Vegas Shooter Kills 50+

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
682

I started my post with LOL, because this conversation has turned utterly comical, and it became very hard to take you seriously many posts ago. You quoted the law, which was written in the plainest language possible, then in the very same post immediately claimed it said something it clearly doesn’t say. I asked you where it fetters anyone’s access to arms and you respond with made up nonsense.

It defines who has to serve, who is exempt. It says those who are exempt have to provide a set (singular) of arms for the use of the militia. THAT’S IT! There’s no seizure, the county is only to “Levy the value of said arms”.

You just posted this yourself.

If I’m wrong, and I will ask you for the last time, quote something from the actual law. That you just posted.

I threw in the stuff about the Kentucky Rifle so that maybe someone reading through this would get something out of it, because after you posted the law itself, this thread instantly turned into a shit show.

3 Likes
683

The other thing that people may get out of this is, go read the source material yourself. Don’t rely on someone else’s opinions. We’re not talking about the ancient Greeks, whose literature only survives in fragments and requires a translator.

The sources are easy to find, and understand.

684

That isn’t what I said in the slightest and you know it.

This is the first and only time I’ve ever seen you be this intellectually dishonest.

No, again, it isn’t acceptable to take anyones property, whether it be a gun or land or what have you. For at least the third time now.

Holy shit man… Just holy shit.

For someone who “brings law and logic” you sure are ignoring a shit ton of both right now.

The law you’re trying to use here is a property rights law that happens to have firearms as the property. That is why the 5th is without question relevant. Swap out rifles for land and you’ll see what I’m saying.

You get this, I know it. Apparently, for whatever reason, you refuse to admit that fact.

The law doesn’t, in any literal way, restrict ownership of firearms. It can defacto be a restriction on ownership, but on it’s face, no, for the 4th time, it doesn’t because it has zero language that prevents anyone from owning guns.

However, it does violate property rights, without question, and in every case.

So is you intentionally misrepresenting everything I’m saying here man.

It’s basically taxation via specific property, hence the “fine” if you don’t donate.

I think TB is trolling at this point.

685

Your definition of norm is not THE definition of norm. Regardless, if something labelled as a culture has no values then is it a culture? Also, wouldn’t it be more correct, and less racist, to say that there is a criminal culture in the inner cities rather than allow that culture to define the culture of the entire community? The first step in normalizing a behavior is to label it as cultural. Telling black people in the inner city that all of the crime is the result of their, as in all of them, culture is spitting in the face of all the people who are actually not part of the problem. If murder were truly the norm. If it were culturally acceptable. Then there would be a lot more murders and murderers. Most people in the inner city are not killers or even criminals yet we define inner city culture by the behaviors of the few. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

Murder is not confined to the inner cities. Nor is welfare or drug dealing and use or just crime in general. Yet, no one defines suburban culture by those things even though they exist in suburbs.

Finally, I don’t believe that cultural values need to have a positive moral valence, that is, to anyone outside of that culture. Thus, the values of criminal culture, though they may seem negative to me, are not negative to criminals. But that’s why we don’t allow criminals to define the cultural values for the majority of us who are not criminals. It’s also why we shouldn’t let them define inner city culture for the majority of residents who are not criminals.

And I’m still waiting to hear what you define as inner city culture.

1 Like
686

Wait, so me asking you a question (see the question mark) saying “do I have this right?”, but offering you a chance to correct my misunderstanding, is being intellectual dishonest?

Heh. PWI, man.

Your problem is that you think the 5A is an option in the hypo posed (it’s not). But more to the point, it’s a red herring - the point was to get thoughts on whether the 2A overrides this law or not. You’re saying it’s not, ok, but you haven’t said why all that clearly (and the 5A is completely irrelevant to the answer on the 2A). Hence my confusion.

Ok. That makes no sense to me at all, given that the state has a statutory right to restrict (some or all) firearms from a citizen upon pain of penalty. I was never under an impression that the 2A, from the point of an absolutist, had to be an “all or none” thing - as you note, a de facto restriction. The VA is precisely a de facto restriction - I’m not suggesting a mean-spirited one, but certainly a restriction.

That isn’t true. It may not, depending on what VA law said.

