SC justices don’t do name calling on news shows, they file dissenting opinions. Every SC justice ruled to limit the legal hole Bruen left except for Thomas who thought the guy should be able to keep his guns.
If you remove all context you can create a banger slogan. You’re right, if you discard the sentences bracketing what you originally posted, you’re left with only the piece you posted.
I mean that the conservative judges are arguing amongst themselves how far Bruen applies.
Literally from Adams
Resolved That it be recommended to the several Assemblies, Conventions and Committees or Councils of Safety, of the United Colonies, immediately to cause all Persons to be disarmed, within their respective Colonies, who are notoriously disaffected to the cause of America, or who have not associated, and shall refuse to associate to defend by Arms these united Colonies
Taking up arms against the US is Treason. That’s not even an amendment. Jefferson was writing to a US representative in England reassuring him that the US is strong and the rebellion was “no big deal”. That section starts off:
The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted?
and continues
Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order.
The “few lives lost in a century or two” he’s talking about are those of the people rebelling.
The justice system is not vibe based. It’s ruling on whether laws were violated or if a particular case is novel in some way. Laws change as what a population wants to do changes.
The ruling here is exactly that
Several courts decided otherwise until SC revised Bruen with this decision, and the SC justices are still arguing with themselves because of how ambiguous Bruen is.
mental healthcare is completely lacking in this country, background checks fail all the time, and kids find their parents firearms a lot more than they should
Perfect should not be the enemy of good. Mental Healthcare is exponentially better now than it was 20+ years ago, Background checks succeed a lot, parents that treat firearms responsibly have more living children. Guardrails don’t stop all people from falling off bridges, but they should still be there. That things fail sometimes doesn’t mean they should just go away without replacing them with something better.
The revolution was fought using mainly private arms.
And they immediately limited that scope when the Whiskey/Shay rebellions happened and further as time when on because they explicitly wanted the laws to grow and change. The founders did not put in place the tools for their own overthrow, nor did they bring tablets down from a mountain. It’s not that they didn’t realize technology was going to advance, it’s that you can’t write laws for things or situations that don’t exist. Pretending you can divine intent from what did get written, as Bruen calls for and Justice Thomas has explicitly said for years, is just saying you are the only arbiter of what is allowed in the guise of “the founders wanted it that way”.
Laws are complicated because people are complicated.
“Everyone should have the tools to defend themselves from aggressors” is a good sentiment.
This guy having those tools means other people are more directly in danger of having to defend themselves. His personal rights don’t overshadow theirs, so his rights will be restricted based on his past actions. Claiming that’s impossible because 100 guys didn’t think of explicitly saying that in regards to this specific issue in the first few years of constructing an experimental government from scratch is insane.
There have been lots of gun control laws that have helped drive down crime. That’s why we support mental health care, do background checks, and make people separate unsupervised children and guns. It’s why “arms” doesn’t include suitcase nukes and howitzers.
Last time I looked at Jellyfin server setup was fine. It’s getting non-techies to a place where they can access it that was rough. They’re getting better with 3rd party app support but Plex has a huge head start.
People don’t take issue with Bruen because they want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. They take issue with Bruen because it’s an insane precedent.
Bruen argues that there hasn’t been meaningful discussion or growth of laws and rights for 200 years. It’s a really dumb test. The constitution and amendments are really short. Not because they were written by divine geniuses, but because it is the founding document, it was never meant to be the entire body of law. That’s why it sets up 3 bodies of government to continue to govern and not just a judiciary to impose the constitution like divine mandate.
anti-fascist freedom fighter story
I mean that’s arguably what Star Wars is.
The Prequels and Sequels each flubbed it in their own way by being either too meandering or too self-obsessed, but Andor is basically a forceless movie trilogy broken into episodes.
RotJ is where Lucas started to not have pushback on story ideas. It still mostly works but some silliness is leaking through. Especially in the Special Edition, but Empire is the only one that really wasn’t effected by those.
It applies more. If you borrow $1000 and by the time you pay it back (including interest) you’ve paid $1500, but that would have had the buying power of $2000 today, you’ve made a pretty good deal. If you do that with a trillion dollars, you’ve made a great deal.
National Debt is a weird metric. For the US, the biggest foreign owners are Japan having ~4% and China having ~5% of the debt. The huge majority of the debt is within the US, either to individuals, businesses, or the government itself.
I have an Akita that can do the same and is (mostly) very good about asking for permission / knowing he needs to be handed food.
I do feel like smaller dogs generally get minimal or zero training because people know they can just pick them up or otherwise stop them and it makes pet ownership worse for everyone involved.
As fun as it might be to harp (ha) on them. It’s unlikely that a 30 year old atmospheric research station is a bond style earthquake machine.
I think they’re awesome but yeah, unfortunately limited in most bigger cities due to how everything is laid out.
Their use case is basically “never need to go on the freeway”. Going over 50 mph is maybe possible, with a tailwind, downhill, but would be terrifying.
Agreed. Units are hard and for most of history there wasn’t a wiki where you could look up the conversion between cubits, greek feet, roman feet, italian feet, french feet, and english feet to maybe get to some idea of how tall the “huge guy” was.
Doom 2016 and Eternal had multiplayer season stuff, but it could easily be ignored.
It’s not a mystery which of the car might’ve been available in East Germany.
Trabants aren’t exactly known for being long lasting.
IIRC the speed of the 9th symphony is somewhat controversial because what markings we have on original sheetmusic are significantly faster than it’s normally played.
Symphony music in general is going to vary a decent bit depending on what bpm(s) the conductor is choosing.
Slow is smooth, smooth is fast.
Practice the basics, get it right. Don’t try to go faster for the sake of going faster, you’ll hit your limit and get sloppy and pickup bad habits. Test your limits to learn them, but don’t hit them every time. Get comfortable within them and the goal posts will move.
It’s the name of an app/website/email spam service.
In the ruling? In the article? United States v. Rahimi. Court rulings aren’t yea/nea votes. They are very explicitly arguing over why/how broadly they think Bruen, which Thomas wrote, should be interpreted in this case and going forward.
Focusing on the words on the page to the exclusion of where/when/why the letters were written is taking them out of context. Just reading the text, it sure seems like Jonathan Swift is really in favor of eating babies.