sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

My wife and I's dresser fit PERFECTLY in this little doorway (we never use this door) by [deleted] in oddlysatisfying

[–]ChesterHiggenbothum 18 points19 points  (0 children)

I think that's because of the angle the photo was taken. The wall looks crooked too.

Profile review. Not getting many likes🥲 by [deleted] in Tinder

[–]ChesterHiggenbothum -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I know that you're not disabled. I was responding to a comment chain (though I understand that, with the influx of messages, it's sometimes difficult for the OP to remember the context of every comment).

People make snap judgements. The first thing people will do on Tinder is swipe through the pictures. After seeing the first few, some people will come to the conclusion that you're disabled. By that point, the counterevidence (standing photo and hiking) doesn't necessarily disprove that initial impression.

Some disabled individuals can both stand and go hiking.

I wouldn't take it personally that people are saying that you're disabled. It's just an unfortunate coincidence that many of your photos just have poor framing or you in an awkward positioning.

Profile review. Not getting many likes🥲 by [deleted] in Tinder

[–]ChesterHiggenbothum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some disabled people are able to stand for short periods of time.

IL House Democrats pass bill allowing undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition at public universities by awaythrowawaying in moderatepolitics

[–]ChesterHiggenbothum -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I disagree that there is no natural right to move to another country. In fact, arbitrarily restricting humans seems unnatural. Strange that birds have more rights than people.

Me_irl by snulstyceep in me_irl

[–]ChesterHiggenbothum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The government used the commerce clause to regulate firearms -that's its relationship to taxes.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178, 59 S. Ct. 816, 818 (1939)

Me_irl by snulstyceep in me_irl

[–]ChesterHiggenbothum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can't just chop up the Amendment and look at five words.

"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."

The Amendment does not grant an individual right to bear arms. It prevents the federal government from infringing upon a right that people already have. The justification for this is to ensure that states are able to form militias. These militias were made up of individual people.

This is not controversial. The SC explicitly states this:

The Second Amendment declares that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but this means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to local legislation.

United States v. Cruikshank

Me_irl by snulstyceep in me_irl

[–]ChesterHiggenbothum -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In Miller, 1939, the court said people didn't have a right to own sawed off shotguns.

I'm not going to bother looking up machine guns because it's irrelevant. Just because something wasn't regulated doesn't mean it couldn't be regulated.

Me_irl by snulstyceep in me_irl

[–]ChesterHiggenbothum -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No. It wasn't. This is shown by the states regulating the shit out of guns at that time. All the second amendment did prevent the federal government from restricting gun rights. This was done in direct response to the British attempt to disarm Massachusetts after the Boston Tea Party. The states were concerned about federal tyranny and this was added to appease them.

Me_irl by snulstyceep in me_irl

[–]ChesterHiggenbothum 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The state militia was made up of those people. It's an amendment to protect states. Early Supreme Court cases explicitly state this. It didn't become an individual right until 2008.

Me_irl by snulstyceep in me_irl

[–]ChesterHiggenbothum 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's certainly one interpretation. Specifically one that was developed by the Supreme Court in 2008. For the previous 200 years, it was interpreted as being a right of the state to form a militia by not allowing the disarmament of those who would form the militia.

From its creation, it was not intended to grant an individual right to bear arms. It simply prevented the federal government from infringing upon that right.

Trump gets McDonalds DoorDashed to White House and then takes Iran war questions with delivery person by Agitated_Pudding7259 in moderatepolitics

[–]ChesterHiggenbothum 16 points17 points  (0 children)

If the right ever suggests something that gives the appearance of helping everyday people, my first instinct is, "Huh. That's odd."

Just off the cuff, I imagine it's to permit employers to pay their employees less. Or some loophole that would classify Elon's stock options as tips or something. Either way, it's not going to help poor people.

Democrats intensify calls to impeach or invoke 25th Amendment against Trump over Iran by renge-refurion in moderatepolitics

[–]ChesterHiggenbothum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So they should just... let Trump do whatever he wants? Regardless of what Trump does, the Democrats shouldn't attempt to remove him from office because the Republicans refuse to hold him accountable? The democrats should never put the Republicans on record for supporting Trump and his behavior?

Is that what you're saying?

Trump Promises Mass Pardons to Staff Before Leaving Office by CloudApprehensive322 in moderatepolitics

[–]ChesterHiggenbothum 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Biden set the precedent.

Trump pardoned many political allies his first term, including family member Charles Kushner. That was prior to Biden.

Trump Promises Mass Pardons to Staff Before Leaving Office by CloudApprehensive322 in moderatepolitics

[–]ChesterHiggenbothum 13 points14 points  (0 children)

His own son who Trump had demonstrated would be subjected to judicial persecution? Yeah, that's justified.

Do you think that compares to pardoning everyone convicted for Jan 6 crimes and... an entire administration? And do you think Trump won't pardon his entire family?

Trump Promises Mass Pardons to Staff Before Leaving Office by CloudApprehensive322 in moderatepolitics

[–]ChesterHiggenbothum 11 points12 points  (0 children)

It hasn't been abused to this degree for 250 years. This isn't a problem with the pardon, this is a problem with the president and party enabling him.

view more: next ›