|
zxqv8 posted:Why is it people keep claiming that Hillary wants to abolish the second amendment? Is there any substance to this claim or is it just poor informed chucklefucks spewing ignorant garbage? Basically, the Second Amendment has three competing interpretations. The first one is the federalist interpretation-the Second Amendment exists so the federal government can't just tell a state that it can't have its own armed forces, and thus it guaranteed the right to "keep and bear arms"-which meant the right to possess, and use, military armaments for military purposes. This is the one which is most commonly advanced by legal historians. The second is the collective/"well-regulated" interpretation-the Second Amendment guarantees some form of individual access to arms, but is not a guarantee that you are allowed any sort of weapon for any purpose, and comes with an explicit allowance for the government to restrict said. This is basically the compromise one which comes up a lot in Democrat talk. The third one is the conservative interpretation-the Second Amendment gives a right to own guns with minimal oversight and government interference, kind of like the interpretation of the first amendment. This is a very recent interpretation-you literally cannot find any published 2A legal analysis which supports this interpretation until the 1960s. A liberal Supreme Court could technically go back to the Supreme Court's prior legal decisions and reinstate the federalist interpretation, which would make the 2A literally worthless, because under the federalist interpretation California could decide tomorrow "every single gun is banned forever" and that would be perfectly valid. They could also in the alternative decide that the Second Amendment isn't incorporated-that is to say, it only affects the federal government, not the states. Again, in that interpretation Cali could ban all guns forever and it would be valid. So basically, it's not abolishing the Second Amendment. It's overturning cases which enshrine a specific interpretation of the Second Amendment. And this isn't even something Clinton has promised-it's something that the justices she appoints could do, if they wanted to enough. MJ12 fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Nov 4, 2016 |
#
¿
Nov 4, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 18:47 |
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:Can someone explain to me what Random Drift and Bayesin means? I tried to read the explanation on the site and cant understand it. Basically as I understand it the model creates a distribution of likely electoral maps according to the data. Random drift just chooses random ones-so if there's 10000 possible electoral maps, and 9800 of them have a Clinton win and 200 have a Trump win, that gives you 98%. Bayesian uses how the model has moved in the past to inform what it how the model will move in the future.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2016 01:12
|
|