Mass Shooting in Chicago

[TheMeInTeam]

The position is "Restrictions on rifles isn't a total solution but it is part of the solution". The rationale is that "If it would stop one mass shooting then it could be part of the solution." This is from the point of view of two brits where all guns were got rid of unless you had a very good reason because of two mass shootings. It sure looks to like the rationale given supports the position held. Certainly a whole lot better than firebombing cities.

"if it would stop one mass shooting" isn't sufficient. it's a goal that sounds good, but if you pay a greater cost in lives long-term then it is not a good thing. it is one of those "roads to hell", so to speak. hefty negative consequences for minimal benefit in terms of loss of life.

there is a good reason for property rights, and for firearms specifically. a reason important enough that it was specifically put into our constitution. a reason that is more apparent once you realize that the authorities have no legal obligation to protect in most cases.

 

[Narz]

Having a boss is always terrible. Ultimately their end is to pay you as little as possible, while getting away with it. And the hierarchy can take a toll easily even if you are doing white-collar work.

I don't mind my boss, he mostly makes jokes & complains about his boss(es).

 

[El_Machinae]

there is a good reason for property rights, and for firearms specifically. a reason important enough that it was specifically put into our constitution.

My suspicion is that you're 'reading in' property rights into the 2nd Amendment there. What 'reason' are you discerning as to why it was put in?

 

[Bamspeedy]

Having a boss is always terrible. Ultimately their end is to pay you as little as possible, while getting away with it. And the hierarchy can take a toll easily even if you are doing white-collar work.

People who work at the store ask me why they should transfer to the warehouse. They already know the warehouse is generally harder, physically, but it pays more.

Warehouse doesn't have any customers (Karens) to deal with. Still got managers of course.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

My suspicion is that you're 'reading in' property rights into the 2nd Amendment there. What 'reason' are you discerning as to why it was put in?

i did not articulate that property rights are elsewhere, but nevertheless apply to firearms which fit the category of "property".

2a has multiple purposes, but one of the more important ones imo is anti-tyranny. it is much harder to operate against the broad consent of the governed if they possess the means to make enforcement that much more difficult. it is better than the alternative of trading away individual liberty for the promises of "security".

infringements on it as a knee-jerk response to something that has only recently become a problem, despite guns widely available to the task for ~century (give or take), make even less sense.

 

[El_Machinae]

I will note that none of your response uses (or hints at) the word 'militia', never mind a well-regulated one. It might be that 'anti-tyranny' is too broad of a reading-in of original intent. Like, obviously the whole piece of paper is about anti-tyranny. But if your explanation misses including 'militia', I think it's fair to say that you're summarizing too liberally about original intent.

Mass Shootings always get the headlines, but it's the pipeline of giving guns to people who will misuse them that's the problem. Whatever allows a legal owner to hand guns to someone else is going to be a problem that's only fixed by changing what the legal owner can do.

 

[Kyriakos]

People who work at the store ask me why they should transfer to the warehouse. They already know the warehouse is generally harder, physically, but it pays more.

Warehouse doesn't have any customers (Karens) to deal with. Still got managers of course.

Warehouse does sound better than the store, yes. I am sure I'd get tired/bored of it soon, but I like that it is a job that literally asks for next to no thinking (since this way you can use creativity only for personal projects).

 

[sophie]

You’re reading “personal possessions” into a definition of property where it is not appropriate. In 18th century terms, private property referred specifically to land held by private individuals as contrasted with land held collectively (“the commons”), or land held by the crown (or church).

The framers would not have considered guns or the right to their ownership to have been a matter of private property, visible most plainly in that the criterion for being a property holder and so qualifying for the franchise was not in gun ownership or shirt ownership, but in land ownership.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

^ none of the above justifies arbitrary seizure of physical objects we broadly call "property" today.

2a has its roots in common law, with an important piece of context being deliberately disarming protestants in favor of catholics in britain being rejected as bad even at the time.

I will note that none of your response uses (or hints at) the word 'militia', never mind a well-regulated one.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

apparently there wasn't a cap of age 45 previously. i also wonder if this would hold under the equal protections clause, though i don't anticipate a challenge any time soon.

all of that aside, "shall not be infringed" also does not necessarily require that people be a part of the militia, for a reading of 2a to apply. just that "shall not be infringed" allows for one.

 

[amadeus]

You’re reading “personal possessions” into a definition of property where it is not appropriate. In 18th century terms, private property referred specifically to land held by private individuals as contrasted with land held collectively (“the commons”), or land held by the crown (or church).

In the narrow definition of property, that may be the case but the fourth amendment specifically states that a person’s effects may not be seized without a warrant. So I think it would be inaccurate to state that the framers had intended to exclude all non-land possessions from the gist of the bill of rights.

 

[El_Machinae]

all of that aside, "shall not be infringed" also does not necessarily require that people be a part of the militia, for a reading of 2a to apply. just that "shall not be infringed" allows for one.

I'll grant that it's not explicit. My main comment is that you forwarded 'original reasons' and didn't include 'militia' in your description. It's a bit weird to suggest that entirely half of the sentence isn't necessary when explaining the reasons why the sentence was written.

