Nothing Ever Changes But The Dates And The Locations

[Moonbeam]

I concur, my brother.

Yes, and brothers have a lot in common, if you take my meaning.

And also, since in my opinion at least, the realization of such a, shall we say, not so flattering bit of information introduced to me as a warning that real facts coming my way of realization coming would be mangled by the unconscious and unexamined assumptions I used to filter away just such unflattering data, I thought it best to introduce you to the notion indirectly by talking about myself. I somehow managed to survive. I'm confident you will too but only if you don't run. If truth weren't a bitter pill, everybody would know what it is.

I don't know what contradictions you saw. I don't see any myself. But I am happy to hear you identify what they are. Contradictions, in my opinion are very important, they are like paradox in a way, and when you seriously deal with paradox, again in my opinion, it's where some vital truth is to be had.

How, for example does it happen that even though a world without mental illness would end violence not just of guns and be infinitely superior to a gunless mentally ill world, people many really good people want to treat effects and leave the causes in place. Violence exists because of conditioning and ignorance. The cure is deprogramming and education, the teaching of how the psyche works.

Imagine if say, cowards who don't want to remember how they got sick hid behind do-good actions like passing gun bans to assuage their guilt. What a mess that would be. I am saying we are all guilty all ignorant of how we really feal, like the worst person in the world.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

A militia, by definition, would be a group under the control of the civil government, even if it was made up of generic, able-bodied people. No reason the government, as part of regulating their militia that they couldn't decide to centrally store arms.

If it wasn't under the control of the civilian government, it would be a paramilitary group, something illegal in nearly every state (but laws that are nowadays rarely enforced).

Yes, the government could decide what to do with their militia, the sticky lawyery part is that the Constitution doesn't state that the government militia is the only one permitted to have arms. It just says that the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. If there's no limitation placed on what a militia is (or frankly that only a militia can have arms), then the govt cannot restrict firearm ownership, period.

The Constitution does not state that someone needs to be in a militia to be permitted arms ownership.

 

[Brainonska511]

Yes, the government could decide what to do with their militia, the sticky lawyery part is that the Constitution doesn't state that the government militia is the only one permitted to have arms.

There is only one militia: the one controllable by the sovereign government. Anything outside of that is a private paramilitary group or a mob.

It just says that the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. If there's no limitation placed on what a militia is (or frankly that only a militia can have arms), then the govt cannot restrict firearm ownership, period.

The Constitution does not state that someone needs to be in a militia to be permitted arms ownership.

The amendment also notes why it exists: to support the use of militias. So if militias can only be government controlled, why can't the (state) government decide that the weapons to equip its militia must be centrally stored as part of a regulation of that militia? If you want, we could even have private ownership of the weapons, but the state could say you need to store them in their armory.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

There is only one militia: the one controllable by the sovereign government. Anything outside of that is a private paramilitary group or a mob.

Wasn't so when the Constitution was developed, local militias were the norm and quite expected. The intent insofar as I can tell was to provide the ability for a community as well as individuals to defend themselves from those who would do them harm, as well as maintain an armed populace to discourage government overreach, and I'm not sure that goal has changed.

The amendment also notes why it exists: to support the use of militias. So if militias can only be government controlled, why can't the (state) government decide that the weapons to equip its militia must be centrally stored as part of a regulation of that militia? If you want, we could even have private ownership of the weapons, but the state could say you need to store them in their armory.

If the govt has control of the arms, that destroys half the purpose of the population being armed; to prevent government overreach.

If a govt wanted to just kill everyone darker than the full moon, asky they'd have to do is throw away the keys to the armory and goose-step the police force in.

 

[eelw]

How, for example does it happen that even though a world without mental illness would end violence not just of guns and be infinitely superior to a gunless mentally ill world, people many really good people want to treat effects and leave the causes in place. Violence exists because of conditioning and ignorance. The cure is deprogramming and education, the teaching of how the psyche works.

