decision but resort to ad hominem.. weak", ">\n\nBe specific, and point out exactly where I attacked your personal character (the definition of ad hominem).\nYou can just copy and paste my exact words in your response, to avoid confusion. \nNo need for interpretation, inference, commentary, or anything of that nature. Just show me my exact words.", ">\n\nFirst you dismissed what I said as \"nra talking points\".\nSecond you dismiss Scalia as just a \"Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge\".\nThat is ad hominem.\nEdit: the fact you blocked me says it all. Stop acting like you are the smartest person in the room", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was never \"a problem\" until uppity blacks started to exercise their constitutional right and defend themselves against governmental violence perpetrated aka cops. \nRemember, the biggest supporter of gun control was Regan in California. \nNow history repeats itself where the government apparatus and the media conspire to keep the people disarmed and servile \n\n“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible", ">\n\nIt very obviously specifically protects the rights of individuals to have firearms but there is political interest in removing these rights from individuals and because of this there is incentive to interpret this amendment differently.", ">\n\nAs an American, I can confirm what the rest of the folks in this discussion are saying: we don't really agree on the other Amendments either. 2A is just a recurring issue because we have so many mass shootings that Republicans are ok to ignore.", ">\n\nYeh, and the other thing we don't really agree on - the definition of mass shootings - just so the American media and anti-gun-rights advocates can say things like we have so many mass shootings that Republicans are ok to ignore. At this point every gang shooting is a mass shooting.", ">\n\nU.S Congress has consistently defined a mass shooting as a shooting event with 3 or more victims." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility", ">\n\nJudeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?\nWell, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me.", ">\n\nMarriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for", ">\n\nYou sue the hottest super model you can find. \nBut on a serious note, if you believe marriage is a right or not, there is no way the Founding Father's thought they could put down every right on paper.", ">\n\nThe 9th amendment kind of does that", ">\n\nThis is why I said to the original poster that your comment is why the Founders included the 9th Amendment.", ">\n\n38% of the US think that it only contains 14 words. That is the root of the problem. \nNo amendment can be understood by selectively removing clauses to support your political beliefs.", ">\n\nDon't pretend a portion of society doesn't also stop at \"militia\" and ignore \"the right of the people.\"", ">\n\nThe people have the right to bear arms in a well organized militia. Full stop. That is exactly what it says. \nThe Army is that militia. As is the National Guard. Nobody disputes their right to carry weapons. \nLet's try another compound sentence:\n\"If someone arrives in your office for a prostate exam, place a single finger in their rectum. \"\nIn your mind, is the second half of the sentence meaningful without the first?", ">\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" Reading it all together and giving meaning to every part of the sentence, it says that the people have the right to their own arms so that they can form militias if necessary.\nThe Army was (and is) distinct from the Militia. See the relevant Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, ratification debates, actual practice at the time, etc. The Militia could be \"called up\" to the Army, but it wasn't the standing army, nor was it really the \"select corp\" of officers and what we would not recognize as senior NCOs that the Federalists envisioned as necessary to get the Militia ready for duty when called.\nYour construction is an if/then statement, which is completely different from the structure of the 2A. Here's a compound sentence for you: A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy day, the right of the people to own and consume eggs and orange juice shall not be infringed. Who has the right to own and consume eggs and orange juice, the breakfast, the day, or the people?\nNinja edit: fixed a couple of fat thumb errors and clarified the first bit about the whole sentence.", ">\n\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" The stated intent was so that the people culd form militias with their arms.\n\nYou don't need to interpret the \"started intent\".\nRead the words. \nThe ONLY reason that people have a \"right\" to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of being in a well organized militia. \nIndependent ownership, absent militia membership, is not implied or covered. \nI am using the actual words. You are jumping to some undocumented \"intent\" to back up your position.", ">\n\nHeller disagrees with you. Scalia breaks it down and shows why yours is a wrong interpretation of the clause.", ">\n\nI knew you'd just follow the NRA talking points!\nSo:\n\n\nIn which year was the 1st Ammendment ratified\n\n\nIn which year did a Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge \"define\" what it meant. \n\n\nThen tell me how many centuries (you can round down) passed between the will of the Founding Father's words, and Scalia's.", ">\n\nAnd I knew you wouldn't have an actual argument against the decision but resort to ad hominem.. weak", ">\n\nBe specific, and point out exactly where I attacked your personal character (the definition of ad hominem).\nYou can just copy and paste my exact words in your response, to avoid confusion. \nNo need for interpretation, inference, commentary, or anything of that nature. Just show me my exact words.", ">\n\nFirst you dismissed what I said as \"nra talking points\".\nSecond you dismiss Scalia as just a \"Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge\".\nThat is ad hominem.