Hollow Knight (it’s currently 50% off).

I honestly forgot that this game existed. I remember it being very well made, but I could never fully get into it for some reason.

Five Guys have better service that is free

It wasn’t free — they were charging money for it:

Jetflicks, which charged $9.99 per month for the streaming service

Yeah, take a look at the solution at the top of the post.

Hm, perhaps I didn’t see it in my cursory glance of the article’s text, but is there a distinction made between the physical sex difference of a mother and feminine/maternal traits? What I mean to say is: is the article claiming that a female is important, or that the stereotypical traits of a female are important? If the latter, I would wonder, then, if a masculine presenting female would be negative in the eyes of the study.

Windows -> Ubuntu -> Arch Linux

Ahh, the good ol’ sunk cost fallacy.

If there’s no case law, then what makes you claim that there was no individual right prior to Heller? You can’t know what the legal standard was without precedent.

I think the distinction is important so as not to detract from what is arguably more horrible and worthy of condemnation — pedophilia.

Pedophile

Ephebophile*

I’m confused by a lot of what you said

Would you mind pointing out all that you are confused with?

in particular that it’s conjecture that it’s conjecture that there was no individual right prior to Heller. That’s just case law?

Would you mind citing case law? I said that it is conjecture because it was an argument without premise. You now mentioning that you are basing the argument on the premise that there is case law which supports it is in the right direction, but I would be curious to know what case law you are referencing.

Souter, most famously (edit: and most recently, not sure about earlier justices in US history) and other SCOTUS justices have dissented

Here’s a summary: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-the-roberts-court-undermined-sensible-gun-control/tnamp/

I barely skimmed it but it touches on the dissenting opinions around the second amendment.

I’ll preface this by saying that this linked article isn’t exactly about David Souter. He is only mentioned once in the article as someone who supported another’s argument in D.C. v. Heller.

Scalia treated the clause [“A well regulated militia”] as merely “prefatory”

I agree with this. Imo, this comes out of how the commas are used: “A well regulated militia” is the first item, “being necessary to the security of a free state” is parenthetical information emphasizing the importance of a well regulated militia, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is the second item, “shall not be infringed” is stating the level of protection on both items. Do note that this is only my personal interpretation/opinion.

Stevens pointed out, the term “bear arms” was most commonly used in the 18th century to describe participation in the military.

This is an interesting point to consider, however, it is not, on its own, an argument for the original intended interpretation of the Second Amendment.

“The idea that the founders wanted to protect a right to have a Glock loaded and stored in your nightstand so you could blow away an intruder is just crazy,” says Saul Cornell

Aside from this statement being conjecture, if I deviate from the interpretation of the original intent of the Second Amendment, in my opinion, I don’t understand why this is a fundamentally negative idea. Why wouldn’t one want people to have the means to protect themselves in the event of a scenario that public law enforcement cannot?

Here’s a summary of Souter’s positions:

https://www.ontheissues.org/Court/David_Souter_Gun_Control.htm

Important to note that only the last section in this link is really relevant to the original point being “some legal minds disagree on the entire intent of the 2nd amendment”. And that being said, it essentially just reiterates what was said in the first link, albeit without the surrounding opinion piece, and much more to the point (which I do appreciate).

Justice Breyer filed a separate dissenting opinion that, even with an individual-rights view, the DC handgun ban and trigger lock requirement would nevertheless be permissible limitations on the right. The Breyer dissent concludes, “there simply is no untouchable constitutional right to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.”

Given the wording of the second amendment (if you interpret “bear” as a person physically arming themselves, and “keep” as the general ownership of firearms) I would agree that this argument is sound.

And here’s a take from a linguist:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html

The linguist might seem out of place here but I’ve always felt that analysis was pretty damning for SCOTUS’ take during Heller. Been a couple years since I read that article but it really stayed with me.

This was an interesting read. Interpretation of the Second Amendment is certainly a linguistic issue.

