• 0 Posts
  • 734 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 11th, 2023

help-circle







  • If they actually believe in that whole originalism thing they claim (basically that the text of the constitution means what it would have meant at the time it was written, and shifts in the definition or words don’t change that meaning) they still can’t allow it. There’s basically no way to interpret the Constitution that would result in mandating a specific religious affirmation be in public facilities isn’t “promoting an establishment of religion”.

    The best they could hope for without just ignoring the Constitution entirely and making something up (which all their conservatism.aside they generally haven’t done yet) would be arguing that this requires opening the door to any similar list of religious tenets by literally every faith on the planet.





  • All they are a modification to turn a semiautomatic gun into a full automatic weapon.

    They don’t though. And I went into great detail as to what exactly they do and how it works to explain why they don’t do that.

    An automatic weapon fires more than once per operation of the trigger by definition. Any gun that fires once per operation of the trigger is not automatic by definition.

    A bump stock doesn’t change that, it makes it easier and more accurate to bump.fire, which is basically using the recoil to bounce your finger off the trigger and back onto it to pull it faster than you otherwise would.

    With practice you can bump fire with a regular stock, that doesn’t mean all semiautomatic weapons are actually automatic.

    Like the binary trigger thing - eventually that will be challenged in the courts and the argument won’t be over whether or not the words binary trigger are in the law, but whether or not lifting your finger off the trigger counts as a second operation of the trigger or as part of the previous one because that is what would determine if it fires one or two shots per operation of the trigger and thus whether or not it’s legally automatic and whether or not it is controlled as an automatic weapon.

    The law doesn’t say what you wish it said, and it isn’t exactly vague.




  • Personally I think it says everything that the Abrahamic version of the Theft of Fire leads to the idea that we should hate and denounce the thief rather than see him as responsible for us being raised above essentially being animals. The serpent in the Garden of Eden is analogous to Prometheus, Mātariśvan, Amirani, Pkharmat, Grandmother Spider, etc.

    I also find it interesting that the Theft of Fire is a nearly universal myth (as close as anything gets) - a divine or semi-divine being (often but not always a trickster-type) taking a symbol (often a fire, in the Torah a fruit) representing knowledge against the will of those in power and giving it to man, thus leading to the ability of man to be free to create civilization.



  • …and admitting that you know it exists is grounds for you not being allowed on a jury.

    But yeah, judges judge the law, juries judge the facts. so the judge can corral how the trial proceeds and explain to the jury what criteria they are supposed to be following and what evidence they are supposed to consider but the jury can decide what it wants and their decision cannot be challenged - which means if they decide that someone is guilty/not guilty for reasons wholly unrelated to what the law actually says then that’s what it is.

    It’s why I was surprised that Trump was found guilty on all counts in the NY trial - I was expecting a mistrial due to hung jury before the trial even started because I was expecting at least one hardcore supporter/opponent of Trump who was going to vote based on that regardless of the evidence making it impossible to have a unanimous agreement.