• 0 Posts
  • 28 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 3rd, 2023

help-circle











  • In the US, “liberal” and “conservative” come from different interpretations of the constitution. A “liberal” is somebody who interprets it liberally, that is, that the people who wrote it couldn’t account for every possibility, so interpretations of it should take into account the “spirit” of the work and try to interpret what they wanted when they wrote it. A “conservative” interprets it conservatively, that is, that they only concern themselves with the “letter” of what it says, and that the law is limited to EXACTLY what the document says based on the language at the time it was written.

    Without taking obvious sides on this argument in this post, this is part of where the argument over the 2nd amendment comes from - The exact wording of the amendment isn’t up for debate - it’s written down right over there and anybody can read it. But what the two sides differ on is:

    1. What that wording actually means.
    2. Whether or not that wording is still relevant.
    3. Whether or not that section should be repealed by amendment.

    The literal exact wording is: “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.”

    But what does that actually mean?

    To a conservative, it is interpreted using the original meanings of the words with no room for error. The words are sacrosanct and not up for revision or reinterpretation. “well regulated” in 1700s vocabulary means “well equipped and maintained”, and a militia was a group of citizens that organized themselves outside of military control. “to keep” means to own “and bear” means to have something in their possession at any time in any situation. So taken together, translated to modern language using the original meanings of the words, it means “A country’s security and freedom depend upon citizens coming together with proper equipment, maintenance, and training, so people shall always have the right to own and carry weapons.”

    But to a liberal, there’s room for interpretation and modification. In modern parlance, “well regulated” means “subject to rules and regulations”. A “militia” is a volunteer military organization. Taken together, they mean “A military organization with stringent rules.” So if the sentence starts with “A well regulated militia…”, then does the sentence only apply to those in the military? Combined with the next clause, it goes “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state…”. At the time of the writing, militias were the primary system of civilian security. But now we have military and civilian police for security, so do we still need civilian firearm ownership / public carry? If not, then is this clause even necessary anymore? Should an amendment eliminate it?

    Again, I’m not taking a side in this post. That’s not my goal here. Of course I have my own opinion, but to maintain neutrality, I’m not going to share it on this thread. I’m just trying to illustrate how the terms “conservative” and “liberal” grew out of different interpretations and thoughts regarding the US constitution.





  • I live in TN and have a carry permit. Last week, I had to drive up to PA.

    During the drive, I passed through TN, VA, WV, MD, and PA. Every single state honored my permit except for Maryland. I had to stop in WV, disarm myself, unload the gun, then lock the gun and ammo into SEPARATE locking compartments in the trunk. In order to be legal by federal law, I had to straight-through Maryland without stopping. Fortunately, on 81, Maryland is only like 15 minutes, but still - if I had had some kind of emergency, had to get off the highway, and got pulled over for any reason, it would have been a firearms charge.

    I pulled off at a gas station to do the unload, got witnessed by some random lady getting gas, who promptly panicked, jumped in her car, and sped off. I expected to get blue-lighted the entire way to PA after that.

    I’m really fucking tired of the inconsistency. Make some laws, fine, but make them fucking consistent. Don’t make me have to spend an hour online digging through different states’ laws just to make sure I don’t become an accidental felon.


  • Imagine you have 50 people in a room at a convention or something. Everybody’s greeting and shaking hands and whatnot.

    1 of them has the flu and an aversion to covering his mouth when he sneezes ‘cause he’s gross like that.

    For simplicity in this thought experiment, we’re gonna assume that this flu transmits instantly, and has zero incubation period. You’re instantly contagious as soon as the sneeze hits you.

    Patient 0 sneezes, catching 5 people in his blast zone. Those people each shake hands and or otherwise infect 5 more people. And then they also infect 5 people.

    5x5x5 = 125. But we only have 50 people in that room, so it’s pretty safe to say that everybody in the room gets exposed. By the end of the meeting, everybody’s sniffling and sneezing and the whole room is covered in a fine layer of snot.

    Now, next meeting. Let’s say that 80% of the people in this meeting have had a flu shot, or have had this particular strain of flu before and are immune.

    Our gross patient zero sneezes again, again catching 5 people in his plague spray. But on average, 80% of those people are immune and don’t pass it on like the first room did. Only ONE person gets infected. He sneezes, again catching 5 people. But again, 80% are immune, so only one person gets sick. That person sneezes and catches 5 more. One more sick.

    Over the course of the same 1 hour meeting, the unvaccinated room resulted in every single person getting sick. In the 80% vaccinated room, only THREE people got sick. Even though only 80% of people were vaccinated, which is 40 people if there are 50 in the room, only 3 people, which is 6% of our room population, got sick.

    20% of 50 people is 10 people. Even though 10 people were unvaccinated, only 3 actually got sick.

    That’s the effect of herd immunity. Yes, three still got sick, but because of the level of immunity, some people who are at risk never even get exposed in the first place. As infections go up, even more people become immune, eventually strangling the spread of the sickness off to the point where it can more or less die out completely.

    Granted, this is a simplistic example, but that’s basically how it works. If all of the people who CAN get vaccinated do so, then that protects the people who CAN’T get vaccinated for whatever reason, because the sickness never even gets to them thanks to all the other members of the “herd” who are immune.