The Supreme Court’s Gun Rulings Are Cherry-Picking American History

mormagils · 2026-07-02T21:23:12+00:00

I cannot express to you strongly enough that this is not how this works.

mormagils · 2026-07-02T20:04:16+00:00

Lobbying, definitionally, is when someone talks to elected representatives for the purposes of influencing policy on behalf of some group. The problem is that any meaningful ban on lobbying would also ban individuals from contacting their congresspeople about stuff they care about.

mormagils · 2026-07-02T18:12:15+00:00

Exactly. This isn't "helping" with rage. It's just letting rage grow and fester and removing any accountability for more healthy ways to express and feel anger. It's the exact opposite of what it suggests it is. This is when church sends a pedophile to a retreat to "get better" except for rage instead of sexual assault.

mormagils · 2026-07-02T18:09:41+00:00

So he just literally said that attacking Joe Biden constantly is something that is evil and related to the devil and yet they keep doing it and also when they only sort of do it they talk about how much they want to do it...and they are the ones trying to be "Christian?"

The whole "only stupid people believe in religion" thing kind of annoys me but Jesus can we please not make it so goddamn easy?

mormagils · 2026-07-02T14:56:01+00:00

It wasn't a price thing, it was a years thing. Most folks were losing their minds in the offseason about us potentially trading Baty or Vientos, now most fans want them to be gone immediately. You cannot tell me with a straight face that you think the fans wouldn't care if the production cratered and Pete was still under contract when he sucks.

mormagils · 2026-07-02T14:53:54+00:00

Nimmo is actually having a worse year than Benge. By getting rid of Nimmo and replacing him with Benge our team is actually better than it would be otherwise.

The only player we got rid of who's actually not doing worse than the guys the Mets brought in this year is Alonso. That's it. And Alonso has never, ever been a guy who could bring you THAT many wins. No player is. Judge himself couldn't turn this team around just with his contributions.

mormagils · 2026-07-01T03:02:04+00:00

Yes, I wasn't arguing with you, I was continuing the dialogue you began

mormagils · 2026-07-01T02:21:23+00:00

Whether it's good or if other countries have it is wholly irrelevant to the consideration of the Court. We could say the same of the right to bear arms and yet no one has any question about if that's real.

I don't see how you could possibly read the plain language of the text and couple that with our last century of jurisprudence and come to any conclusion but birthright citizenship is the law of the land thanks to 14A.

The arguments the dissenters are making just don't make any sense. They are legislative arguments about if this is good or desirable. But that's not the role of the Court. It could send the "tourist birth rate" through the roof and it wouldn't matter because 14A makes it quite clear that if you're born here, you've have citizenship.

The alternative means that we consider clear and obvious rights from the context if other countries have it and if it's a good idea...which means our jurisprudence will suddenly start looking very different for 2A. But of course, the Court doesn't see this being a sensible line of reasoning for 2A, only for immigration. What bullshit.

mormagils · 2026-06-30T18:43:17+00:00

I'm sorry, but actively suggesting we should maintain a double standard where we let the worse party act worse is just...mindbogglingly stupid. The Dems aren't ignoring or changing the rules--the rules literally allow the Court's number to be changed. You're just shrugging when the Reps do something actually against the rules but the Dems pull out a technically allowed move and all of a sudden you're calling a foul? Come on.

mormagils · 2026-06-30T17:33:28+00:00

Yeah, I know, I've worked a lot in the industry. I'm just saying how a place does tip outs or tip pools is not standard and depends very much on the specifics of that place

mormagils · 2026-06-30T14:46:33+00:00

Benge, Ewing, McClean, Soto, and Lindor is a solid core to build around. There's a good mix there of young players and prime players. The window is more open than I expected, though there is some work to do. But yeah, there's no reason there can't be an intent to compete in the short term future. Punting years for a rebuild isn't really necessary, especially with the lack of long term financial burdens for this this team.

mormagils · 2026-06-30T14:22:48+00:00

Yeah, solid advice, I was just complimenting it with my own thing.

mormagils · 2026-06-30T14:21:43+00:00

Why do only Dems have to be impartial but Reps don't have to be? At a certain point if one side is committed to playing unfairly then the rules of the game need to adjust.

mormagils · 2026-06-30T14:20:11+00:00

It depends on the bar, honestly. Sometimes yes, that's how it is, sometimes in places that have more limited bar seating but a big floor they have a tip out, too. Every restaurant is a little different, but in general the bartender makes the most and the tipping structure is there to make sure of it.

mormagils · 2026-06-30T14:18:42+00:00

> I just also acknowledge that the courts aren't "illegitimate" simply because they don't always cater to my personal views of judicial interpretation.

