willhud9 wrote:

OlivierK wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Macdoc wrote:You dodge the issue entirely - you never have the right to buy a rocket launcher....at any age ...get over it and focus on the core of the problem.
Rights are granted and can be taken away arbitrarily.

You need to actually reread the fucking thread instead of cherrypicking one of my posts.

You cannot focus on the core of the problem when the solutions being presented have clear legal issues.

And no, rights cannot be taken away arbitrarily. There is a thing called the rule of law. Otherwise democracy is dead and we all live in a perpetual tyranny. Try again Macdoc.

No Will, you need to read Macdoc's post.

It reads quite clearly to me as suggesting that certain currently legal weapons could in the future be treated under law the same way that rocket launchers are now treated under law. There's no suggestion of an end run around the rule of law, only that laws could be changed so some/all guns that are treated the way other powerful deadly weapons already are (under laws that have not been found constitutionally invalid).

But that does not follow. For example, 18 year olds in many states cannot purchase hand guns. But that does not go against their 2nd amendment right because guns are still available to them. Rocket launchers are not covered under current interpretations of the 2nd amendment, nor were they ever. That false premise serves no legal bearing.

If we are going to be discussing solutions for a gun problem we cannot mouth off ideals without addressing the vast majority of any policy change will most likely end up in courts challenged one way or another.

The reality iis in the US an 18 year old can sign up for the military. In fact, all 18 year old men have to register with the draft. If the US government expects its 18 year olds to carry a firearm in combat, but believes they are too young to carry a firearm at home, that makes no sense whatsoever. Its time to reevaluate the age of majority in the country or realize that blanket restrictions on firearms based on age serve no logical basis. If someone is an adult they have full rights.

Will, in the post(s) you're replying to here, there's no mention of age, and indeed Macdoc's post that kicked this tangent off, he explicitly says that talking about age is to completely miss the point that it's possible (see RPGs) to ban civilian ownership of overpowered weapons.

OlivierK wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

OlivierK wrote:

willhud9 wrote:
You need to actually reread the fucking thread instead of cherrypicking one of my posts.

You cannot focus on the core of the problem when the solutions being presented have clear legal issues.

And no, rights cannot be taken away arbitrarily. There is a thing called the rule of law. Otherwise democracy is dead and we all live in a perpetual tyranny. Try again Macdoc.

No Will, you need to read Macdoc's post.

It reads quite clearly to me as suggesting that certain currently legal weapons could in the future be treated under law the same way that rocket launchers are now treated under law. There's no suggestion of an end run around the rule of law, only that laws could be changed so some/all guns that are treated the way other powerful deadly weapons already are (under laws that have not been found constitutionally invalid).

But that does not follow. For example, 18 year olds in many states cannot purchase hand guns. But that does not go against their 2nd amendment right because guns are still available to them. Rocket launchers are not covered under current interpretations of the 2nd amendment, nor were they ever. That false premise serves no legal bearing.

If we are going to be discussing solutions for a gun problem we cannot mouth off ideals without addressing the vast majority of any policy change will most likely end up in courts challenged one way or another.

The reality iis in the US an 18 year old can sign up for the military. In fact, all 18 year old men have to register with the draft. If the US government expects its 18 year olds to carry a firearm in combat, but believes they are too young to carry a firearm at home, that makes no sense whatsoever. Its time to reevaluate the age of majority in the country or realize that blanket restrictions on firearms based on age serve no logical basis. If someone is an adult they have full rights.

Will, in the post(s) you're replying to here, there's no mention of age, and indeed Macdoc's post that kicked this tangent off, he explicitly says that talking about age is to completely miss the point that it's possible (see RPGs) to ban civilian ownership of overpowered weapons.

and the posts he is responding to is in regards to my post of age specific legislation banning firearms that Piper first brought up. It is fairly easy to follow.

Yes, it is. He's calling out arguments about age as a red herring. He calls focusing on age "dodging the issue". He's right.

OlivierK wrote:Yes, it is. He's calling out arguments about age as a red herring. He calls focusing on age "dodging the issue". He's right.

No it’s not dodging the issue. When you propose a solution I.e restricting sale of firearms to 18-20 year olds you have to address legal challenges to that proposal. Which was all I was addressing. Which was relevant to the actual conversation.