But that’s the point!!!! The rest of the sane world already is a gunless mentally ill world. Shouldn’t the US strive to achieve this? And convert to metric 🤪

 

[igor_kavinski]

The home self-defense thing doesn't really make sense to me. Why not fortify homes with alarms, better doors, booby traps or community paid security guards rather than purchasing a weapon that could accidentally kill one of your own family members or be used in a crime? Even if you are a responsible gun owner, that still makes you a gun nutter because you are obviously more in love with the idea of owning the gun and holding it in your hands rather than any legal use for it. Allowing people to have gun ownership as a "hobby" is the real oversight in the US.

 

[Zorba]

Yes, the government could decide what to do with their militia, the sticky lawyery part is that the Constitution doesn't state that the government militia is the only one permitted to have arms. It just says that the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. If there's no limitation placed on what a militia is (or frankly that only a militia can have arms), then the govt cannot restrict firearm ownership, period.

The Constitution does not state that someone needs to be in a militia to be permitted arms ownership.

It does not "just say" the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. There is the while part about a well regulated militia. It also does not say all arms, just arms in general.

 

[Dave_5k]

It does not "just say" the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. There is the while part about a well regulated militia. It also does not say all arms, just arms in general.

Until the Republicans loaded the supreme court with NRA plants and cherry picked a case in 2008, this was never held to be an individual right - but rather a collective right that could be fully regulated by the states, exactly as the text is written.

Until the NRA started its non-stop political and re-education propaganda in the 1970's, there wasn't even a concept that it could be considered an individual right, that was invented wholesale from nothing by the NRA and re-educated into the Republican party and republican judges.

 

[Brainonska511]

Until the Republicans loaded the supreme court with NRA plants and cherry picked a case in 2008, this was never held to be an individual right - but rather a collective right that could be fully regulated by the states, exactly as the text is written.

Until the NRA started its non-stop political and re-education propaganda in the 1970's, there wasn't even a concept that it could be considered an individual right, that was invented wholesale from nothing by the NRA and re-educated into the Republican party and republican judges.

The lesson being, it can be changed in one way, it can be changed the other way. They are just words on paper open to whatever interpretation we want. We don't have to pretend like they were written in stone in the late 1700s with a highly specific and well-understood contemporary meaning.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

It does not "just say" the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. There is the while part about a well regulated militia. It also does not say all arms, just arms in general.

/shrug, I've always seen those as two separate thoughts. Militias are important, therefore the right to bear arms cannot be infringed, because everyone's part of a militia eventually, so they need arms. Not everyone has to use them, or own them, but that isn't for the govt to decide.

The home self-defense thing doesn't really make sense to me. Why not fortify homes with alarms, better doors, booby traps or community paid security guards rather than purchasing a weapon that could accidentally kill one of your own family members or be used in a crime? Even if you are a responsible gun owner, that still makes you a gun nutter because you are obviously more in love with the idea of owning the gun and holding it in your hands rather than any legal use for it. Allowing people to have gun ownership as a "hobby" is the real oversight in the US.

Alarms don't keep someone from killing you, doors only work if you don't have windows, booby traps are not only illegal (can injure or kill first responders or cops) but they're even MORE likely to kill people than firearms, at least firearms require someone to pull a trigger.... and paid security guards are just a militia you get to fight for you. None of those should matter when weighed against the govt telling people they can't own objects.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Until the Republicans loaded the supreme court with NRA plants and cherry picked a case in 2008, this was never held to be an individual right - but rather a collective right that could be fully regulated by the states, exactly as the text is written.

Until the NRA started its non-stop political and re-education propaganda in the 1970's, there wasn't even a concept that it could be considered an individual right, that was invented wholesale from nothing by the NRA and re-educated into the Republican party and republican judges.

As far as I understand, it's more than it was never questioned as to whether it was a personal or collective right until recently. Not like personal gun ownership was seriously questioned in American history prior to the asshattery of the last 20 years.

 

[Moonbeam]

But that’s the point!!!! The rest of the sane world already is a gunless mentally ill world. Shouldn’t the US strive to achieve this? And convert to metric 🤪

I’m guessing you did not watch the video I linked.

 

[eelw]

I’m guessing you did not watch the video I linked.

Not yet

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

I understood it was a policy position change by Shrub, not the court.

Almost seems opposite of CU where the court said a group is a person.

Is a person 'the people'? Or are people a person?