Keep in mind, I happen to think "shall not be infringed" is reasonably clear, and just dumb. The only choice of any sane society is to then go infringing and thus dilute the utility of the founding document. I'm not arguing that part (or even arguing, honestly). I just noticed that you missed half of the sentence while explaining the reasons behind the sentence.

Also, I don't really empathize with the 'seizing property' concern. I mean, it's a risk, so protect that backstop. But there are a variety of proposals between there and where the United States needs to get. The better trick is just to put restrictions on gun transfers in the future. If someone legally owns a gun, I don't much care until it's transferred to someone who will misuse it. The ratio of owned guns to misused guns is pretty steep, so why pretend that one thing is the other?

 

[Spidernova]

My friend's problem is that even with all those benefits, the jobs are unfilled. Why? Retail is terrible work and no one wants to be there? Maybe. My friend has asked to give her ideas since all her various advertising efforts (online and in local print) have failed. My best suggestion is to poach fromother retailers in the same line of business that offer fewer benefits.

Retail is absolutely terrible work. I've never had to deal with more abuse, potentially violent individuals, or unwanted harassment than when I was working register.

 

[sophie]

In the narrow definition of property, that may be the case but the fourth amendment specifically states that a person’s effects may not be seized without a warrant. So I think it would be inaccurate to state that the framers had intended to exclude all non-land possessions from the gist of the bill of rights.

"The framers believed in the maintenance of a system of private property" AND "the framers believed that the state should be allowed to arbitrarily take your personal possessions"

is quite a different claim than

"The framers believed that your personal possessions were property."

 

[João III]

I understand the arguments made in favor of gun rights, but how many people have to die before taking a step back and rethinking the current approach? I just don't get it. Guns aren't the problem but they're clearly a problem

 

[E.man]

Blah blah blah vs bang bang bang.

Speaking for the entire rest of the world; we're not even surprised any more.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Blah blah blah vs bang bang bang.

Speaking for the entire rest of the world; we're not even surprised any more.

Likely it will get worse.

 

[Paul in Saudi]

From the We love Trump site:

https://welovetrump.com/2022/07/05/...gunman-have-a-newspaper-of-lee-harvey-oswald/

Robert “Bobby” Crimo has been taken under police custody after allegedly shooting and killing six people at a July 4th parade in Illinois.

According to investigators the evidence that lead to his arrest was one of his music videos which depicted him shooting up schools and another video that showed him sitting in front of a newspaper that read “Oswald Slain In Jail Shift”.

As most of you know Lee Harvey Oswald was the man who reportedly killed JFK, however, before his death, Oswald said he was just a “patsy”.

Oswald reportedly shot JFK from a five-story building and Crimo reportedly shot his victims from a higher angle too.

However many believe JFK was killed by the CIA for exposing Operation Northwoods a year earlier whereas Crimo is believed to be a young adult who had mental issues but many internet users believe Crimo was a victim of MK Ultra due to his zombie-like state while committing the attacks.

 

[E.man]

Likely it will get worse.

Like the cops shooting over 60 bullets into someone. The place is mental.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'll grant that it's not explicit. My main comment is that you forwarded 'original reasons' and didn't include 'militia' in your description. It's a bit weird to suggest that entirely half of the sentence isn't necessary when explaining the reasons why the sentence was written.

the state has long defined every able-bodied man 17+ as "militia", with the change to < 45 years old being less than a century old still. i'm not sure to what extent this distinction is necessary, other than that this seems to be another place where women don't share the same rights (similar to how the question of voting was).

Also, I don't really empathize with the 'seizing property' concern. I mean, it's a risk, so protect that backstop.

if i could, i would. instead i observe the courts upholding what are plainly illegal seizures routinely. not an environment where i'm inclined to accept the government removing an important check if they go so far that too many people start to care (from gov't perspective).

illegal seizure isn't a "risk", it's a fact of reality in usa. that has included guns in a few cases, but it also includes other assets to the degree that the state is arguably more likely to seize stuff than burglars (this depends who you are which is more likely).

"The framers believed that your personal possessions were property."

this seems relatively self-evident. though scotus didn't agree so who knows. seems interesting that the state seems quite keen on "non-land" property ownership when people take things from them, or even evade taxes on non land owners.

I understand the arguments made in favor of gun rights, but how many people have to die before taking a step back and rethinking the current approach?

speaking of "current approach", us has tightened restrictions on rifles to no observable benefit for decades. us has also avoided this problem for the majority of its history, despite that guns were more easily accessible.

but many internet users believe Crimo was a victim of MK Ultra due to his zombie-like state while committing the attacks.

the guy might have drugged himself up, but it's quite the reach to believe the cia was responsible for said drugs. at least with the jfk conspiracy theory, there was a motive for cia involvement the theorized sequence has at least some reason. even the whitmer kidnapping fbi conspiracy involved an actual government official, not random targets.

 

[sophie]

seems interesting that the state seems quite keen on "non-land" property ownership when people take things from them, or even evade taxes on non land owners.

This is called "begging the question"