ShoeboxKiller @ ShoeboxKiller @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

49

Joined

2 yr. ago

I didn’t say anything about the militia, not sure why you’re referencing that. I provided the verbatim text, which doesn’t reference capacity.

Heller did not establish protections for magazine capacity, that’s what your image says. It’s not settled law, that’s why it’s being contested. This judge was overruled on appeal on this once before. Until it’s settled law the argument magazine capacity is protected is as valid as the argument it’s not.

... with complete technological parity with the standing armed forces of the time, in context.

Yes, in context for the 1790s the people had access to the same weapons as the standing army, of course they didn’t really have a lot of choice…

It’s almost like context changes over time and laws need to as well.

And in the post-Bruen world, there's much less room for debate, especially for arbitrary and capricious restrictions on a right.

This is wrong. Bruen simply held that may issue states cannot use arbitrary evaluations of need to issue permits for concealed carry. Everything else is, by definition, debatable which is why this case is working its way through the courts.

Again, this is a dumb law and not at all representative of reasonable gun control but magazine capacity is not protected by the 2nd amendment. Not yet, at least.

Before anyone tries to argue if the 2A covers bullet capacity, let me introduce you to the chambers gun

This isn’t the gotcha you think it is. The only thing the 2nd amendment covers is “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.”

Your argument that bullet capacity is covered is as valid as another’s argument that it’s not because it’s not explicitly stated, so it’s left to interpretation.

This law is dumb and doesn’t seem likely to actually do anything to curb gun violence.

However, if someone would like to own a Chambers gun or any other firearm that existed in 1791 when the amendment was ratified then they should be allowed to without restriction, including felons, children, people with mental health issues, illegal drug users etc. This is what the 2nd amendment guarantees in context

That context is important though. 230 years ago the most common weapons owned and available to the people were muskets and flintlock pistols. Single shot, muzzle loading weapons.

Let’s also not forget that James Madison redrafted the Second Amendment into its current form "for the specific purpose of assuring the Southern states, and particularly his constituents in Virginia, that the federal government would not undermine their security against slave insurrection by disarming the militia.”

It is incredibly easy in modern times in the US to be able to access firearms capable of dealing significantly greater death and harm than in 1791. It’s fair to argue that, in current context, the intent of the 2nd amendment would not protect magazine capacity. In fact the case that defined bearable arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, leaves much to debate about whether a magazine constitutes a “bearable arm”.

Just reinforcing that you can’t read, huh? Literally in the same link already provided:

An associated problem starts pretty quickly with the fiscal health of Texas. They will have to print their own money and swap out US dollars for their own money (Republic of Texas Dollars or Pesos or whatever they’d like to call them)… let’s call them TexBux (thanks Nicholi Valentin). If they don’t get their financial house in order from the get-go, that will see high inflation, where TexBux quickly fall against the USD and the MNX.

Maybe they just peg the TexBuck to the US Dollar? That’s possible: about 66 countries peg their currencies to the US Dollar. However, this is kind of magic trick conducted by their central bank — you can’t just make the claim that a TexBuck is the same as a Dollar. The central bank in such a country will buy up large numbers of US Treasury Notes. If TexBux fall next to the US Dollar, they sell Treasuries and buy TexBux, which both lowers the value of the US Dollar just a bit, and raises the value of the TexBuck.

Of course, this presumes that The Republic of Texas magically turns into a real country. Given the typical Texas leadership, that seems pretty unlikely. Yeah, they’d need some kind of central bank and mint to print money, but would they really have a monetary policy capable of pinning the TexBuck to the Dollar? Would that even be possible in the Texas economy — this is not The Bahamas we’re talking about here. There’s an awfully good chance that US imports get expensive, real fast.

Clearly

Hey everyone, this idiot I’m replying to can’t even read. Literally from the link:

And that also starts to impact the oil market. Yes, Texas has substantial oil reserves. They’re the leading producer of crude oil and natural gas in the USA, and the leading refinder of petroleum products. But of course, that’s all done by foreign companies in the Republic of Texas. Does Texas itself own any oil? Maybe, but I couldn’t find it. Do they Nationalize all petroleum production and send the oil companies running? That’s an annual $223 billion!