\nEdit: the fact you blocked me says it all. Stop acting like you are the smartest person in the room", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was never \"a problem\" until uppity blacks started to exercise their constitutional right and defend themselves against governmental violence perpetrated aka cops. \nRemember, the biggest supporter of gun control was Regan in California. \nNow history repeats itself where the government apparatus and the media conspire to keep the people disarmed and servile \n\n“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible", ">\n\nIt very obviously specifically protects the rights of individuals to have firearms but there is political interest in removing these rights from individuals and because of this there is incentive to interpret this amendment differently.", ">\n\nAs an American, I can confirm what the rest of the folks in this discussion are saying: we don't really agree on the other Amendments either. 2A is just a recurring issue because we have so many mass shootings that Republicans are ok to ignore.", ">\n\nYeh, and the other thing we don't really agree on - the definition of mass shootings - just so the American media and anti-gun-rights advocates can say things like we have so many mass shootings that Republicans are ok to ignore. At this point every gang shooting is a mass shooting.", ">\n\nU.S Congress has consistently defined a mass shooting as a shooting event with 3 or more victims.", ">\n\nThe US Congress has said a lot of things - often with great inaccuracy" ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility", ">\n\nJudeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?\nWell, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me.", ">\n\nMarriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for", ">\n\nYou sue the hottest super model you can find. \nBut on a serious note, if you believe marriage is a right or not, there is no way the Founding Father's thought they could put down every right on paper.", ">\n\nThe 9th amendment kind of does that", ">\n\nThis is why I said to the original poster that your comment is why the Founders included the 9th Amendment.", ">\n\n38% of the US think that it only contains 14 words. That is the root of the problem. \nNo amendment can be understood by selectively removing clauses to support your political beliefs.", ">\n\nDon't pretend a portion of society doesn't also stop at \"militia\" and ignore \"the right of the people.\"", ">\n\nThe people have the right to bear arms in a well organized militia. Full stop. That is exactly what it says. \nThe Army is that militia. As is the National Guard. Nobody disputes their right to carry weapons. \nLet's try another compound sentence:\n\"If someone arrives in your office for a prostate exam, place a single finger in their rectum. \"\nIn your mind, is the second half of the sentence meaningful without the first?", ">\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" Reading it all together and giving meaning to every part of the sentence, it says that the people have the right to their own arms so that they can form militias if necessary.\nThe Army was (and is) distinct from the Militia. See the relevant Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, ratification debates, actual practice at the time, etc. The Militia could be \"called up\" to the Army, but it wasn't the standing army, nor was it really the \"select corp\" of officers and what we would not recognize as senior NCOs that the Federalists envisioned as necessary to get the Militia ready for duty when called.\nYour construction is an if/then statement, which is completely different from the structure of the 2A. Here's a compound sentence for you: A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy day, the right of the people to own and consume eggs and orange juice shall not be infringed. Who has the right to own and consume eggs and orange juice, the breakfast, the day, or the people?\nNinja edit: fixed a couple of fat thumb errors and clarified the first bit about the whole sentence.", ">\n\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" The stated intent was so that the people culd form militias with their arms.\n\nYou don't need to interpret the \"started intent\".\nRead the words. \nThe ONLY reason that people have a \"right\" to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of being in a well organized militia. \nIndependent ownership, absent militia membership, is not implied or covered. \nI am using the actual words. You are jumping to some undocumented \"intent\" to back up your position.", ">\n\nHeller disagrees with you. Scalia breaks it down and shows why yours is a wrong interpretation of the clause.", ">\n\nI knew you'd just follow the NRA talking points!\nSo:\n\n\nIn which year was the 1st Ammendment ratified\n\n\nIn which year did a Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge \"define\" what it meant. \n\n\nThen tell me how many centuries (you can round down) passed between the will of the Founding Father's words, and Scalia's.", ">\n\nAnd I knew you wouldn't have an actual argument against the decision but resort to ad hominem.. weak", ">\n\nBe specific, and point out exactly where I attacked your personal character (the definition of ad hominem).\nYou can just copy and paste my exact words in your response, to avoid confusion. \nNo need for interpretation, inference, commentary, or anything of that nature. Just show me my exact words.", ">\n\nFirst you dismissed what I said as \"nra talking points\".\nSecond you dismiss Scalia as just a \"Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge\".\nThat is ad hominem.\nEdit: the fact you blocked me says it all. Stop acting like you are the smartest person in the room", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was never \"a problem\" until uppity blacks started to exercise their constitutional right and defend themselves against governmental violence perpetrated aka cops. \nRemember, the biggest supporter of gun control was Regan in California. \nNow history repeats itself where the government apparatus and the media conspire to keep the people disarmed and servile \n\n“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible", ">\n\nIt very obviously specifically protects the rights of individuals to have firearms but there is political interest in removing these rights from individuals and because of this there is incentive to interpret this amendment differently.", ">\n\nAs an American, I can confirm what the rest of the folks in this discussion are saying: we don't really agree on the other Amendments either. 