-->
@oromagi
it not controversial to say that the U.S. and Russia militaries are observably far more Neo-NAZI then the Ukrainian miltary..
i don't disagree with you
Universal Background Checks
Posts
Total:
97
-->
@Athias
the eighteenth amendment, which was a complete aberration given that it was the only amendment that prohibited private activity,
That's false. The 13th Amendment prohibited the private ownership of slaves and servants. Would you argue that we should give up on the Constitution because we repealed slavery?
It's not that the 18th amendment "failed to achieve the desired effect"- but it had the opposite effect.
Achieving the opposite of the intended effect is properly characterized as a failure but your condition works just as well. The 2nd Amendment specifies the security of the State as the desired effect but the resultant incapacity to regulate new weapons tech achieves the opposite effect- a less secure State.
How?
Are you sincerely failing to comprehend how unregulated gun ownership undermines domestic tranquility and public welfare or are you just struggling to refute?
No, I would argue that the First amendment should be repealed if the 18th amendment were proposed,
So you gave up on the Constitution before you were born.
-->
@oromagi
That's false. The 13th Amendment prohibited the private ownership of slaves and servants. Would you argue that we should give up on the Constitution because we repealed slavery?
No it isn't. The practice of chattel slavery in the U.S. was NEVER private. It was sanctioned and subsidized by law (e.g. Fugitive Slave Act.) The Lincoln administration even promised the Border States continued practice of chattel slavery (including the enforcement of Fugitive Slave Act) for their loyalty after the de facto practice was diminishing. Arguing that chattel slavery was "private" is like arguing that the Federal Reserve is private.
The 2nd Amendment specifies the security of the State as the desired effect but the resultant incapacity to regulate new weapons tech achieves the opposite effect- a less secure State.
And the ninth amendment (allegedly) protects from semantic warriors restricting liberties not expressly delineated in the amendments.
Are you sincerely failing to comprehend how unregulated gun ownership undermines domestic tranquility and public welfare
I'm merely waiting for you to elaborate on and explain your arguments.
or are you just struggling to refute?
Struggling to refute what? I'm still waiting on the explanation.
So you gave up on the Constitution before you were born.
No, it took eight years.
-->
@3RU7AL
welcome to "pre-crime"
We're a lot closer to a Minority Report-type predictive capability than most people realize. The problem is that the technology involved in making those predictions can, at best, has a lot of problems. First among them: it simply doesn't work as advertised. California's former bail model is a really excellent example. China's social credit score works in similar ways. Big data aggregators do similar things too.
I think most people who are familiar with the technology understand these challenges. It's the people who try to advertise or sell it that don't.
Here's a sampling of them. The language here is meant only to illustrate the concepts. There are specific, technical terms for the same but I'll leave that for another day.
- Over-inclusivity. Over-inclusivity means that of the set you identified, only a subset of the data-points you found were what you were actually looking for. So, that means that even to whatever extent you got it right, you also got it wrong a lot of the time too. This issue can be analogized to commercial fishing, involving casting a wide net and gathering more bycatch than fish you actually sought to catch.
- Under-inclusivity. Under-inclusivity means that of the set you searched, you only managed to actually identify a subset of what you were actually looking for. So, this means that to whatever extent you got it right, you failed to identify a lot more than you should have, which means you got it wrong a lot the time too. This issue can be analogized to looking for your lost keys under a street light because that's where the light is, even though you can't remember where you might have lost them. Even if you found something, you'll never be able to see anything beyond the narrow scope of what was initially illuminated.
- Mis-identification. Mis-identification means that of the set you searched, the things you found that you thought were what you were looking for, in fact were not what you were looking for. So, that means that to whatever extent you might have thought you got it right, on closer examination you actually got it wrong at least some if not most or all of the time. Think of this as buying a big bag of quarters, but measuring the quarters by volume rather than weight. Then when you get home to inspect your purchase, half the quarters are Canadian.
- Non-identification. Non-identification means that of the set you searched, the things you were looking for --- though within the scope of your data set --- were not identified as such. So, that means that to whatever extent you could potentially have gotten it right, you failed to do so at least some, most or maybe even all of the time. Think of this as trying to find race-based oppression, but only identifying a bunch of upper-middle class white girls at Berkeley who identify as "trans-racial," while failing to take note of Oakland's public high schools.
There is no evidence background checks reduce gun violence, or ever could do so. Even if there was, people need to seriously question whether implementing the infrastructure necessary to do it adequately is something we want to have in this country. Because it looks like China's social credit score.
