Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - quadz

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 294
Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread
« on: September 19, 2020, 07:44:08 PM »

Politics / Re: Gun Control
« on: September 19, 2020, 07:20:38 PM »
I'm leaving this one alone.

RIP Justice Ginsberg, a true American hero.

Haha, I'd already forgotten this branched off with Ginsburg. ('Twas Stevens and Breyer who wrote the opinions Ginsburg sided with.)

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread
« on: September 19, 2020, 05:00:43 PM »
Here's a weird one.

From the paper:
Fig. 2. Modern climate data from Bethel illustrating the summer (July) mean (red line) with error bars illustrating mean summer minima and maxima recorded in each year. The green line tracks the cumulative mean summer temperature departures (cf. Dugmore et al., 2007b) from the early 20th century mean (1923–1952). For each year the deviation from the long term mean is calculated, then, starting at the oldest data point, Year 1 (1923) represents the deviation from the mean, Year 2 (1924) is the deviation of that year plus the deviation from Year 1 (1923), Year 3 (1925) is that year's deviation in addition to the deviations from both Year 1 and Year 2, and so on. This neatly illustrates the general trend of increasing summer temperatures since the early 1980s.

If I'm correctly understanding what they're doing, this is utterly disingenuous; somewhere between fraudulent and nonsensical (or both.)

They've taken the Summer "early 20th century mean (1923–1952)" of 12.5ᵒC as a baseline, and keep referencing that every year. Now, average temps bumped up about 1 degree in the late 1970s, but then held steady on average, overall declining slightly between 1985 and present. But they just keep adding in the delta from each year compared to the (1923–1952) mean. So it doesn't matter if the temperatures are decreasing, if it's still above the early 20th century mean, they count it as "rising".

Fucking weird. How could anyone graph it that way and believe they were being honest.


Politics / Re: Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Thread
« on: September 19, 2020, 04:41:49 PM »

Politics / Re: Gun Control
« on: September 19, 2020, 02:59:06 PM »
Damnit i knew someone would cherrypick you douchebag.



Well in the details, I'm not seeing the dissenting justices writing an argument for, "law abiding citizens shouldn't have guns."

I see them citing historical precedent for regulation of civilian firearm possession, and I'm seeing them interpret the text of the 2A narrowly and literally, in order to argue that storage of firearms for non-militia-related purposes is not covered by the 2A.

I don't personally like those arguments, but they are coherent enough that they have to be addressed seriously. (I.e. countered with superior arguments.)

Politics / Re: Gun Control
« on: September 19, 2020, 02:04:03 PM »
Fuck the details.

I'm with you in spirit, but that's kinda the opposite of how that whole lawyering thing works.

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread
« on: September 19, 2020, 01:56:33 PM »

Politics / Re: Gun Control
« on: September 19, 2020, 11:57:21 AM »
[Ginsburg] She's one of the justices that interpreted the 2nd amendment as only referring to the military. She absolutely knew "militia" refers to everyday people aka the citizenry. She absolutely knew that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is self preservation, namely against a tyrannical government. She absolutely knew that an amendment based on protection against a tyrannical government that claims only the government should have guns is nonsensical. .

Reading the dissenting opinions (Stevens and Breyer), I'd agree with you Stevens got the state vs. private militia part wrong. But their broader arguments do not seem to hinge on that particular distinction.

To play devil's advocate, they do seem to be interpreting the 2A narrowly but literally: Citizens may keep rifles at home, but bear them in service of a militia.

And the dissent does cite some relevant historical context as background:

1. “Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont.”

2. “The Breyer dissent looks to early municipal fire-safety laws that forbade the storage of gunpowder (and in Boston the carrying of loaded arms into certain buildings), and on nuisance laws providing fines or loss of firearm for imprudent usage, as demonstrating the Second Amendment has been understood to have no impact on the regulation of civilian firearms.”

So while I personally consider self defense a natural right, and support a broader interpretation of the 2A, I can't just dismiss Stevens' and Breyer's positions as having no merit. The logic for their narrow interpretation is easy to follow, and I appreciate they used historical context to make their case.

  *  *  *

That said, if there's one thing that shows their complete and utter confusion on the self defense question, it's this backward statement by Breyer: "there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

The "untouchable constitutional right" question aside, it's just amazing someone could reason that the more crime-ridden your neighborhood, the less right you have to home defense.

Politics / Re: Fake News 2020
« on: September 17, 2020, 01:16:42 AM »

Sure, seems legit.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 294