 

[Moonbeam]

Not yet

There is an interesting part in it where he talks about Hitler in relation to having good intentions that I agree with and think is quite relevant.

Just as an example of that, not the one most important to my perspective, but interesting none the less can be seen here:

https://www.npr.org/2016/09/20/494765559/nearly-half-of-guns-in-u-s-owned-by-3-percent-of-population-study-finds

The good intention to deal with the so called assault rifle problem, sometimes referred to as scary looking guns, drives their sales way up. It has a number of other points that bear on this issue, I think.

Additionally, this is interesting:

https://www.npr.org/2016/09/20/494765559/nearly-half-of-guns-in-u-s-owned-by-3-percent-of-population-study-finds

I think the number of gun owners, if my memory serves me right from looking into this issue in the past, the number of individuals who own guns in the US is about what it has always been whereas mass killings expecially at schools has drastically increased, thanks in part to the media, in my opinion.

 

[balloonshark]

We always end up talking about the rights of the gun owners. What about the rights of the victims, their friends and family and those that witness, hide or flee from a shooting?

Gun owners (legal or not legal) seem to have more rights than their victims. In what world is this sane?

The 2A is actually hindering us from free speech. How many of you are afraid to put a Harris/Walz bumper sticker on your car or a sign in your yard? How many people were intimidated by gun toting idiots watching you drop off your ballot last election? Our small town was going to have a BLM demonstration in the park but FUD on facebook made a bunch of gun toting idiots show up to intimidate the protestors so they cancelled the event. What about when you blow your horn at someone driving like a fool and that person road rages and pulls a gun on you. What about people expressing themselves receiving death threats from gun nuts. The 2A is killing the 1A.

Right wing rhetoric is a main reason we have so much gun violence. If you consume enough FUD and hate on a daily basis your reality becomes permanently warped.

One more thing. Some of these shootings could be prevented. How many of these shooting happened after LEO was warned about the suspects intent? I guess having red flag laws would help.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Not yet

You can just read about it: http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...try-how-do-you-see-this.2621832/post-41295679

It's good stuff. Made me feel positive.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

"Searchers have been combing thousands of acres in the rugged, hilly area near London, a small city of about 8,000 people about 75 miles (120 kilometers) south of Lexington.

State police Master Trooper Scottie Pennington, a spokesman for the London post, said troopers are being brought in from across the state to aid in the search focused on a remote area about 8 miles (13 kilometers) north of London. He described the extensive search area as "walking in a jungle" with machetes needed to cut through thickets.

"We have cliff beds. We have sinkholes. We have caves," Pennington said Monday. "We have culverts that go under the interstate. We have creeks and rivers and the dense brush.""

https://www.hotsr.com/news/2024/sep/10/suspect-accused-of-shooting-5-on-kentucky/

But just before that the story says they found all of his stuff, so how is he getting around?

 

[manly]

It does not "just say" the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. There is the while part about a well regulated militia. It also does not say all arms, just arms in general.

As written, this is up for interpretation. It's reasonable to place extra weight on the "militia" clause but apparently the 2A has roots in English law where the right to bear arms is a personal right, for defensive purposes (at least according to Wikipedia).

Even if you go with the interpretation that the right is personal (and not just for state militias), it's nonsense to assert that the 2A forbids any firearms regulations. If that's the case, anybody could walk into a gun shop and buy a gun. Why are machine guns illegal? That's "infringement." Should SCROTUS rule that we can buy RPGs? I'd classify those as a "firearm." Where exactly would you draw the line? What about an armored tank? Should felons and people with mental illnesses be able to exercise their 2A right, uninfringed?

The above opinion that the 2A right "shall not be infringed" is fucken bullshit. In any society, there are rules and regulations for all kinds of things (most don't raise a Constitutional issue, but SCROTUS has really broken boundaries anyway). Yes, the U.S. is uniquely handcuffed by the 2A, but our problems exist mainly because fringe elements have decided that our gun violence problem cannot and should not be addressed. Finally, the framers of the Constitution could not have foreseen automatic weapons. Originalism is kind of a bogus concept unless you truly want to freeze everything back to what it was over 2 centuries ago.

