531–540 of 739 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does legal matter if the guys holding the guns don't care about the law?
Suddenly the rationale of the 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution becomes clear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've read in multiple places that 4B is just an online thing, maybe a couple of thousand women, that has blown up in western news media and not a real life thing in Korea.
you are correct. Western news media wants it to be bigger than it is right now, because if you check the last month or so, the only people ever talking about 4B movement are western liberals and hmm i wonder why Western Media outlets are obsessed with talking about 4B since trump became into power. Dubious motives.
I feel like I'd seen absolutely nothing about South Korea in the news for a long time, and then suddenly woke up to this, with zero context. Do folks have any recommendations for how to keep up with global news at a high level so that you're not completely clueless when something like this happens? Like I mean some sort of "international edition" of an aggregator like Google News, I guess.
I don't read it regularly, but The Economist is a great source that covers pretty much every corner of the world. In fact I don't subscribe because its just a firehose, and I just can't keep up with the internal squabbling of parties all over the world. I went to check to see if its available online- even via my local library, but it seems The Economist was pulled from major online sites around 2023 due to their pric…
https://theonion.com/the-economist-to-halt-production-for-mo...
I can't imagine reading every issue cover to cover unless it's really relevant to your work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 2nd amendment was added because the founding fathers didn't want a federal military. Instead, they wanted every state to have its own militia [1]. The interpretation that it means every private citizen can own a gun is modern not historic. It wasn't until the 2008 DC V Heller case that the right to firearms was actually established. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._29
Absolutely incorrect. The state militias consisted of private citizens with their own arms who would organize when needed, not standing state armies with government issued arms. Also, private gun ownership was the norm at the time. Heller draws it's decision from historical reality and originalist philosophy
The founders, in 1808, appropriated funding for arms to state militias. [1]. Previously the arming of militias was up to the individual states. Some would have chosen to just have private citizens bring their own arms. Others would have actually set aside a fund to bring those arms.
And that's blatantly apparent when you think about the wars fought after the revolution. Cannons had to come from somewhere and you'd not expect a private citizen to have procured one.
That was, in fact, one of the reasons George Washington disliked the idea of militias, because you'd be arming untrained and undisciplined citizens with weapons they'd never used before and expect them to somehow know how to operate them.
> To place any dependence on the Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestic life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows ... if I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole, I should subscribe to the latter. -- George Washington
Yonhap (Korea state news) : The National Assembly voted Wednesday to demand President Yoon Suk Yeol lift emergency martial law. Under the Constitution, martial law must be lifted when a parliamentary majority demands it. Of the 300 members of parliament, 190 were present and all 190 voted in favor of a motion demanding the lifting of martial law. With the motion's passage, the martial law declaration is void, accordi…
Despite the National Assembly's resolution to end martial law, the military stated that it would remain in effect until ended by the president >Martial law will remain until the president lifts martial law"...Armored vehicles also seen in the city center https://m.ytn.co.kr/news_view.php?s_mcd=0101&key=20241204013...
Wait I thought HN was not for politics?? Or is it that when the politics isn't US politics, HN readers can be more emotionally detached and treat it as "interesting"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not gonna happen in recent years, I suppose. PRC also needs US-designed and/or Taiwan-manufactured advanced chips. The possibility of war will ever decrease as long as more and more people wake up to the consequences.
Someone's not privy to how fast China is progressing nowadays. Americans are so ignorant on Chinese technological prowess right now. Chinese EVs are dominating every market in the world aside from US which has basically banned it essentially, otherwise we'd have very affordable cars in America. America banned DJI drones which owns about 70-80% of the world market on drones. China recently unleashed an open source AI…
The Chinese leadership is well aware of this and is massively funding efforts to build these indigenously, but they're chasing moving targets and still decades away from catching up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which means that the president is ignoring the constitution. And so is the military. Very much not good...
I’m not sure the military is ignoring the constitution. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe they’re supposed to follow the president’s orders.
In the US, military officers take their oaths to obey the constitution, not the president. I don't know if that's true in South Korea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Those military officials are certainly aware of what generally happens to perpetrators of failed coups. They're following the law. The Constitution obligates the President to lift martial law after the National Assembly nullifies it.
The question is then what the Constitution says about a president who fails to execute his constitutional obligations, such as lifting martial law once it is nullified. Is there an impeachment process for a constitutional violations or a faster solution. I don't even know if there is a faster route than impeachment in the US system.