2A is just a recurring issue because we have so many mass shootings that Republicans are ok to ignore.", ">\n\nYeh, and the other thing we don't really agree on - the definition of mass shootings - just so the American media and anti-gun-rights advocates can say things like we have so many mass shootings that Republicans are ok to ignore. At this point every gang shooting is a mass shooting.", ">\n\nU.S Congress has consistently defined a mass shooting as a shooting event with 3 or more victims.", ">\n\nThe US Congress has said a lot of things - often with great inaccuracy", ">\n\nOk, let's see your definition signed into law as a counterargument then." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility", ">\n\nJudeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?\nWell, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me.", ">\n\nMarriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for", ">\n\nYou sue the hottest super model you can find. \nBut on a serious note, if you believe marriage is a right or not, there is no way the Founding Father's thought they could put down every right on paper.", ">\n\nThe 9th amendment kind of does that", ">\n\nThis is why I said to the original poster that your comment is why the Founders included the 9th Amendment.", ">\n\n38% of the US think that it only contains 14 words. That is the root of the problem. \nNo amendment can be understood by selectively removing clauses to support your political beliefs.", ">\n\nDon't pretend a portion of society doesn't also stop at \"militia\" and ignore \"the right of the people.\"", ">\n\nThe people have the right to bear arms in a well organized militia. Full stop. That is exactly what it says. \nThe Army is that militia. As is the National Guard. Nobody disputes their right to carry weapons. \nLet's try another compound sentence:\n\"If someone arrives in your office for a prostate exam, place a single finger in their rectum. \"\nIn your mind, is the second half of the sentence meaningful without the first?", ">\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" Reading it all together and giving meaning to every part of the sentence, it says that the people have the right to their own arms so that they can form militias if necessary.\nThe Army was (and is) distinct from the Militia. See the relevant Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, ratification debates, actual practice at the time, etc. The Militia could be \"called up\" to the Army, but it wasn't the standing army, nor was it really the \"select corp\" of officers and what we would not recognize as senior NCOs that the Federalists envisioned as necessary to get the Militia ready for duty when called.\nYour construction is an if/then statement, which is completely different from the structure of the 2A. Here's a compound sentence for you: A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy day, the right of the people to own and consume eggs and orange juice shall not be infringed. Who has the right to own and consume eggs and orange juice, the breakfast, the day, or the people?\nNinja edit: fixed a couple of fat thumb errors and clarified the first bit about the whole sentence.", ">\n\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" The stated intent was so that the people culd form militias with their arms.\n\nYou don't need to interpret the \"started intent\".\nRead the words. \nThe ONLY reason that people have a \"right\" to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of being in a well organized militia. \nIndependent ownership, absent militia membership, is not implied or covered. \nI am using the actual words. You are jumping to some undocumented \"intent\" to back up your position.", ">\n\nHeller disagrees with you. Scalia breaks it down and shows why yours is a wrong interpretation of the clause.", ">\n\nI knew you'd just follow the NRA talking points!\nSo:\n\n\nIn which year was the 1st Ammendment ratified\n\n\nIn which year did a Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge \"define\" what it meant. \n\n\nThen tell me how many centuries (you can round down) passed between the will of the Founding Father's words, and Scalia's.", ">\n\nAnd I knew you wouldn't have an actual argument against the decision but resort to ad hominem.. weak", ">\n\nBe specific, and point out exactly where I attacked your personal character (the definition of ad hominem).\nYou can just copy and paste my exact words in your response, to avoid confusion. \nNo need for interpretation, inference, commentary, or anything of that nature. Just show me my exact words.", ">\n\nFirst you dismissed what I said as \"nra talking points\".\nSecond you dismiss Scalia as just a \"Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge\".\nThat is ad hominem.\nEdit: the fact you blocked me says it all. Stop acting like you are the smartest person in the room", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was never \"a problem\" until uppity blacks started to exercise their constitutional right and defend themselves against governmental violence perpetrated aka cops. \nRemember, the biggest supporter of gun control was Regan in California. \nNow history repeats itself where the government apparatus and the media conspire to keep the people disarmed and servile \n\n“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible", ">\n\nIt very obviously specifically protects the rights of individuals to have firearms but there is political interest in removing these rights from individuals and because of this there is incentive to interpret this amendment differently.", ">\n\nAs an American, I can confirm what the rest of the folks in this discussion are saying: we don't really agree on the other Amendments either. 