We're all familiar with the right to free speech (and again it's quite expansive compared to other western countries), but most of us recognize this is not an absolute right either.

 

[hal2kilo]

There is only one militia: the one controllable by the sovereign government. Anything outside of that is a private paramilitary group or a mob.


The amendment also notes why it exists: to support the use of militias. So if militias can only be government controlled, why can't the (state) government decide that the weapons to equip its militia must be centrally stored as part of a regulation of that militia? If you want, we could even have private ownership of the weapons, but the state could say you need to store them in their armory.

Just like those private clubs in the south where you keep your glass there. I'm cool with what the founding fathers intended.

 

[iRONic]

I hope he killed himself like he said he was gonna do. I hope the only thing searchers find are the bones animals left after they feasted on his piece of shit corpse.

 

[JD50]

Sure would be nice if we stopped obsessing over what some 18th century slave owners thought about muskets and cannons, and focused on stopping literal children from getting murdered at school.

 

[eelw]

The good intention to deal with the so called assault rifle problem, sometimes referred to as scary looking guns, drives their sales way up. It has a number of other points that bear on this issue, I think.



I think the number of gun owners, if my memory serves me right from looking into this issue in the past, the number of individuals who own guns in the US is about what it has always been whereas mass killings expecially at schools has drastically increased, thanks in part to the media, in my opinion.

But what does that say about gun nutters that get fear mongered into hoarding more guns? You keep focusing on the violent nature of all humans. I’m worried about that 3% more.

 

[Moonbeam]

We always end up talking about the rights of the gun owners. What about the rights of the victims, their friends and family and those that witness, hide or flee from a shooting?

Gun owners (legal or not legal) seem to have more rights than their victims. In what world is this sane?

The 2A is actually hindering us from free speech. How many of you are afraid to put a Harris/Walz bumper sticker on your car or a sign in your yard? How many people were intimidated by gun toting idiots watching you drop off your ballot last election? Our small town was going to have a BLM demonstration in the park but FUD on facebook made a bunch of gun toting idiots show up to intimidate the protestors so they cancelled the event. What about when you blow your horn at someone driving like a fool and that person road rages and pulls a gun on you. What about people expressing themselves receiving death threats from gun nuts. The 2A is killing the 1A.

Right wing rhetoric is a main reason we have so much gun violence. If you consume enough FUD and hate on a daily basis your reality becomes permanently warped.

One more thing. Some of these shootings could be prevented. How many of these shooting happened after LEO was warned about the suspects intent? I guess having red flag laws would help.

How can a non-legal gun owner claim to have rights or anybody else claim them for them? I know that people who are upset about something tend to over emphasize their case but no rights extend to illegal acts. You are also asking for permission to be courageous. If you had such permission as you seek nothing about what you wish to do would be courageous. I am of the opinion that the Jan 6 convictions will nip a lot of that horseshit in the bud. Fear is a two way street and it's conservatives that have the deepest fear issues in my opinion. But some of them are natural and extend to any rational person, in my opinion, like the right to self defense. Don't solve your so called free speech problem at the cost of something built into our genes. Your rights end where they threaten my right to exist. There's many a nut case that will panic when so threatened and will react with psychotic premeditation to prevent you from doing that. Right winged fud is speech that should be answered with better speech, not with irrational spurious glarp. Most people want reasonable gun control, even many you would call gun nuts.

 

[Moonbeam]

But what does that say about gun nutters that get fear mongered into hoarding more guns? You keep focusing on the violent nature of all humans. I’m worried about that 3% more.

You're kidding me. Do you not know how to think rationally? Look at it from this potential perspective. I have a huge collection of guns. I show them off to my friends, my fellow gun lovers and garner all sorts of envy and admiration. In the world of competitive gun collecting I am a champion. God Damned am I proud of myself. I even have a cult following. But as it happens somebody tried to steal one of my guns so what do I do? Why the first thing I do is throw all this wonderful success I have made for myself via my massive collection and trade it in for a death sentence or life in prison by shooting the bastard at the police station before the judge can sentence him. Nobody fucks with the great Moonbeam.

And while I never actually say so directly about things I say, this was definitely meant to be sarcastic, just so you don't go further off the deep end.