Enough with the tantrum over “intentionally misrepresenting you” stuff. I’m literally stating what I understand your position with a question mark, opening the door for you to correct my misunderstanding if I’m wrong. You said you read good - well, go back and actually read my posts where I did that.

1 Like
687

I am not aware of any culture that can be said to ‘have no values.’ On the other hand, I know of many cultures that have what you and I would consider sick, twisted values. (ISIS, to take one example.) But they are values nonetheless.

Again, you seem to be laboring under the impression that only beliefs/attitudes with a positive moral valence count as values. That is simply incorrect. ISIS has norms, values, and a culture. You and I consider their norms, values and culture appalling, and hopelessly pathological (and they are). But the fact that it is appalling and pathological doesn’t mean ISIS culture doesn’t exist–it just means it is anathema to us.

Cultures can be subdivided into subcultures, so I have no problem with that. But what you can’t do is carve out the ‘criminal subculture’ and claim either a) it isn’t really a culture; or b) it isn’t part of the overall culture.

Not necessarily. I know of no one (outside of white supremacists, I suppose) who would argue that the culture of violence that permeates inner-city life is inevitable, much less ‘normal.’

OK, try this. Suppose you were an anthropologist from another planet who came to study culture on Earth. For whatever reason, you end up focusing your attention on Chicago’s inner-city areas. What are you going to put in your report about the culture you observed there? Are you going to ignore the near-daily gang/drug-related killings, or are you going to incorporate them into your assessment of Chicago’s inner-city culture?

Should has nothing to do with it. Should is aspirational, not actual. And what we’re talking about here is actual culture, not aspirational culture. Actual culture is what it is. Which doesn’t mean culture is timeless and immutable–far from it. But the first step toward eliminating pathological aspects of a culture is recognizing they exist.

688

It has, but not for the reasons you think.

I never said “seizure”, I said it doesn’t allow unfettered ownership. It"s for a good purpose, but it’s a restriction, a regulation on what and when you can own a firearm. That’s it.

And my hypo was to ask, would a person be able to challenge it under the 2A? The answer, btw, is no.

I’ll say it this way (btw, I’m making this up, I’m not really a 18th century physician speaking, just to prevent confusion in your part):

“I’m an 18th century physician and I don’t have to serve in the militia. Ok, I’m good with that. But VA is telling me I have to give up my one good rifle I need to defend my property from marauding Indians and also hunt for food. And if I don’t, I get fined. Now, I’m told the 2A says I have the right to own whatever firearm I see fit and the government is hands off - that’s my right. After all, while I don’t mind in theory helping out my state militia, what if that state militia gets turned on me and mine unjustly - what then? Maybe the state militia does right most of the time, but what if they don’t? Now, I got no gun at home to defend myself against the state. Isn’t that exactly what the 2A is supposed to protect me against? And look, the fine is a big deal - so, I don’t hand over my gun, so they hit me in my pocketbook? How is that constitutional?”

So, 2A absolutists don’t side with this guy?

Awesome. Super helpful.

689

Actually I’m with @EyeDentist on this one. (Hell just got colder I know).

Just because something is negative doesn’t mean it isn’t part of a culture. Also just because bad things happened to a group to cause it doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

Inner city culture… A culture should be judged by its outputs primarily. So residents of dense inner cities tend to have poverty, low socioeconomic mobility, more single parent households, higher dropout rates, higher rates of criminality and drug/alcohol abuse, higher rates of obesity and shortened life spans.

This is not to say that any/all of this is their fault. It’s important to note that I could substitute “trailer park” for “inner city” and most of this would still be true. Turns out being poor, ignorant and hopeless sucks.

690

It probably doesn’t makes sense because your replacing “confiscate” or “tax” with “restrict”. I’m using “confiscate” or “tax”.

When the government confiscates or taxes my income upon pain or penalty, I’m not restricted in earning income, I’m forced to give some of my income to the state.

When this law confiscates or taxes a citizen’s property (rifles), they are not restricted in owning rifles, they are forces to give some of their rifles to the state.

For some individuals yes, it is. And due to that it should be challenged in the courts. I think it’s pretty obvious I’m not in favor of this law.