If Macdoc wants to just live with his head in the clouds and talk about generalities or ignore the train of discussion in a thread that is his business, but don’t presume to dictate the moderation of this thread by calling something a red herring when it is not.

My comments were specifically about a proposed solution and why said solution has legal issues with it. My comments were not about gun regulation overall. Try again OlivierK

OK, I'll try again:

Macdoc was not being off-topic, he was expressing an opinion that the age discussion ignores the elephant in the room that the solution involves making some weapons unavailable at any age. That's his opinion. It's on topic. It's a relevant reaction to people going on and on and on about age limits. As it happens, I agree with him, but that's just, like, my opinion, man. Take it or leave it, but for fuck's sake at least try understanding it first.

And no, rights cannot be taken away arbitrarily. There is a thing called the rule of law. Otherwise democracy is dead and we all live in a perpetual tyranny. Try again Macdoc.

There is only one person in lala dreamland and it's you.

Rights are granted and can be taken away .....they are ALL man made agreements enforced by the state and some are tougher to alter via legislation than others but all are "arbitrary"......just ask anyone who has been under marshall law.

Your "rights" ......are non-existent by the stroke of a pen.

OlivierK wrote:OK, I'll try again:

Macdoc was not being off-topic, he was expressing an opinion that the age discussion ignores the elephant in the room that the solution involves making some weapons unavailable at any age. That's his opinion. It's on topic. It's a relevant reaction to people going on and on and on about age limits. As it happens, I agree with him, but that's just, like, my opinion, man. Take it or leave it, but for fuck's sake at least try understanding it first.

No, you should try to understand.

I don’t really care about Macdoc’s initial objection. It’s irrelevant. So is anyone who speaks in generalizations about how to fix America’s gun crime. The_Piper actually cited specifics he believed would be necessary to start fixing it. I took objection with one of the parameters because it’s a popular one being talked about over here. Ban 18 year olds from buying guns = less mass shootings. Never mind the statistics of 18 year olds being mass shooters is relatively little, I challenged the legal implication of such a policy.

Again I was talking about specific policies which are more important to be discussed than wishful thinking that the US is suddenly going to bar access to its citizens to even semi-auto firearms.

So unless Macdoc’s objection actually comes with a relevant part in addressing the actual problem instead of just saying what he’d like to see happen I honestly don’t care. Which is why I told him to actually read the thread. I’m not against gun control, I wasn’t talking about overall gun control. I was talking about a specific legal policy which if you actually follow American media is thrown around as a viable solution.

So your objection and agreement with Macdoc is ultimately baseless, and really pointless.

Macdoc wrote:

And no, rights cannot be taken away arbitrarily. There is a thing called the rule of law. Otherwise democracy is dead and we all live in a perpetual tyranny. Try again Macdoc.

There is only one person in lala dreamland and it's you.

Rights are granted and can be taken away .....they are ALL man made agreements enforced by the state and some are tougher to alter via legislation than others but all are "arbitrary"......just ask anyone who has been under marshall law.

Your "rights" ......are non-existent by the stroke of a pen.

There is the rule of law. If my rights are violated I can challenge it in courts. The state cannot just take away me rights and get away with it. Otherwise we don’t live in a democratic society. This is true in Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, etc.

It takes the rule of law to change rights. But it’s not arbitrary. Perhaps you should learn what the word means?

Perhaps you should do some reading

T]emporary excrescences bred out of the distemper of the state, and not any part of the permanent and perpetual laws of the kingdom. For martial law, which is built upon no settled principles, but is entirely arbitrary in its decisions, is ... in truth and reality no law, but something indulged rather than allowed as a law.(3)

stroke of a pen...

Prime Minister Trudeau Proclaims Martial Law, Raids Quebec Separatists
NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED October 17, 1970

The Canadian government, in an unprecedented move designed to quell Quebec's secessionist Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ), yesterday suspended civil liberties and arrested over 250 FLQ members and sympathizers.

Invoking the War Emergency Act-an authorization of martial law-the Canadian government sought to cripple the increasingly militant activities of the FLQ. Thirteen days ago, secessionists kidnapped British diplomat James Cross; seven days ago, Quebec Labor Minister Pierre Laporte was abducted.

poof you are in jail ...
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1970/ ... rtial-law/

rule of law is fine and dandy ....til it's not....

