grue

A lot of English-speaking Lemmy is from places used to the heat (e.g. US, Australia). My city is at roughly the same latitude as Casablanca, for instance.

The original intent was to allow people to own muskets because US didn’t have a standing army.

Because the founders explicitly didn't want the US to have a standing army, explicitly to prevent the Federal government from being able to subjugate the People. That's an important distinction.

Please explain how I can "do literally anything productive with my life" when I'm murdered by MAGA fascists because I had no means to defend myself.

The reality is simply that the US constitution is an outdated document that should not serve as the basis for laws in a modern country.

The argument I've been participating in has been about what the Second Amendment was at the time it was written. The original intent of the people who wrote it. There is only one correct interpretation of that (which is mine, BTW), and modern interpretations have absolutely fuck-all to do with it.

Case in point: you know I’m right, but you’re pissed off at me and don’t want to admit it (but maybe you will, now that I’ve called you out on it, just to spite me)

Well fuck, now I have to spite you by not admitting it!

Congrats on ignoring three paragraph of substantive arguments to focus on the addendum that wasn't part of the argument at all.

On one hand, this, on the other hand, y'all are trying to destroy the entire concept of property rights by putting government-snitch DRM in 3D printers. You've got some work to do to crawl out of that net negative.

Everything you just wrote is a fucking lie. You are persistently trying to apply your 21^st^ century "understanding" to 18^th^ century writing and getting it objectively, factually, wrong. And then you're trying to draw bullshit conclusions based on that incorrect understanding!

Take this nonsense, for instance:

Besides, if the founding fathers intended to limit gun ownership to people who has had sufficient training ti responsibly store and handle them (which would be a great idea), WHY do pro-gun people only ever state so when trying to explain away the requirement for regulation in the text? Very curious 🤔

You think you found some sort of gotcha logical contradiction, but you can't get out of your own ass long enough to realize that, whoops, your premise is wrong because you didn't even read the "literal and obvious" plain text of the damn thing correctly. The "shall not be infringed" part does not depend on the "well-regulated" part, which means your "if" is false! "Well-regulated" is a reason and an aspiration, but it is not a requirement.

The Federalist Papers weren’t law, they were the equivalent of opinion columns.

We were arguing about the intent of the founding fathers. Now you're trying to pretend the documents where they literally explained their intent somehow don't count because "that's just, like, their opinion, man." That is just blatant bad faith. You don't give a fuck about what's true or correct or right; you're just trying to beat me into submission with a gish gallop of bullshit.

When the law says one thing and an opinion piece says another, you go with what the law says.

Again, the law doesn't say what you think it says, and never did.

Speaking of which: why are you so Hell-bent on promoting tyranny, anyway? Why do you apparently so love the idea of The People not being able to defend themselves against The State? Why are you carrying water for the fascists by dogmatically pushing your sick, twisted, authoritarian misinterpretation of the law?

the "Militia" (i.e. the ~~People~~ well-regulated militias)

Fixed it for you.

Bullshit, I was right the first time. "Militia" means "every able-bodied adult male" and "well-regulated" means "well-trained."

People don't tend to write laws in code, actually.

Fuck your ahistorical revisionism. We know exactly what they meant when they wrote this shit because they explained themselves in the Federalist papers. Federalist #46, for instance, specifically discusses the militia as a check against Federal power.

Bottom line is this: I'm right, you're wrong, the end, bye-bye.

Guess I ought to go find a set of machining schematics.

Swedish racists: "Expel everyone who isn't native."

Me: "Okay, fine then. Sweden for the Sámi!"

Swedish racists: "Wait, not like that!"

My car, after a free period, charges a small subscription for those services and I just paid for it today, so I can tell you that I and my partner want it enough to pay for it.

You are part of the problem. Nothing the companies are providing justifies them spying on us or attacking our property rights, but you're rewarding them for doing it.