Sigh… yes, the law is always correct in respect to what is or isn’t your right.

Which considering I keep saying the same things over and over, and you refuse to actually correctly frame my position when you beg the question…

In this example, if the 2nd exists so does the 5th, and we fight the case in the courts under failure to provide due compensation.

the point is, in this instance the 2nd isn’t necessary for a legal challenge, and due to the language of the bill actually resembling more of a tax than total confiscation, it would be foolish for an absolutist to use the second to fight this law, when they have the 5th, which much better fits this case.

691

In that case, I take back everything I said. :stuck_out_tongue:

4 Likes
692

All, it’s been fun, and some of us will have to agree to disagree, and I will have to leave at that. But, sincerely, no hard feelings on anything we disagreed on.

As I said what seems like a long time ago, I think there’s a “path” to a constitutional right under the 2A, but it has to go through the maze of (and get over) real obstacles that can’t be wished away (like the fact that the 2A never applied to the states, etc.).

693

I really want to discuss this point, but I don’t want to fight about the point.

694

absolutely none.

1 Like
695

Discuss away. I’ll do my best not to respond in a provocative or disrespectful manner.

696

Look, you three (and a few others that have chimed in, you are just the three most active in this particular discussion) are all good, intelligent, and (IMO, from what I can tell on the forum) reasonable guys. I know there have been some “intellectual dishonesty” slings thrown in this discussion, as often happens when things heat up, but I think everyone participating has been mostly respectful, and other people can read this stuff and draw their own conclusions.

Agreeing to disagree is a fine outcome, but know that I feel like I learn something from reading these threads, even if two (or more) people are splitting hairs over what “is” means sometimes.

8 Likes
697

Ya, I think so. The Act was written prior to ratification of the BOR and was referring to conditions under the crown. So, even if it means what you seem to think it means (which I don’t, but others have covered), the game was completely changed when States ratified the Constitution.

698

First off, I think you guys both had good points, and we should likely open a new thread but…

I also think you’re sort of speaking past each other rather than on the same topic, but anyway.

If we were to go under the assumption that when someone in contemporary America speaks about the “inner-city” they are speaking about what is a poverty center, that happens to be populated mostly by POC. (Much like when they say “trailer park” they mean a poverty center that happens to be populated mostly by WASP’s.)

So with that said, remove race from he equation for sake of mature argument (because I don’t think there is a shred of evolutionary evidence, biological or otherwise that shows causation between skin color and criminal activity), I do believe there is a significant body of evidence that correlates (if not also shows causation) between poverty and crime/violence.

Now also, recently my feelings on the word “normal” have gone through some serious twists and turns, and I fully sit on the “shades of gray, very few absolutes” sidelines with it, but I’ll use it.

So given the evidence that poverty centers will typically have more crime than affluent centers, wouldn’t saying the culture of violence and crime is inevitable and “normal”. As in it is a normal human reaction to that environment, and an inevitable one even in certain situations?

I’m not saying this as an apologist nor would I ever excuse someone from the personal responsibility of quality life choices, but in the end the environment you live in matters, and it matters a lot more in poverty/broken home/undereducated areas, because it tends to lead to violence and crime.

And again, race is irrelevant as it relates to what I’m saying. If you were to swap blacks and whites throughout human history up through today, we’d hear the talk of “white on white crime in Chicago” etc etc etc. I’m talking about human behavior here, and skin tones don’t seem to play a major role in determining major patterns throughout evolution other than what areas your ancestors were from.

699

If Raj wasn’t banned, he’d be on your post like white-on-rice. That is all; carry on.

5 Likes
700

I assume he’d use the oft abused “IQ” studies and spout some shit like “people in Africa still live in Mud Huts FFS… blah blah blah?”

I don’t remember him being a redpilled agent of stormfront to the degree of getting banned, what did he say that brought the hammer down? (Not that I went out of my way to read his posts all that often.)

Cracks me up too, because dude wasn’t white at all.

701

I believe he had made disparaging remarks about someone’s wife or girlfriend one too many times and Colucci kicked his ass out.

Nor a native citizen, yet that never slowed him down either.

1 Like