re: The Official Thread: Russia invades Ukraine

quote:

---

As compared to the heavy Russian censorship that has closed down all non-government news outlets?

---

She closed not "non-state news agencies", but those funded by other states and private organizations, such as Soros. Wikileaks, for example, is not prohibited by anyone here.
And in the USA directly freedom of speech, is there a RT? Do not shut up the mouth of the incumbent president? Social network giants do not introduce strict censorship of all users without exception? Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others?
Do they not fire or harass journalists?

quote:

---

And why are protesters against the war beaten and arrested? Even when just holding up a blank sheet of paper.

---

Are you writing about Assange now?

Ruff, do you know what is going on here?
LINK

Good morning Ruff, what do you want to know about the 2nd Amendment?

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights contained the 1st 10 amendments to the Constitution. These 10 original amendments and the following 17 that have been passed over the years proclaim the rights of the people of the United States.

The 2nd Amendment states (bolding added by me): A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This language says that every American citizen has the right keep and own firearms and that the state (Government) cannot infringe upon this right. This is the basis for widespread gun ownership in America.

From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
The Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. The concept of such a right existed within English common law long before the enactment of the Bill of Rights.[100] First codified in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 (but there only applying to Protestants), this right was enshrined in fundamental laws of several American states during the Revolutionary era, including the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776. Long a controversial issue in American political, legal, and social discourse, the Second Amendment has been at the heart of several Supreme Court decisions.

*In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."[101]

*In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[102]

*In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".[103]

*In McDonald v. Chicago (2010),[104] the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[105]

Ruff, What else do you want to know?

quote:

---

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights contained the 1st 10 amendments to the Constitution. These 10 original amendments and the following 17 that have been passed over the years proclaim the rights of the people of the United States.

The 2nd Amendment states (bolding added by me): A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
......

---

Of course, I read Wikipedia. If it was clear to me, I wouldn't be asking this question.
I do not understand what is declared in the US Constitution and reality.
Specifically, freedom of speech and freedom of possession of weapons.
I will put aside the question about freedom of speech, it is scandalous and politicized. But I would like to understand about weapons from the lips of the Americans, and not our politicians.
What I didn’t understand, if there is a weapon and it was declared that in order to protect the home / property, just like the weapon of citizens, this is a signal from the authorities that citizens can change this government if the government goes against the freedoms of these citizens and turns into despotism. Honestly, when I read this, I was delighted!
But what I have seen in recent years, BLM organizes pogroms, set fire to housing and businesses of citizens, sometimes it even came to murder :( Well, at least not a lot.
About the presidential election, in general, there is a break in the pattern in my head ....
In fact, the whole world watched live as the elections were stolen. But this is not our business, this is a purely internal affair of the Americans.
With regards to the question of weapons, why, having pistols and rifles from citizens, in an amount greater than that of the entire planet put together, this same weapon has never been used as prescribed in the constitution?
Or rather, for millions of possessions by them in adult men, only one single case, and then with a teenager, who was then dragged through the courts?
It turns out that Americans can only buy weapons, thereby ensuring profits for weapons campaigns and, at the same time, not using them for their intended purpose? That is, you can buy a pistol / rifle and immediately throw it away / rust in the garage / scrap metal and other equivalent things, anything except protecting your rights and business.
I honestly can't understand.

Supposed video of the ship burning.

https://twitter.com/ArielJestJeden/status/1522577713336356868

The switchblade is on the battlefield now.

https://twitter.com/Blue_Sauron/status/1522554774662660097

Honestly, that looks like a video game.

It sucks we can barely tel these days haha

quote:

---

She closed not "non-state news agencies", but those funded by other states and private organizations, such as Soros. Wikileaks, for example, is not prohibited by anyone here.
And in the USA directly freedom of speech, is there a RT? Do not shut up the mouth of the incumbent president? Social network giants do not introduce strict censorship of all users without exception? Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others?
Do they not fire or harass journalists?
quote:
And why are protesters against the war beaten and arrested? Even when just holding up a blank sheet of paper.

Are you writing about Assange now?

---

She? What she?

Please do not deny the obvious fact that criticism of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is being suppressed, and often violently suppressed, by the organs of Russian state security.

quote:

---

If any media violate the law, they are taken action.

---

Thankfully the Russians are making use of VPNs to access information.

Daily downloads in Russia of the 10 most popular VPNs jumped from below 15,000 just before the war to as many as 475,000 in March. As of this week, downloads were continuing at a rate of nearly 300,000 a day, according to data compiled for the Washington Post by the analytics firm Apptopia, which relies on information from apps, publicly available data and an algorithm to come up with estimates.

How millions of Russians are tearing holes in the Digital Iron Curtain