2A is just a recurring issue because we have so many mass shootings that Republicans are ok to ignore.", ">\n\nYeh, and the other thing we don't really agree on - the definition of mass shootings - just so the American media and anti-gun-rights advocates can say things like we have so many mass shootings that Republicans are ok to ignore. At this point every gang shooting is a mass shooting.", ">\n\nU.S Congress has consistently defined a mass shooting as a shooting event with 3 or more victims.", ">\n\nThe US Congress has said a lot of things - often with great inaccuracy", ">\n\nOk, let's see your definition signed into law as a counterargument then.", ">\n\n\nOk, let's see your definition signed into law as a counterargument then.\n\nThere is no definition signed into law. People in multiple government agencies, mainstream media, and sundry lobbyist organizations disagree about what constitutes a mass shooting. Your own link states the same.\n\nThere is no universal definition of mass violence crimes, mass murders or mass killings. Many different definitions are used by researchers, criminal justice experts, and public policy bodies. Some definitions focus solely on the number of deaths, but others count crimes in which there are few deaths but many injuries. Some definitions focus on the method used to kill and injure (e.g. firearms only) and others include crimes committed with any weapon. Some definitions focus on the perceived motive of the perpetrator (e.g. hate, terrorism, or a desire to kill strangers) or who was attacked (and do not count mass casualty crimes as mass violence if the perpetrator’s motive was to kill family members or rival gang members). Some definitions are designed to establish eligibility requirements to receive federal assistance after mass violence crimes.\n\nObviously the people who hate gun rights prefer the definition that requires the lowest possible standard to qualify as a mass shooting." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility", ">\n\nJudeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?\nWell, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me.", ">\n\nMarriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for", ">\n\nYou sue the hottest super model you can find. \nBut on a serious note, if you believe marriage is a right or not, there is no way the Founding Father's thought they could put down every right on paper.", ">\n\nThe 9th amendment kind of does that", ">\n\nThis is why I said to the original poster that your comment is why the Founders included the 9th Amendment.", ">\n\n38% of the US think that it only contains 14 words. That is the root of the problem. \nNo amendment can be understood by selectively removing clauses to support your political beliefs.", ">\n\nDon't pretend a portion of society doesn't also stop at \"militia\" and ignore \"the right of the people.\"", ">\n\nThe people have the right to bear arms in a well organized militia. Full stop. That is exactly what it says. \nThe Army is that militia. As is the National Guard. Nobody disputes their right to carry weapons. \nLet's try another compound sentence:\n\"If someone arrives in your office for a prostate exam, place a single finger in their rectum. \"\nIn your mind, is the second half of the sentence meaningful without the first?", ">\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" Reading it all together and giving meaning to every part of the sentence, it says that the people have the right to their own arms so that they can form militias if necessary.\nThe Army was (and is) distinct from the Militia. See the relevant Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, ratification debates, actual practice at the time, etc. The Militia could be \"called up\" to the Army, but it wasn't the standing army, nor was it really the \"select corp\" of officers and what we would not recognize as senior NCOs that the Federalists envisioned as necessary to get the Militia ready for duty when called.\nYour construction is an if/then statement, which is completely different from the structure of the 2A. Here's a compound sentence for you: A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy day, the right of the people to own and consume eggs and orange juice shall not be infringed. Who has the right to own and consume eggs and orange juice, the breakfast, the day, or the people?\nNinja edit: fixed a couple of fat thumb errors and clarified the first bit about the whole sentence.", ">\n\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" The stated intent was so that the people culd form militias with their arms.\n\nYou don't need to interpret the \"started intent\".\nRead the words. \nThe ONLY reason that people have a \"right\" to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of being in a well organized militia. \nIndependent ownership, absent militia membership, is not implied or covered. \nI am using the actual words. You are jumping to some undocumented \"intent\" to back up your position.", ">\n\nHeller disagrees with you. Scalia breaks it down and shows why yours is a wrong interpretation of the clause.", ">\n\nI knew you'd just follow the NRA talking points!\nSo:\n\n\nIn which year was the 1st Ammendment ratified\n\n\nIn which year did a Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge \"define\" what it meant. \n\n\nThen tell me how many centuries (you can round down) passed between the will of the Founding Father's words, and Scalia's.", ">\n\nAnd I knew you wouldn't have an actual argument against the decision but resort to ad hominem.. weak", ">\n\nBe specific, and point out exactly where I attacked your personal character (the definition of ad hominem).\nYou can just copy and paste my exact words in your response, to avoid confusion. \nNo need for interpretation, inference, commentary, or anything of that nature. Just show me my exact words.", ">\n\nFirst you dismissed what I said as \"nra talking points\".\nSecond you dismiss Scalia as just a \"Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge\".\nThat is ad hominem.