I’d like to thank everyone for my most upvoted post on lemmy ever. Not only have you upvoted it to the top for like 2 days you commented the shit out of it. I’d like to take this opportunity to say fuck the mods of this instance. This was my second post coming off a 30 day ban and I want to say these fucking mods have been nothing but bitches. I’ve never been more attacked on any other instance, subreddit, forum, etc. then I have been in this fucking instance. Not only have I been attacked I’ve been told my memes arent memey enough again and again.

I’ll be honest, I do not know how to make a meme but I keep posting just to piss in these mods cheerios.

Thanks lemmy.world/politicalmemes for being the worst community I’ve ever been a part of.

  • andros_rex@lemmy.world
    4·
    1 day ago

    That is the current interpretation. Before Heller (2008) many scholars and federal courts supported the collective interpretation.

    My point being that you are falsely treating this as a settled conversation/that the text is unambiguous. It’s famously unclear, and there have been pages and pages of arguments written about this.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      1·
      1 day ago

      The Supreme Court is the arbiter, and while the court CAN overturn itself, as it did with Roe, it takes 50 years and a concerted effort by the Presidents and Senate to change the composition of the Court.

      Since Heller, the Court has only become MORE conservative, not less, so the opinions on gun rights and the 2nd amendment aren’t going to change any time soon.

      We saw it again with Bruen in 2022 where the Court gave the test by which all gun laws should be judged:

      https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/

      “Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal., 366 U.S. 36, 50, n. 10 (1961).[3]”

      Which does not bode well for California this year when the Supreme Court takes up the ban on AR-15s and magazines with more than 10 rounds.

      https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2024/11/an-update-on-challenges-to-state-assault-weapon-and-magazine-bans

      Snope vs. Brown will be the next one to watch:

      https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/snope-v-brown/

      • Nalivai@lemmy.world
        4·
        1 day ago

        And that’s why it’s not “gun ownership is guaranteed by constitution” but “gun ownership is guaranteed by the recent decision of 9 unelected people, but actually less than that, some of then were against it”.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.world
          2·
          1 day ago

          All it takes is a majority ruling to set the precedent, and they have done so four separate times now.

          June is going to probably be another heartbreaker for folks expecting the court to suddenly swerve left.

          • Nalivai@lemmy.world
            3·
            20 hours ago

            Precedents also stopped being relevant. Forget stare decisis, they don’t even pretend to care about some kind of rule of law altogether, they gave a president an unlimited indulgence for fucks sake, all that legal bullshit is just a game for nerds now