Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)KE
Posts
0
Comments
203
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Realistically a governments first responsibility before anything else is the physical safety of it's citizenship.

    If you know a percentage of a population are religious extremists which will never integrate into your society and will probably pose a risk, then how can you, as a government, take them in?

    It's a hard sell any way you slice it.

  • Correct, the state passed a law allowing those cases where statue of limitations have been passed for criminal trails to still sue their attacker in civil court.

    It's been suggested this was passed specifically to target Trump, but a good number of sexual assaults never go reported and I believe a few hundred cases have come from this law.

    It has since expired, it was only valid for one year.

  • No one has suggested you would just execute a person on sight while they are under the influence.

    In these situations there are interviews, evaluations and waiting periods to ensure the person is 'of sound mind' before proceeding.

    So with that cleared up, I'll repeat my question.

    Why should you get to be the arbiter of if someone else is allowed to die?

  • Nah, it's neither.

    It's that while I do enjoy whatever it is, if it were to disappear because I'm ad blocking and won't sub then .. ohh well?

    There are a select few groups I actually care about and I donate to them (like PBS).

    Anything else will either find a way or die but I don't care which.

  • It's called qualified immunity.

    The idea is that if a police officer accidentally violates someone's rights while trying to do their job and wasn't aware they are not at fault.

    It's not a law but the result of a court case. Many of us want a law passed to remove it.

  • The leadership of Gaza is Hamas. Unequivocally.

    Hamas was elected to power then pulled the ladder up behind them suspending all future elections.

    All officials in the Gaza government are Hamas.

    Elections were suspended in the West Bank because there is a real chance Hamas would win an election there today.

    This isn't a case of a tyrannical overlord ruling over the Palestinian people without their consent.

    Most supported and still support the organization.

  • A link to the past is my top Zelda game for sure.

    ... Have you ever tried the randomizer for it? It will give you a rom where all the items are randomly distributed around the map, making you do the whole sequence out of order.

    I will play though a random Rom one a year or so and it's a blast.

    https://alttpr.com/en

  • Yeah. This is the one that came to my mind.

    Dude straight up ended his career. His band members left, label dropped him and his colabs said they wouldn't work with him anymore.

    Turns out he was a lieutenant in the oath keepers and the FBI grabbed him. Last I heard he made a plea deal and got put into the witness protection program.

    He is the band and it can't exist without him. Even if he could continue, he'd have to rebuild it from the ground up.

    It's a shame, I really Loved Demons and Wizards, the iced earth / blind guardian colab group.

    ... Based on some song lyrics I feel I should have seen this coming when looking back though.

  • Yes, it does.

    The way the amendment reads is that the people must be armed in order to form militias to ensure the states stay free; it does not tie the requirement of arms to a militia.

    This is backed up by many statements by the founding fathers who state one of the core components to keeping America free from a tyrannical government is an armed citizenship willing to act, compared to Europe, where the citizenship is disarmed.

  • Actually, it really might in this case.

    A number of the justices currently sitting on the supreme court are (or claim to be) originalists.

    Meaning, the original intent of the writers is the correct interpretation. Evidence showing what that original intent was can be very useful with judges like that.

  • There is a record of the Senate debate on this amendment.

    One questioned 'Why doesn't this include the president?'.

    Another senator replied 'It does under the section of anyone who holds an office'.

    The response was 'Ok, I was unclear on that'. And the debate carried on.

    So the writers obviously intended this to include the office of the president.