-->
@3RU7AL
why not for all purchases ?
Oh, yeah. Just give it time. Google "programmable digital currency," and despair.
-->
@oromagi
I'm okay with removing the 2nd amendment from the US Constitution
It turns out that you have no power whatsoever to limit the scope of other's constitutional rights. And frankly, what a great country we live in for that to be so.
On the subject of gun violence, everything you have written is no more than shallow partisan gobbledygook on your best day. In reality, it's speculative nonsense that repeats the same errors the illiterate have made when and to the extent they have attempted to implement technocratic changes at the policy level to redress social issues. Frankly, I don't see anything that might suggest you understand any aspect of this issue at any level.
Suppose we implement background checks across the board, in response to the demands of democrats to "close" the so called "gun show loophole" --- which is in fact no such thing. Then what? The most recent school shooting involved a passed background check, before the transaction in which the shooter purchased the gun was complete.
Assuming I'm still playing in your ballpark, you next should argue that clearly the current background checks are inadequate because they allowed this person to purchase one. Ok, then what would adequate background checks look like? We could have that debate, but you'd get lost in the weeds because we both know you don't understand the technology involved.
So maybe you drop the background checks issue, and you concede you really just want to make it harder to buy guns. Ok then, what about all the guns in circulation? Even if you prevented all future commercial sales of guns in this country, there are more than a billion of them floating around in civilian/private ownership alone. You're going to try and seize them? Good luck.
Blah blah blah . . . .
Etc. Etc. Etc.
And so, let's just skip to the end. On your best day, after we do that dance a few times on whatever pops into your brain in the moment, you then have to go straight for the "end the second amendment" approach, which I think is your ultimate position anyway since you're only talking about background checks as a pretext to facilitate that end. Once more, it turns out that you can't do that, for at least the same reason I said above.
-->
@3RU7AL
The cause is dumbass gun laws.
@Poly.
And the dumbass argument that most gun owners don't hurt people, is irrelevant.
Because some gun owners do.
The argument is...Is the unregulated public ownership of sophisticated killing equipment, necessary in a civilised society.
And the answer is obviously YES....There's 70billion reasons why it's necessary.
And none of those reasons has anything to do with interest in public safety.
-->
@zedvictor4
The cause is dumbass gun laws.
when did this "epidemic" of "school-shootings" start ?
-->
@coal
California's former bail model is a really excellent example. China's social credit score works in similar ways. Big data aggregators do similar things too.
1984 is now
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
But gun ownership is a right not a privilege and driving is a privilege and not a right.
Free speech is a right not a privilege, but there are limitations on it necessarily. Absolute rights run contrary to the purpose of rights.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Didn't say anything like that. Some men rape people should we castrate all men? Guess so.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Your point seemed to be that rights can't be restricted. Is that not what you meant?
-->
@SkepticalOne
Free speech is a right not a privilege, but there are limitations on it necessarily.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
what "limitations" are you referring to ?
-->
@SkepticalOne
Sure our rights can be restricted you can't yell fire in a building, you can't go into certain areas cuz they're designated secure. You have to respect private property.
-->
@3RU7AL
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.what "limitations" are you referring to ?
Laws against murder would necessarily restrict the free exercise of human sacrifice. Every right has some sort of limitations so that everyone may enjoy the protection of rights.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Answers on the board. The question is, what are some legitimate restrictions on the freedom of speech in the US?
*ding*
you can't yell fire in a building
You can't yell fire in a building, is it on the board?
[X]
-->
@TheMorningsStar
you can't yell fire in a building
In his introductory remarks to a 2006 debate in defense of free speech, writer Christopher Hitchens parodied the Holmes judgment by opening "FIRE! Fire, fire... fire. Now you've heard it", before condemning the famous analogy as "the fatuous verdict of the greatly over-praised Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes." Hitchens argued that the "Yiddish speaking socialists" protesting America's entry into World War I, who were imprisoned by the Court's decision, "were the real fire fighters, were the ones shouting fire when there really was a fire, in a very crowded theatre indeed. And who is to decide?"[8][9]
-->
@SkepticalOne
Laws against murder would necessarily restrict the free exercise of human sacrifice. Every right has some sort of limitations so that everyone may enjoy the protection of rights.
the point being
the law is against murder
there is no law specifically against human-sacrifice
-->
@3RU7AL
Regardless, I provided a necessary restriction of a right which goes to my point - rights cannot be absolute. Even self ownership upon which other rights are built is not absolute. I see no reason why gun ownership would be any different.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Regardless, I provided a necessary restriction of a right which goes to my point
what you provided is an example of how Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
there is no "contradiction" because the law you provided in your example does not mention any religion and or any specifically religious practice
-->
@Vader
we already have that, along with a plethora of other gun laws but school shootings continue to happen
-->
@3RU7AL
You tell me.
