News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions by xyzzyz on Thursday June 30, 2022 @05:28PM (#31938861)
> Women now have a right to defend their life with a gun but cannot defend their life with healthcare.

You are just illustrating my exact point. Right to keep and bear arms is explicitly secured in the Constitution that it “shall not be infringed”, whereas nothing of this sort is clearly and explicitly said about abortion rights. Here, again, conservatives focus on what the law actually says, and liberals focus on their preferred policy, and if their preferred policy is not to be clearly and explicitly found in the law, it is instead found in the “emanations of the penumbra”.

Re:Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions by ceejayoz on Thursday June 30, 2022 @05:53PM (#31939150)
> Right to keep and bear arms is explicitly secured in the Constitution

An individual right to keep and bear arms was newly discovered in 2008, in a 5-4 decision. It took 220 years for a single vote majority to find evidence of it.

> it is instead found in the “emanations of the penumbra”

That's a funny way of describing the Ninth Amendment.

Re:Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions by remarkEon on Thursday June 30, 2022 @08:47PM (#31940715)
The pushback on the "individual right" thing is always so funny to me, because if you really believe that 2A was about membership in a "militia" then it's meaning is that the government can't disarm itself.

It's truly hilarious, given the context of when it was written.

Re:Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions by ceejayoz on Thursday June 30, 2022 @10:03PM (#31941323)
That's not the definition of militia at the time the Constitution was written.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

> During colonial America, all able-bodied men of a certain age range were members of the militia, depending on each colony's rule. Individual towns formed local independent militias for their own defense.

Even today, there are organized, state-run militia (the National Guard) and unorganized, independent militia.

Re:Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions by remarkEon on Thursday June 30, 2022 @11:21PM (#31941936)
I think you're deliberately missing my point, which is that to take your position literally you have to think 2A was about making a rule to keep only a state-run organization armed right after they had just fought (and won) a war of independence using, among others, individuals and "unorganized, independent militia" and the weapons they personally owned. It truly strains credulity to think the Founders sat down and wrote with that intent. Plus, you can actually just go back and read what they wrote about their reasoning back then if you want. It's all in the public record. That it took the Court this long to actually have to say it is more a function of the deliberate gaslighting that's taken place in the 20th century to convince people this right never existed. Even in Dred Scott Chief Justice Taney noted that if African slaves were given citizenship they'd be allowed to "keep and carry arms wherever they want".
Re:Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions by s1artibartfast on Friday July 01, 2022 @06:59AM (#31944697)
I never thought about what the inverse intent would have to be. It is so obvious.
Re:Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions by remarkEon on Friday July 01, 2022 @11:11AM (#31947496)
I think most people that actually follow the "it was about membership in the militia" interpretation really do believe that only the government should be allowed to have weapons. That's fine, and there's an argument to be made there, but I'd appreciate it if they just made that argument rather than rewriting history.
Re:Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions by joshuamorton on Thursday June 30, 2022 @05:49PM (#31939090)
> Right to keep and bear arms is explicitly secured in the Constitution that it “shall not be infringed”,

Only in the context of a well-regulated militia, at least until Scalia amended the Constitution in Heller.

Re:Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions by iostream24 on Friday July 01, 2022 @06:24AM (#31944504)
The entire second amendment here: “ 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.”

Notice the first phrase. Absolutely nothing here says “every Joe wacko can have military grade arms in case they want to overthrow the government “

Tell me it’s originalism to interpret the words above in any way other than what it reads as: a description of state militias.

Re:Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions by s1artibartfast on Friday July 01, 2022 @06:55AM (#31944676)
>Tell me it’s originalism to interpret the words above in any way other than what it reads as: a description of state militias

Regulated means armed with military grade guns, and is not a description of legal oversight (eg regulations)

"A well regulated Militia" literally meant a military armed citizenry.

The intent was to have no paid or professional military and the military was to consist of citizens bringing their arms from home to fight with.

2nd amendment can be losslessly paraphrased:

"because it is important to form well armed mobs, every Joe wacko can have military grade arms"

Re:Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions by iostream24 on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @06:36AM (#31986541)
No way!

It literally says a well regulated militia. Fact.

Spare me your creative interpretation masquerading as originalism