But here’s the other thing: all oil is currently bought and sold in Petrodollars. You buy oil in dollars, you sell oil in dollars. So the TexBux situation in Texas is a big problem… relative to other things in Texas, the cost of oil will go up. And this dynamic makes Republic of Texas less interesting for investors and oil companies than Texas, USA. Particularly if it’s unstable. Not that, after a century in the Middle East, they’re not strangers to how one gets the best of an unstable country. It’s just never good for that unstable country.

Texas’ GDP is what it is because it’s part of the United States.

You’re so simple you think Texas could secede from the United States and the companies and industries that promote that GDP would stay there? If clueless was a person it’s be you.

You’re a dumbass. Neither of the people in this thread you’re replying to asked you and your reply to the person who did is stupid. Texas’ GDP is what it is because it’s part of the United States.

You’re so simple you think Texas could secede from the United States and the companies and industries that promote that GDP would stay there? If clueless was a person it’s be you.

A beautiful desert ironwood box that has a bear carved in the lid. My (now) wife got it for me in a flea market/antique store on vacation early in our relationship!

Imagine if Americans learned from the past and figured out that geriatric politicians are bad for their wallets, bad for the environment, bad for business, bad for the country and the planet.

Admittedly that portion was poorly worded on my part. My intent was more to say that I personally support unions and workers rights to strike. However, if I were President with an obligation to all constituents then in the short term I would make the decision that protects the well-being of the majority, which may mean forcing an agreement in the short term.

That’s why I think steps that come after are important because that speaks to the character of the person(s) involved. Specifically Biden’s White House gets credit for continuing to work for what the rail workers were asking for. It’s not nearly enough and certainly doesn’t address the root cause that created the situation in the first place.

In general I think the anti-union legislation, as I referenced in another comment, should be repealed to remove the governments power in this aspect. Critical industry and infrastructure that could cause widespread harm, like in this situation, should not be controlled by private, for profit entities in my opinion. Either nationalize it or give control of it to the unions.

All of this said, rail workers were not forced to continuing working, they were just not allowed to strike at the time. They could have all walked off the job, granted they would not have the protections they get from striking. I don’t work in a field with unions but my personal approach is to use my power of choice and refuse to work if I’m not being treat or compensated fairly.

Did you eat the whole thing or get some of it in a doggy bag to go?

Neither. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that others didn’t and share something I learned that gave me a different perspective.

Just like I’m treating this question as genuine, though I suspect it’s snark.

People learn words in different fashions. In Jeopardy (an American quiz show) they accept written answers in the last round that are spelled incorrectly as long as it’s clear, phonetically, what they were trying for.

This is done in part because some people learn words by hearing them and not seeing them written, just like some people might have read a word but not know how to pronounce it.

Did you comment this to be superior or be helpful because it comes across as superior.

You wish you’d never been born, would choose no life and think ending the life of suffering is more acceptable.

Help is available if you need it.

Ouch

Ok 👍

Ok 👍

In one comment you say I insinuate disingenuousness and in another you say I called you disingenuous. I stated that presenting just a piece of the whole situation and omitting the rest is disingenuous. I stand by this as being disingenuous can be, quite literally, defined as slightly dishonest, or not speaking the complete truth.

So your stance is that rail workers work for private enterprises but simply cannot strike.

No, that’s not my stance, and it’s not what I stated. My stance is that rail workers can strike, and the elected officials can use the Railway Labor Act to force a contract and delay a strike. My stance on the Railway Labor Act, the Taft-Hartley Act and any number of other pieces of legislation over the decades should be repealed and replaced with more modern legislation that favors workers.

Yeah, Truman nationalized rails multiple times. Do you know what else he did? During the 1946 rail strike, President Harry Truman at one point called for a law to allow him to draft striking rail workers into the military. Even after the strike ended, the House of Representatives passed a bill to draft striking workers (it died in the Senate). In 1950, Truman ordered the U.S. Army to seize control of the country’s railroads in anticipation of a strike.

The picture often changes when you provide all the information.