Had a quick look on line but couldn't find a definitive answer.
But was amazed at how many there had been in the last 50 years.
Charles Whitman in 1966 was the earliest one that I found.
And also amazed to read that there had been 27 school shootings in 2022 alone.
-->
@zedvictor4
And also amazed to read that there had been 27 school shootings in 2022 alone.
exactly
the media does a pretty good job of sample-bias
-->
@3RU7AL
What's your point?
-->
@zedvictor4
What's your point?
"the media does a pretty good job of sample-bias"
How are you going to regulate the private sale of guns? It’s literally impossible.
-->
@3RU7AL
there is no "contradiction" because the law you provided in your example does not mention any religion and or any specifically religious practice
I did not suggest there was a contradiction, only that rights are necessarily limited. The absence of explicit restrictions does not make a right unlimited.
Unless you are arguing for absolute rights, we are not in disagreement.
-->
@Athias
No it isn't. The practice of chattel slavery in the U.S. was NEVER private. It was sanctioned and subsidized by law (e.g. Fugitive Slave Act.) The Lincoln administration even promised the Border States continued practice of chattel slavery (including the enforcement of Fugitive Slave Act) for their loyalty after the de facto practice was diminishing. Arguing that chattel slavery was "private" is like arguing that the Federal Reserve is private.
disagree.
CHATTEL SLAVERY is "A form of slavery where slaves are the legal property of an individual."
PRIVATE PROPERTY is "Property to which individuals or corporations have certain exclusive property rights, but do not necessarily possess. Property to which the state or other public organizations do not have exclusive property rights."
All private property rights are sanctioned by law by definition. Private property is often subsidized by the state. The USFG subsidizes trucks over 6,000lbs and many electric vehicles and the USFG will return your vehicle to you if it is reported stolen and is halted at the US border and confiscated but your vehicle is still your private property, your
If the government decided to end slavery on policy grounds—that is to take slaves ‘for public use’—then the masters would have to be justly compensated. From the perspective of 1789, the only plausible interpretation of the Fifth Amendment was to assume that slaves were property, not persons. It is simply impossible to imagine that most members of Congress thought otherwise, or that any of the slave state legislators who voted to ratify the amendments believed they were threatening slavery.
-Finkelman, "Slavery in the United States"
merely waiting for you to elaborate on and explain your arguments.
unregulated gun ownership undermines domestic tranquility and public welfare
Struggling to refute what? I'm still waiting on the explanation.
unregulated gun ownership undermines domestic tranquility and public welfare
No, it took eight years.
So you've given up on the Constitution as a framework for democracy but still defend the least sustainable amendment. Perverse.
-->
@oromagi
by leftist standards of white nationalists, I guarantee the Ukrainian army has a fuck ton of white nationalists
-->
@coal
It turns out that you have no power whatsoever to limit the scope of other's constitutional rights.
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.And frankly, what a great country we live in for that to be so. "
The most recent school shooting involved a passed background check, before the transaction in which the shooter purchased the gun was complete. you next should argue that clearly the current background checks are inadequate because they allowed this person to purchase one.
Presumption. I don't expect background checks to be a panacea. In an earlier post, I noted that the 22 states with background checks enjoy 15% fewer gun deaths that the states without. I don't know anybody who supports background checks who assumes that will be the end of schoolhouse slaughters.
Ok then, what about all the guns in circulation? Even if you prevented all future commercial sales of guns in this country, there are more than a billion of them floating around in civilian/private ownership alone.
393.3 million. I would follow the quite successful Australian model- hold a big federal buyback every couple of years understanding that the criminals and whackjobs are going to hold on to theirs hordes.
Yes, I am for removing Constitutional provisions that do more harm than good. If called upon, I would vote to do away with the electoral college as well as the 2nd Amendment. I'm not looking for a gunless society so much as a rational, modern gun policy similar to most Western nations and the Supreme Court has ruled quite clearly that the Second Amendment is an impediment to rational gun policy.