\nEdit: the fact you blocked me says it all. Stop acting like you are the smartest person in the room", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was never \"a problem\" until uppity blacks started to exercise their constitutional right and defend themselves against governmental violence perpetrated aka cops. \nRemember, the biggest supporter of gun control was Regan in California. \nNow history repeats itself where the government apparatus and the media conspire to keep the people disarmed and servile \n\n“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible", ">\n\nIt very obviously specifically protects the rights of individuals to have firearms but there is political interest in removing these rights from individuals and because of this there is incentive to interpret this amendment differently.", ">\n\nAs an American, I can confirm what the rest of the folks in this discussion are saying: we don't really agree on the other Amendments either. 2A is just a recurring issue because we have so many mass shootings that Republicans are ok to ignore.", ">\n\nYeh, and the other thing we don't really agree on - the definition of mass shootings - just so the American media and anti-gun-rights advocates can say things like we have so many mass shootings that Republicans are ok to ignore. At this point every gang shooting is a mass shooting.", ">\n\nU.S Congress has consistently defined a mass shooting as a shooting event with 3 or more victims.", ">\n\nThe US Congress has said a lot of things - often with great inaccuracy", ">\n\nOk, let's see your definition signed into law as a counterargument then.", ">\n\n\nOk, let's see your definition signed into law as a counterargument then.\n\nThere is no definition signed into law. People in multiple government agencies, mainstream media, and sundry lobbyist organizations disagree about what constitutes a mass shooting. Your own link states the same.\n\nThere is no universal definition of mass violence crimes, mass murders or mass killings. Many different definitions are used by researchers, criminal justice experts, and public policy bodies. Some definitions focus solely on the number of deaths, but others count crimes in which there are few deaths but many injuries. Some definitions focus on the method used to kill and injure (e.g. firearms only) and others include crimes committed with any weapon. Some definitions focus on the perceived motive of the perpetrator (e.g. hate, terrorism, or a desire to kill strangers) or who was attacked (and do not count mass casualty crimes as mass violence if the perpetrator’s motive was to kill family members or rival gang members). Some definitions are designed to establish eligibility requirements to receive federal assistance after mass violence crimes.\n\nObviously the people who hate gun rights prefer the definition that requires the lowest possible standard to qualify as a mass shooting.", ">\n\nThe definition I linked is from the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crime Act of 2012; Public Law 112-265, 126 STAT. 2435.\nSo it is actually a law. Sorry you're wrong." ]

[ "Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.\nThis is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way.", ">\n\nI think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated.", ">\n\nThere’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.”", ">\n\nI would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.\nMany states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.\nThe U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories.", ">\n\nIt's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a \"taking\" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are \"cruel and unusual\", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!\nThe reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.\nUS jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying \"yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?\" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying \"yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments\" is a massive \"screw you!\" issued by an unfriendly court.\nThat's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th.", ">\n\nIronically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court \"discovered\" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.\nThat discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka \"think tanks\"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best \"Conservative\" legal minds to effectively erase the whole \"well regulated militia\" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment.", ">\n\n>That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.\nThat's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on.", ">\n\n\nIt linked a sort of test to a regulated militia\n\nThe idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.", ">\n\n> The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the \"collective right\" argument.\nThen it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. \nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.", ">\n\n\nThe test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. \nWell, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.\n\nMiller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: \n\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" \nThis is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. \nYou're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.", ">\n\n>This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?\nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\nThe Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n>until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, \"discovered\" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.\nMaybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound.", ">\n\n\nConclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer? \nIn your quoted language, it says \"guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.\" The right for whom?\n\nMy brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies \"to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\" as the court states unequivocally. \n​\n\nBut the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.\n\nYes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here.", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. \nIt is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.