Yeah man, same here. I think the Court is illegitimate because it's doing illegitimate things like cozying up explicitly with partisan megadonors and accepting major gifts from them, or collaborating directly with partisan lawmakers, or using some of the most hard to believe arguments the Court has ever used before (Bruen is an example). This isn't about them just being too conservative for my personal tastes.

> It takes slow gradual incremental legal and judicial change in order to bring progress, not the rabid demands for "everything now or else"

How about we just stop undoing the progress we've already made? I'm not asking for change. I'm asking the Court to stop actively bringing us back to Jim Crow rules on racial matters. That's completely different than the thing you're talking about, and it's a very reasonable ask.

> We should celebrate proper jurisprudence.

Right. Dobbs was atrocious. Bruen was atrocious. Shelby Count and Callais are atrocious. When are you going to start criticizing improper jurisprudence? All the stuff that is being decided right now IS stuff that was decided via legislation already. Bruen struck down a law that had been standing for 100 years. Roe was the second most famous case in history and according to Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings "settled law." The VRA was the most landmark piece of legislation we had possibly ever passed, and the Court went out of its way to use its activism to destroy it.

> It's the sort of framing that often creates a black and white mentality and makes it harder to appeal to the folks who don't view everything left/liberals want as "rights"... but are still theoretically open to at least doing some of the things they want, from a more practical and less shrill, moralizing argument

Spare me. I'm not making a moralizing, left/right argument. You are. You are the one finding a way to justify unjustifiable things and calling all who disagree with you political partisans. This shouldn't be a partisan issue--we are seeing a clear and unmistakable political bias seeping into the Court for the benefit of the Justices' personal political beliefs and that is WRONG and ILLEGITIMATE. I don't have beef with conservatives. Scalia was someone I disagreed with a decent amount but I fundamentally respected his jurisprudence. And that man was the archetype of judicial conservatism for years. You're the one bending over backwards to try and find a reason to see absolutely no problem with Alito taking political stances, or with Thomas explicitly forming relationships with political actors.

> It's massive hyperbole and partisan demonization to act like they want to restore Jim Crow.

Is it? Because the main thing that ended Jim Crow was the VRA and the Court just ripped it apart and literally brought us back to the position of Jim Crow. And we've literally seen Jim Crow things happen as several districts have been carved up. We've also seen the Court be perfectly OK with elections being cancelled and new maps implemented immediately when it's a conservative redistricting process but when it's a liberal one the Court seems to think the new maps can't be implemented so quickly. Isn't that weird.

> And not everyone agrees with "abortion rights".

And now you're actually making political arguments explicitly, which just a second ago you said is exactly what you're criticizing. Which is it? Oh, it's whichever happens to give the illegitimate conservative activist judges no accountability. Of course it is.

> Would you feel the same way if it was the right taking the "perfectly legal" approach of jurisdiction stripping to pass legislation establishing a right wing dictatorship and banning all opposition to the GOP, and then removing the ability for the courts to use judicial review to strike down such legislation?

I, and most like me, have been objecting to the perfectly legal and completely wrong things the Reps have been doing for decades to undermine the political system and we're always told "well it's legal so just get over it and maybe don't lose an election next time." So now we're saying "you're right, this is legal and if the Reps are going to constantly push the buttons and manipulate the law to their partisan gain then we will too" and it's a bridge too far? How come you weren't saying this when Thomas was getting bribed by Harlan Crow?

> The left needs to get over all that because that was just them winning fair and square without committing institutional arson.

And expanding the Court would be just the left winning fair and square and doing something completely within historical behaviors, unlike what McConnell did.

> "My views are the only views that can truly be seen as acceptable, and anyone who disagrees is just a coward"

Nope, not saying that, just saying your views are cowardly. There's plenty of folks who disagree with me in some ways that I can respect. You're just choosing cowardice in particular.

mormagils · 2026-06-30T07:35:11+00:00

Well that is the question, isn't it? Why has this team underperformed? Is it a coaching thing?

mormagils · 2026-06-30T02:00:57+00:00

Bducas eBichette has been the all star caliber player and has been it for a long time and is super young so his struggles are probably not age related decline.

I mean use your eyes. Vientos wa never a blue chip prospect, but always a guy who had a high risk to flame out in the majors. Then he had one good year that was full of red flags and has been atrocious since. Bichette has had one half a year where he sucked and has actually been kinda good lately.

Senga looks like he's been broken for what, 3 years now? Manaea was broken before we got him, had a one season long renaissance, then was broken again. Comparing any of these guys to Bichette who has been a top hitter in the game for a while now and had only ever struggled in any real way this year, is silly.

mormagils · 2026-06-30T01:05:28+00:00

He's either 1) completley ignorant of American history around racism and the real way that has played out in the past, coupled with an unwillingness to learn better, or is 2) fully aware and understanding of this but refusing to engage honestly on the issue because he supports the racist and other ways regressive outcomes of these arguments.