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that ‘bear arms’ had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, ‘bear arms’ was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.”

This is very interesting.

“A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”

This argument is essentially conjecture — they don’t argue why it can’t be interpreted that way, they just state that it isn’t.

“In the 18th century, someone going out to hunt a deer would have thought of themselves as bearing arms? I mean, is that the way they talk?” Clement finally conceded that no, that was not the way they talked: “Well, I will grant you this, that ‘bear arms’ in its unmodified form is most naturally understood to have a military context.” Souter did not need to point out the obvious: “Bear arms” appears in its unmodified form in the Second Amendment.

This appears to be an attempt at linguistic trapping, rather than an argument. Simply because it wasn’t colloquial, doesn’t necessarily mean that it couldn’t be understood in the manner that bear arms doesn’t require one to serve in the military.

to be clear, prior to Heller in 2008, there was no assumption that an individual had the right to arms

I can’t really comment on this, as it’s conjecture. Would you have any sources that show that the consensus prior to Heller was that the Second Amendment didn’t grant individuals the right to arms? Regardless, the current supreme court decision is how the constitution is officially interpreted. What that means is that if people were of that opinion prior to Heller, Heller states that those prior opinions were unconstitutional.

But it’s icky so many people still think it should be illegal.

Imo, not the best framework for creating laws. Essentially, it’s an appeal to emotion.

Are you serious?

Yes.

A tax does not prevent you from legally acquiring anything.

I could be wrong on how this is defined legally, but the term “infringement” doesn’t require absolute prevention.

At worst, it risks putting the poor at even more of a disadvantage

This is an unfavorable outcome, imo.

It’s no different than the “time and manner” restrictions placed on speech

By “it” are you referring to taxation?

SCOTUS has ruled in the past that some reasonable restrictions can be placed on the right to bear arms (banning kids from carrying, for example).

I would argue that such taxation goes beyond those sorts of “reasonable restrictions”, and only serves as a blanket infringement on the rights of the entire populace, regardless of context or circumstance.

Not to mention that some legal minds disagree on the entire intent of the 2nd amendment

For the sake of clarity, would you mind elaborating on this? Which legal minds disagree, and to what extent?

To play devil’s advocate, though, I do wonder what the exact rationale was for this. Was Al Jazeera engaged in legitimate espionage, using their news organization as a front?

Even then, it’s a broadcast that Al Jazeera could just go view somewhere else and get the same info.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be conflating the two quotes; however, they are both referring to different (and, as far as I am aware, unconnected) events. The raid on Al Jazeera happened prior to what was done to AP, and, afaik, has no connection to the stream that AP was hosting.

I don’t understand how anything related to firearms can be legally taxed in the USA — their taxation can certainly be viewed as an infringement on one’s right to bear arms.

“The camera that was confiscated illegally broadcasts on the Aljazeera channel live the northern Gaza Strip, including the activities of the IDF forces and endangers our fighters,” Karhi said in a statement. “It should be noted that a warning was given to the AP agency already last week that according to the law and the government’s decision they are prohibited from providing broadcasts to Al Jazeera, however they decided to continue broadcasting on the channel causing a real harm to the security of the state.”

Seems like quite a stretch to essentially accuse the AP of espionage when they are simply watching something that presumably anyone, on either side of the conflict, is able to see.

The move comes weeks after Israel shut down Al Jazeera’s operations in the country, raiding the news outlet’s offices and seizing its communication equipment, prompting swift condemnation from the United Nations and rights groups over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s moves to restrict press freedoms.

Yeah, that’s whack. To play devil’s advocate, though, I do wonder what the exact rationale was for this. Was Al Jazeera engaged in legitimate espionage, using their news organization as a front? That’s the only case where it might seem plausible to do this, but, even still, wouldn’t you just arrest those who were engaging in the act of espionage? Why take down the entire organization?

Deviation from the norm will be punished, unless it is exploitable.