\nAfter multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.\nThat is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place.", ">\n\nGotta disagree.\nFor two reasons.\nFirst, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\nSecond, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. \nI would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt.", ">\n\n>First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.\n>Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.\nRead the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War.", ">\n\nBecause gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.\nThat goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans. And that continues today. Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime. Yet political gun control debates are about rifles. Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular.", ">\n\nBlack people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. \nIt was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.", ">\n\nThat's the definition of political enemies.", ">\n\nHow? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together.", ">\n\nDidn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. \nAlso, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug.", ">\n\nStates didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.", ">\n\nI think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions. \nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.", ">\n\n\nAlso, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. \n\nThat has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them.", ">\n\nThe warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.\nIt’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution.", ">\n\n(Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)\nThat's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.\nThe problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.\nUnfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, \"may-issue\" licensing, \"Saturday night special\" laws (or the modern incarnation, the \"safe handgun\" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most \"gun control\" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.\nBut now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.\nAnd the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. \"Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!\" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? \"Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!\" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's \"from the wrong sorts of people\" guys or the \"to fight government tyranny\" folks or the \"armed gays don't get bashed\" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.\nSo it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous \"mainstream\" position isn't really supported by law anymore.", ">\n\nIsnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. \nThat actually is probably the most widely supported view politically ..", ">\n\nI mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean \"reasonable restrictions\" to be \"what kind of gun\" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied).", ">\n\nThe private navy argument is a bold take. So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war? Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?\nIf you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line?", ">\n\nBluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's \"illegal\" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.\nAs far as \"private navy\" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.\nThat being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what \"ought to be allowed\" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal).", ">\n\nSome of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution", ">\n\nThe 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now.", ">\n\nNo. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility", ">\n\nJudeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?\nWell, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me.", ">\n\nMarriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for", ">\n\nYou sue the hottest super model you can find. \nBut on a serious note, if you believe marriage is a right or not, there is no way the Founding Father's thought they could put down every right on paper.", ">\n\nThe 9th amendment kind of does that", ">\n\nThis is why I said to the original poster that your comment is why the Founders included the 9th Amendment.", ">\n\n38% of the US think that it only contains 14 words. That is the root of the problem. \nNo amendment can be understood by selectively removing clauses to support your political beliefs.", ">\n\nDon't pretend a portion of society doesn't also stop at \"militia\" and ignore \"the right of the people.\"", ">\n\nThe people have the right to bear arms in a well organized militia. Full stop. That is exactly what it says. \nThe Army is that militia. As is the National Guard. Nobody disputes their right to carry weapons. \nLet's try another compound sentence:\n\"If someone arrives in your office for a prostate exam, place a single finger in their rectum. \"\nIn your mind, is the second half of the sentence meaningful without the first?", ">\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" Reading it all together and giving meaning to every part of the sentence, it says that the people have the right to their own arms so that they can form militias if necessary.\nThe Army was (and is) distinct from the Militia. See the relevant Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, ratification debates, actual practice at the time, etc. The Militia could be \"called up\" to the Army, but it wasn't the standing army, nor was it really the \"select corp\" of officers and what we would not recognize as senior NCOs that the Federalists envisioned as necessary to get the Militia ready for duty when called.