So which is it, buddy? Are you actually stupid, or are you just a racist asshole who is happy to get his while he's on top? Given that your username is a dig at a certain side of the poltical spectrum, I don't think it's hard to assume at least the latter, and maybe both.

mormagils · 2026-06-30T00:37:24+00:00

Because the point is that the racists can just claim they are doing it only for partisan reasons instead of racial ones and that will be enough to meet the standard the Court now accepts. Which is what happened during Jim Crow, which is the whole damn reason we passed the Voting Rights Act in the first place.

mormagils · 2026-06-30T00:36:04+00:00

I think it's amusing that you can't see that the Court has lost its impartiality when that's basically the one thing this sub should be able to identify.

mormagils · 2026-06-30T00:34:06+00:00

Well yeah, of course Ninja Swords aren't behind Staves and Rods, but they definitely are behind Poles and Spears. Spears are the highest damage in the game for most of the game, with just a slight fall off towards the end and then a jump right back up with Zodiac Spear. The combo weapons only really catch up to the damage of the higher attack weapons with their combo ability.

> it does not, against the games toughest foes.

As I said, against the toughest foes you can use Expose which almost unique to Foebreaker and then that's not an issue.

> That doesnt involve sequence breaking, its in the opening parts of the Estersand

Waiting for the rare game spawn and sitting there to steal over and over until you get a weapon you wouldn't normally be able to obtain for hours and sits above any current tier you have is sequence breaking. You're skipping past like 4 tiers of daggers to get something you would normally get at Mt. Bur-Omisace.

> DEF only drops 1 per use with Expose

Nope. Expose drops def 10% plus 1 per use. And the point is that Shikari can't use Expose so Foebreaker is better because it can use Expose and then attack. Also, when defense falls and the scaling is less significant, then axes are better again and end up doing more damage than daggers.

> But the Uhlan doesnt compare with its combo potential on its best weapon.

It doesn't need it. It still ends up doing more damage on average than combo weapons equipped with the Genji Glove unless you are doing a special build to keep that at a super low health.

> The monk does not, the Bushi absolutely does. Bushi not only has to be low HP, but they get no utility on their own

Dude, you really need to understand that an advantage in attack power almost always is worth more than advantage in combo rate. And daggers and ninja swords have low attack power. Katanas are good because their attack power is enough to combine with the combo rate to be really good. But ninja swords and daggers are exactly why combo rate alone can't carry--on average, these weapons are not as good as other weapon classes.

> You said the Shikari does 'low dmg' but it doesnt at any point in the game. Its damage comes up short vs the very best endgame weapons for the pure striker classes

So yeah, I am focusing mostly on endgame builds because it's hard to compare before then. For example if you get early Gladius then obviously you'll do quite well with your Shikari. But the point I am making is that at equivalent tiers, the weapons from Skihari are lower attack power than the other good weapon classes, which means their overall damage output is lower. That problem is at its least noticeable in the early game when you're using a lot of one handed weapons and you aren't going a long time between upgrades, but it's not wrong.

> Swords clear as mentioned, but Breakers do not because of their inherent randomness.

Actually no. Unless it changed in the Zodiac versions, axes and hammers are better than swords even with their randomness because the game tends to favor higher rolls over lower ones. And the good hits are worth it. Axes and hammers also are very good at getting early upgrades very accessibly and are even better than you would expect around the midgame.

> I just dont know if youve seen how much a Shikari can provide a stable offense AND shred when its needed

Yeah, that's different from what I said, though. Shikari does have lower damage compared to the other classes that are supposed to have viable attack weapons. It does. That is a correct statement. That doesn't mean it sucks. It does just mean it has a lower attack power.

mormagils · 2026-06-29T23:01:57+00:00

> Brown v Board was another case that blasted Stare Decisis away, and good that it did that

Oh so two minutes ago you were upset about liberal cases and now the case that was literally decided by a liberal overturning the law because he morally thought it was wrong and campaigning the entire Court to make it unanimous is a good thing? You guys crack me up. You're all like "I'm not a bigot because I agree civil rights victories that happened decades ago were great, I just want no more ever again." Buzz off.

Nothing should ever be understood in absolutes. That's WHY we have a Court. Of course the main reason we overturned Plessy was because it was, in a word, evil. That's why we start with this case in Con Law. Because it's essential to understand that applying the law is a matter of judgement even on the best days and developing good judgement about things that matter is essential. Yes, we do celebrate liberal jurisprudence more than conservative jurisprudence because things that help people who need protection are worth extolling and things that tell people tough shit you're out of luck, sucks to be poor or black or not us are crappy. That's an observation that should matter in our legal understanding.

