Profanity is the effort of a feeble brain to express itself forcibly.

I didn’t say anything about the militia, not sure why you’re referencing that. I provided the verbatim text, which doesn’t reference capacity.

Heller did not establish protections for magazine capacity, that’s what your image says. It’s not settled law, that’s why it’s being contested. This judge was overruled on appeal on this once before. Until it’s settled law the argument magazine capacity is protected is as valid as the argument it’s not.

... with complete technological parity with the standing armed forces of the time, in context.

Yes, in context for the 1790s the people had access to the same weapons as the standing army, of course they didn’t really have a lot of choice…

It’s almost like context changes over time and laws need to as well.

And in the post-Bruen world, there's much less room for debate, especially for arbitrary and capricious restrictions on a right.

This is wrong. Bruen simply held that may issue states cannot use arbitrary evaluations of need to issue permits for concealed carry. Everything else is, by definition, debatable which is why this case is working its way through the courts.

Again, this is a dumb law and not at all representative of reasonable gun control but magazine capacity is not protected by the 2nd amendment. Not yet, at least.

Before anyone tries to argue if the 2A covers bullet capacity, let me introduce you to the chambers gun

This isn’t the gotcha you think it is. The only thing the 2nd amendment covers 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.”

Your argument that bullet capacity is covered is as valid as another’s argument that it’s not because it’s not explicitly stated, so it’s left to interpretation.

This law is dumb and doesn’t seem likely to actually do anything to curb gun violence.

However, if someone would like to own a Chambers gun or any other firearm that existed in 1791 when the amendment was ratified then they should be allowed to without restriction, including felons, children, people with mental health issues, illegal drug users etc. This is what the 2nd amendment guarantees in context

That context is important though. 230 years ago the most common weapons owned and available to the people were muskets and flintlock pistols. Single shot, muzzle loading weapons.

Let’s also not forget that James Madison redrafted the Second Amendment into its current form "for the specific purpose of assuring the Southern states, and particularly his constituents in Virginia, that the federal government would not undermine their security against slave insurrection by disarming the militia.”

It is incredibly easy in modern times in the US to be able to access firearms capable of dealing significantly greater death and harm than in 1791. It’s fair to argue that, in current context, the intent of the 2nd amendment would not protect magazine capacity. In fact the case that defined bearable arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, leaves much to debate about whether a magazine constitutes a “bearable arm”.

Clearly

Hey everyone, this idiot I’m replying to can’t even read. Literally from the link:

And that also starts to impact the oil market. Yes, Texas has substantial oil reserves. They’re the leading producer of crude oil and natural gas in the USA, and the leading refinder of petroleum products. But of course, that’s all done by foreign companies in the Republic of Texas. Does Texas itself own any oil? Maybe, but I couldn’t find it. Do they Nationalize all petroleum production and send the oil companies running? That’s an annual $223 billion!

But here’s the other thing: all oil is currently bought and sold in Petrodollars. You buy oil in dollars, you sell oil in dollars. So the TexBux situation in Texas is a big problem… relative to other things in Texas, the cost of oil will go up. And this dynamic makes Republic of Texas less interesting for investors and oil companies than Texas, USA. Particularly if it’s unstable. Not that, after a century in the Middle East, they’re not strangers to how one gets the best of an unstable country. It’s just never good for that unstable country.

Admittedly that portion was poorly worded on my part. My intent was more to say that I personally support unions and workers rights to strike. However, if I were President with an obligation to all constituents then in the short term I would make the decision that protects the well-being of the majority, which may mean forcing an agreement in the short term.

That’s why I think steps that come after are important because that speaks to the character of the person(s) involved. Specifically Biden’s White House gets credit for continuing to work for what the rail workers were asking for. It’s not nearly enough and certainly doesn’t address the root cause that created the situation in the first place.

In general I think the anti-union legislation, as I referenced in another comment, should be repealed to remove the governments power in this aspect. Critical industry and infrastructure that could cause widespread harm, like in this situation, should not be controlled by private, for profit entities in my opinion. Either nationalize it or give control of it to the unions.

All of this said, rail workers were not forced to continuing working, they were just not allowed to strike at the time. They could have all walked off the job, granted they would not have the protections they get from striking. I don’t work in a field with unions but my personal approach is to use my power of choice and refuse to work if I’m not being treat or compensated fairly.

I’m sorry you feel the need to turn to insults and derision. That does nothing to support you position and serves only to make you an unlikable person.

If they all had decided to just quit their jobs instead of entering the bargaining process in good faith, would you have been in support of forcing those people to work those jobs against their will because of the economic fallout? There is no difference between these two paths in my mind.

Then this discussion is moot. The difference between these two is distinct and to suggest otherwise is a false equivalence.

The problem is that if you're willing to sacrifice the good of the minority for the stagnation of the masses, everyone is going to suffer.

The benefit is that if you’re willing to protect the good of the majority for the prevention of greater harm to the masses, everyone is going to benefit.

Changing a few words in your statement flips it the other way.

Breaking the strike didn't make anyone's life better... just made it less inconvenient for people who wouldn't benefit from the strike.

It didn’t make lives better, it worked to prevent further harm. The making lives better should be coming after the fact in the forms of new legislation be pushed to prevent this scenario while protecting the workers and the unions at the same time.

This is why it bothers me so much when people allude to one action taken as if it means something more while also excluding additional details that don’t support what’s being alluded to.

It’s ok to be upset about blocking the strike while also acknowledging the tough decision to prevent harm to the majority.

What is wrong with stating the president broke the strike but continued to work after the fact to get the unions what they were looking for to begin with?

Then you can focus your criticism on what action has or hasn’t been taken to prevent this situation in the future while protecting the rights of workers or unions?

Is that what you want to hear when it's your turn? Fuck this scab ass take. "I support workers rights, no really, it's just I need my treats."

I would expect that the elected representative acted I. The best interests of the majority of their constituents over that of a few. That’s literally what an elected officials job is supposed to be.

I can be both upset that action against a subset of the population and acknowledge the persons responsibility to work in the best interests of the majority.

That’s why what happens after is so important.

A lot of people in the US seem to tie their emotions up in their politics.

As to a subjective statement like Biden being the most union friendly president, I just ignore comments like that. There are people who claim Trump was the best president ever too. These are opinion statements, not measurable in any form of empirical data.