\nYour construction is an if/then statement, which is completely different from the structure of the 2A. Here's a compound sentence for you: A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy day, the right of the people to own and consume eggs and orange juice shall not be infringed. Who has the right to own and consume eggs and orange juice, the breakfast, the day, or the people?\nNinja edit: fixed a couple of fat thumb errors and clarified the first bit about the whole sentence.", ">\n\n\nThat's not what it says. It does not say \"the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,\" it says \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms.\" The stated intent was so that the people culd form militias with their arms.\n\nYou don't need to interpret the \"started intent\".\nRead the words. \nThe ONLY reason that people have a \"right\" to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of being in a well organized militia. \nIndependent ownership, absent militia membership, is not implied or covered. \nI am using the actual words. You are jumping to some undocumented \"intent\" to back up your position.", ">\n\nHeller disagrees with you. Scalia breaks it down and shows why yours is a wrong interpretation of the clause.", ">\n\nI knew you'd just follow the NRA talking points!\nSo:\n\n\nIn which year was the 1st Ammendment ratified\n\n\nIn which year did a Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge \"define\" what it meant. \n\n\nThen tell me how many centuries (you can round down) passed between the will of the Founding Father's words, and Scalia's.", ">\n\nAnd I knew you wouldn't have an actual argument against the decision but resort to ad hominem.. weak", ">\n\nBe specific, and point out exactly where I attacked your personal character (the definition of ad hominem).\nYou can just copy and paste my exact words in your response, to avoid confusion. \nNo need for interpretation, inference, commentary, or anything of that nature. Just show me my exact words.", ">\n\nFirst you dismissed what I said as \"nra talking points\".\nSecond you dismiss Scalia as just a \"Federalist society, NRA funded activist Judge\".\nThat is ad hominem.\nEdit: the fact you blocked me says it all. Stop acting like you are the smartest person in the room", ">\n\nThe 2nd amendment was never \"a problem\" until uppity blacks started to exercise their constitutional right and defend themselves against governmental violence perpetrated aka cops. \nRemember, the biggest supporter of gun control was Regan in California. \nNow history repeats itself where the government apparatus and the media conspire to keep the people disarmed and servile \n\n“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible", ">\n\nIt very obviously specifically protects the rights of individuals to have firearms but there is political interest in removing these rights from individuals and because of this there is incentive to interpret this amendment differently.", ">\n\nAs an American, I can confirm what the rest of the folks in this discussion are saying: we don't really agree on the other Amendments either. 2A is just a recurring issue because we have so many mass shootings that Republicans are ok to ignore.", ">\n\nYeh, and the other thing we don't really agree on - the definition of mass shootings - just so the American media and anti-gun-rights advocates can say things like we have so many mass shootings that Republicans are ok to ignore. At this point every gang shooting is a mass shooting.", ">\n\nU.S Congress has consistently defined a mass shooting as a shooting event with 3 or more victims.", ">\n\nThe US Congress has said a lot of things - often with great inaccuracy", ">\n\nOk, let's see your definition signed into law as a counterargument then.", ">\n\n\nOk, let's see your definition signed into law as a counterargument then.\n\nThere is no definition signed into law. People in multiple government agencies, mainstream media, and sundry lobbyist organizations disagree about what constitutes a mass shooting. Your own link states the same.\n\nThere is no universal definition of mass violence crimes, mass murders or mass killings. Many different definitions are used by researchers, criminal justice experts, and public policy bodies. Some definitions focus solely on the number of deaths, but others count crimes in which there are few deaths but many injuries. Some definitions focus on the method used to kill and injure (e.g. firearms only) and others include crimes committed with any weapon. Some definitions focus on the perceived motive of the perpetrator (e.g. hate, terrorism, or a desire to kill strangers) or who was attacked (and do not count mass casualty crimes as mass violence if the perpetrator’s motive was to kill family members or rival gang members). Some definitions are designed to establish eligibility requirements to receive federal assistance after mass violence crimes.\n\nObviously the people who hate gun rights prefer the definition that requires the lowest possible standard to qualify as a mass shooting.", ">\n\nThe definition I linked is from the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crime Act of 2012; Public Law 112-265, 126 STAT. 2435.\nSo it is actually a law. Sorry you're wrong.", ">\n\nAs a gun owner and supporter of the 2A individual right to own a gun, I have never liked the way the Founders wrote the amendment. The preamble about \"a well regulated militia\" to some means the Founders meant to restrict gun ownership to just that purpose. That's false, of course. The Constitution was written at a time where hunting for food, and self-defense against indian attacks and road robberies were essential. \nBut my question remains, WHY did they phrase it that way? Why bother adding that preamble if private gun ownership and use was so common? I think that question has led to a lot of debate.\nAlso, note that the First Amendment starts \"Congress shall make no law...\" while the Second Amerndment is more sweeping: \"...shall not be infringed.\" That points against regulation by the executive branch as well.\nRegardless of its construction, though, arguments suggesting it should be ignored because it is \"outdated\" are irrelevant. It means what the Supreme Court says it means, ultimately, and the only way to change that is by another amendment to the Constitution." ]