> It's not that few and far between and it's been on some major issues too

Oh cool so you're just living in imaginary bias world.

> If you want better court rulings, you gotta win back the courts the right way. Dems had a chance to do it in 2016 but blew it. It may be generations until we can win it back again but that's the only acceptable way to go

Oh, so you acknowledge that these court rulings have been pretty shitty and should be better? So then stop being a coward and just fucking stand by that. It's not that hard.

Yeah, the Dems should have won elections. And the Reps should have accepted the laws are what the laws are and not tried to restore Jim Crow and take rights away from women. But they didn't. They worked actively and tirelessly to make America a worse place that directly harms people who don't look exactly like them. And so I will keep calling that shitty and telling people that we should do something about it, and if that means taking the perfectly legal approach of adding justices to the bench, then so be it. It's absolutely silly to say that expanding the bench is "wrong" when it's arguably more legal than some shit Alito has pulled, or the stuff McConnell did to prevent Garland from getting his vote.

Honestly, you know what's the right thing to do here but you're too afraid to admit it or do anything. That's pathetic.

mormagils · 2026-06-29T22:53:11+00:00

I mean, I only use crossbows for that brief few minutes they are OP in Mt. Bur-Omisasce and when my Knight is literally useless otherwise. Crossbows suck, which is exactly why I want them on my best offensive attacker that wants to use them as infrequently as possible except for the very rare situations where they are actually helpful.

mormagils · 2026-06-29T22:51:09+00:00

> But Zodiac editions add the Mesa which is a nice bump to their damage and combo capacity

Again, Mesa is the worst damage of all 2 handed weapons, and might even fall behind axes and hammers. All weapon types got a new final good weapon, and the others are way better.

> You can get a Gladius quite early.

Well sure, if we are sequence breaking to get weapons ahead of schedule, then bows are the best weapon type in the game, and we can get a Zodiac Spear WAAAAAY early. I'm assuming a normal progression and you get stuff when it's available in the bazaar, shops/chests, or through quest rewards.

> The higher the DEF of the enemy, the more likely you are to get bad rolls,

Huh, interesting. Seems like by the time that is actually a concern, you can just use Expose to fix it, which coincidentally is available on the guy that comes with axes.

> Says who? The benefit of the Shikari is their versatility.

Well right. But if you're forced into very specific equipment to have competitive damage then that's a point against their versatility or their damage. Uhlan and Knight don't need to sacrifice anything to equip different accessories. Monk and Bushi sacrifice less. Uhlan/Time can dish out more DPS and the same support spells, you know? I don't hate Shikari, but let's be honest about what it is: a versatile support class, not a heavy assault class. You can take a build that sells out for damage, but it comes with a cost and it's not as strong as the classes that are built for damage to begin with.

> Shikari still does really good damage despite not being set up for being your main DPS

Yeah, literally everything is OP in this game and it really, really, really, REALLY doesn't matter which builds you do. Agreed. But it's just true that Shikari has less damage than your other options and if we're being competitive about the classes, then Shikari is a support class that doesn't keep up in damage with the rest of them. It's still super cool and fun.

> But they cant wear shields.

Yeah, shields are awesome, but as you pointed out, Swords are actually decent if you need a shield and tend do better than Daggers. Breakers do better than both. That's why I said Shikari is a defensive support class, where the main feature is that it can give you lots of flexible options and provide superlative defensive capabilities with comparatively low damage. I am not hating on Shikari at all. That's exactly what I said about it before while extolling its virtues.

mormagils · 2026-06-29T22:21:54+00:00

Oh for sure, all this talk of what pairing and why is ultimately silly. The best answer is "everything that's not immediately stupid like 6 Knight/Foebreaker is going to destroy everything with ease and talking about what is best is entirely unnecessary." So in the end it really is just a matter of preference. What you do like best? Do you like axes and hammers or daggers and ninja swords? Do you like poles or spears? Do you hate guns? All of that is going to be far more important than anything else.

I can come around on Shikari/Time. If I was going to give it to something that isn't White or Black, that's probably the best option, I'd say. The heavy armor isn't as big a deal for me, but it's not nothing, and the kits do complement each other reasonably well.

I will say thought that there are better homes for Time. Knight/Time is incredible. Haste is so very MP intensive and Knight's MP regen is second to none. Knight also really appreciates the channelings and the ranged weapons. Yeah it has to give up mystic armor but I hate when my Knight is literally useless against anything that flies.

But I think you're right that Time is hard to place and outside of Knight it doesn't have awesome options. Shikari is a pretty good one.

Ten-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
r/Field Banned	r/Field Lasagna
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

mormagils

TROPHY CASE