420stalin69 [he/him]

Star Trek is what comes after communism

My ADHD interests: intensely researching a topic that has no prospect of financial reward and wanting to talk about it to people who don’t care

USA spends decade after decade brutalizing South America, Central Asia, south east Asia, and the Middle East: yeah but China funded a port in Sri Lanka

Image being unhealthy and saying "it’s going to take more than a 20 minute walk once a week to get in shape.

Imagine being unhealthy and your doctor is doing genocide in Gaza

The rule is you have to post something before you leave

array.whomst(element => element === needle)

You do not gotta give it to them

Spend 42 hours making a professional quality message queue and entity component system then shelve the project because you got bored.

There is no Nordic model. The Nordics have substantially different economic histories and have developed in different ways at different times. Finland was poor until really very recently, Denmark was and still is a colonial exploiter, Norway got oil rich, Iceland was a haven for bankers and tax cheats, and Sweden only saw a recent blip of social progress from the 40s into the 70s and then destroyed the labor movement that built those gains over the previous 20 years with the impressive equality achieved in that period rapidly eroding back to the 1920s when you look at disparate investment in education and other ways of funneling public benefits to the already wealthy. And don’t forget that Sweden are colonial bastards towards the Sami as well, and still are looting their way through those spoils for resource wealth.

Anyone who tells you there even is a Nordic model is a fucking idiot.

I have a SpaceX joke. It’s a blast.

deleted by creator

Well I appreciate your perspective. Perhaps in your community there was activism on this issue before it reached the halls of power.

Seeing it as your right, having an expectation that it should be a right, isn’t the same as being a legal right though.

You could have said you disagreed with the court but unless you’re sitting on that court you can disagree all you want and it actually just doesn’t mean anything in terms of changing the reality that it’s not up to you what legal rights are or how the constitution is interpreted because that’s what the Supreme Court is for - and it says so in the constitution.

A legal right is a constructed and formal concept. A legal right simply does not exist unless the courts say it does even if you strongly feel it should exist. That’s what I’m saying.

And since 2008 that legal right has existed but before then it simply didn’t.

And I’m not a liberal man. I’m not even anti-guns.

I am a progressive and you probably view the terms progressive and liberal as synonyms but they aren’t.

In fact youre the one who is appealing to an idealism here, and in that sense you’re more of a liberal than I am even if I’m closer to them in the sense or being a progressive. You’re pointing to a right existing in some almost metaphysical sense, ie you’re saying that because people felt it should be a right you’re saying it in some sense existed. Which is liberal idealism.

Look, we probably aren’t actually very far in terms of what we think sensible gun policy should be since I think if you’re in Montana or whatever then yeah sure a rifle makes a lot of sense and can be a lot of fun and you pointed to the more modern and moderate 2a types which probably places you actually not far from me in terms of what we would agree sensible gun laws could be.

What I said is that the legal right to own a gun was created in 2008 and that is a straightforward fact. It’s DC vs. Heller. 2008. Look it up if you want to. Going on about how some people really felt it should be a right before then doesn’t change that, and it is also a fact that if you were to ask a mainstream legal scholar in the 80s or early to mid 90s you would have to look into some pretty partisan political camps to find someone who would have advocated the current interpretation that was established recently in 2008.

But of course since the late 90s and certainly in the late 2000s you can find a lot of them. That’s also a fact.

I didn’t say anything about Reagan. If you are saying “Fuck Reagan” then we don’t disagree about anything important so far as Reagan is concerned.

As for it not being a legal right in the USA that’s a straightforward fact. It was DC vs. Heller, a 2008 case where a Washington DC law was found to be unconstitutional which is the first case where such a law restricting access to handguns was found to be unconstitutional. There were plenty such laws prior to 2008 that survived legal challenges which is what proves the legal right to own a gun didn’t exist prior. But in 2008 the Supreme Court stated the law was unconstitutional at the federal level (DC being a federal district) establishing an individualized right to guns for the first time.

And it was in 2010 that this was extended to additionally restrict the law making power of states, in addition to the federal government, since by default the constitution is understood to restrict the federal government and not the states, but the poorly defined legal doctrine of “incorporation” basically says some bits are applied to restrict states as well.

In the sense of having an individualized legal right to own a gun, prior to 2008 it didn’t exist.

As for ruby ridge types saying shall not be infringed sure, I’m sure many of them advocated the maximalist interpretation way back when that the courts later adopted in 2008, but up until at least the late 90s the idea that weapons could be regulated wasn’t even controversial and the maximalist position could then be called mostly fringe and was only just beginning to emerge as a position a suit wearing serious legal professional would advocate. Bill Clinton banned a bunch of them in 1994 and no one really blinked an eye at the constitutionality of it and the federal assault weapon ban of 1994 survived legal challenges that it definitely would not have survived after 2008 and DC vs. Heller.

The NRA became a lot more activist in the 80s and 90s and really it was their activism that pushed the once-fringe idea that the constitution required largely unrestricted access to weapons into the mainstream.

Which requires editing out an entire sentence by calling it a prefatory clause, a preamble, which flies in the face of the fundamentals of constitutional interpretation which requires the assumption that each word was written for a reason.

The 2a doesn’t, or didn’t until 2010, make reasonable gun control outside government legislation.

It was a sharp shift to the constitution first in 2008 at the federal level and then applied to the states under the doctrine of incorporation in 2010.

Gun nuts like to pretend it is some eternal constant, or more likely most of them simply don’t know the law here and are just parroting the gun lobby take on things, but it’s a straightforward fact that the individualized right to own guns didn’t even really exist until 2008 and the near complete inability to pass any gun laws didn’t exist until 2010.

The 2a was reinterpreted very recently. Before 2008 it wasn’t well defined and most assumed the bit about militias had something to do with it. Scalia basically is the one who decided to edit out that part of the constitution by calling it a preamble, which is extremely against the fundamental principles of constitutional interpretation which is to assume every word was written for a reason.

And for the record I like guns and am for gun policies that allow sane and healthy adults to have guns.

Asking for evidence is unreasonable, you fucking tankies