AnneBonny @ AnneBonny @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

0

Comments

549

Joined

2 yr. ago

I try to be nice to people asking questions.

edit: I mean, if you don't understand, and I didn't answer your question, please feel comfortable to ask more questions.

Do you need to explicitly include carve-outs or are those implicit?

If you have a law that says "a person cannot carry a gun in a courthouse", that would mean everyone, including police, cannot carry a gun in a courthouse. You can say, "felons cannot possess firearms." I guess that "exempts" people who are not felons implicitly.

Don’t laws just get interpreted with the constitution in mind, without having to be completely thrown out?

I'm not sure if I understand your question correctly. A portion of a law can be struck down without the whole law being struck down as unconstitutional.

It would invalidate every firearm regulation at the federal level. None of them include carve outs for militia.

It's a little like this:

Key & Peele - Office Homophobe
invidious link
youtube link

As written, the right to bear arms only applies to people who are in a well regulated militia.

The monkey paw curls. Gun control laws that do not exempt people who are in a well regulated militia are unconstitutional.

Can you explain why religion should have been a part of this discussion before someone else brought it up?

Spreading disinformation, especially about serious topics like economics, medicine, politics, religion, etc, needs to be cracked down on more. Posing as a professional online and spreading damaging info on purpose should result in jail time imo.

After four years of having Trump as president, how is it possible that you cannot see how dangerous ideas like this are?

You should do crossfit.

Internet atheists see any mention of God or religion as an opportunity to hijack a discussion.

Rights are not created, bestowed, issued, manufactured, or handed out.

They aren't a license or a badge or something physical.

It’s an amazing case because the Hawaii Constitution has a provision that is the same as the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It literally uses the exact same words as the Second Amendment. And Justice Eddins said: Even though the provisions are the same, we will not interpret them the same way, because we think the U.S. Supreme Court clearly got it wrong in Heller when it said the Second Amendment creates an individual right to bear arms.

The bill of rights protects rights, it doesn't create rights. That is a pretty fundamental concept.

Maybe "accepting" would have been a better choice? I don't know.

I think it is bullshit to pretend that black people living in America have nothing in common with each other, which is what the person I responded to seemed to believe.

I'm surprised to see so many people supporting the actions of Gov. Abbott.

The paper included a decade’s worth of data from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention among Black women ages 25 to 44 across 30 states.

This seems weirdly specific.

Distrust of police and lack of faith in the justice system is common among the black population of the USA. However, I don't know what that other guy had in mind.

Yeah, I wasn't very clear about what I meant.

I was talking about this part:

I generally prefer not to have a shared identity across communities

Same. It makes it much easier for someone to doxx you.

OK, thanks for your pov.