This judge is on track ....

John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment - The New York ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/.../joh ... dment.html
2 hours ago - During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the ... Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opin ... dment.html

Constitutions and amendments are fine ... I am all for them.

But they should not take on an infallibility of Biblical proportions

But they should not take on an infallibility of Biblical proportions

exactly....Will is trading skydaddy for lawdaddy. Some progress I guess.......oh hmmm we can't dodge habeas corpus in the US ....oh well....Guantanamo will have to do.

willhud9 wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Macdoc wrote:You dodge the issue entirely - you never have the right to buy a rocket launcher....at any age ...get over it and focus on the core of the problem.
Rights are granted and can be taken away arbitrarily.

You need to actually reread the fucking thread instead of cherrypicking one of my posts.

You cannot focus on the core of the problem when the solutions being presented have clear legal issues.

And no, rights cannot be taken away arbitrarily. There is a thing called the rule of law. Otherwise democracy is dead and we all live in a perpetual tyranny. Try again Macdoc.

Like hell they can’t be taken away arbitrarily.

A brief search of the YouTubes for “1st Amendment Audit” will return thousands of recordings of pig cops doing exactly that.

Try walking through your post office with a video camera recording sometime. You will taste a constitutional right being ripped away first hand.

That is not the right being taken away though. Poor enforcement of my rights on the part of the government is not equivalent to the government taking my rights away without rule of law.

This is why we have the judicial branch of government. To prevent abitrary decision making abusing the rule of law in a republic.

Yeah. That’s cute. Getting handcuffed and trundled off of public property for exercising a constitutionally protected activity isn’t having one’s first amendment rights removed?

You don’t understand what it is to have a right you think you have taken from you by force. Or perhaps your understanding of a right differs from mine.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Macdoc wrote:

But they should not take on an infallibility of Biblical proportions

exactly....Will is trading skydaddy for lawdaddy. Some progress I guess.......oh hmmm we can't dodge habeas corpus in the US ....oh well....Guantanamo will have to do.

No I am not.

Yours and others cynicism is rather disgusting and exhausting.

At the nihilistic worldview you seem to espouse may as well do away with laws and just live in a world run by chance and anarchy.

Except that is not how western civ handles things.

Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system

The way our system works is not arbitrary. Try again Macdoc.

The_Metatron wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

[Reveal] Spoiler:

You need to actually reread the fucking thread instead of cherrypicking one of my posts.

You cannot focus on the core of the problem when the solutions being presented have clear legal issues.

And no, rights cannot be taken away arbitrarily. There is a thing called the rule of law. Otherwise democracy is dead and we all live in a perpetual tyranny. Try again Macdoc.

Like hell they can’t be taken away arbitrarily.

A brief search of the YouTubes for “1st Amendment Audit” will return thousands of recordings of pig cops doing exactly that.

Try walking through your post office with a video camera recording sometime. You will taste a constitutional right being ripped away first hand.

That is not the right being taken away though. Poor enforcement of my rights on the part of the government is not equivalent to the government taking my rights away without rule of law.

This is why we have the judicial branch of government. To prevent abitrary decision making abusing the rule of law in a republic.

Yeah. That’s cute. Getting handcuffed and trundled off of public property for exercising a constitutionally protected activity isn’t having one’s first amendment rights removed?

You don’t understand what it is to have a right you think you have taken from you by force. Or perhaps your understanding of a right differs from mine.

No. It does not remove it. Just because authority unlawfully prevented me from exercising my rights does not mean they did away with my rights, otherwise it would not be unlawful or unethical.

If the ability to take away rights was arbitrary no one would be able to have an ethical ground to argue that restricting free speech is inhumane. After all, its not based on any system or reason. So arguing that it should be based on a system or reason is irrelevant.

But we do have grounds to argue for the ethics in regards to speech rights. If a government agency restricts speech that society has deemed through a system of shared ethical world views than we call it inhumane and unlawful. So while the government may be breaking the law they are not removing the right.

romansh wrote:Constitutions and amendments are fine ... I am all for them.

But they should not take on an infallibility of Biblical proportions

cool. No one said they should.

But they have to have authority and the ability to be enforced or else they are useless.

willhud9 wrote:

Macdoc wrote:

And no, rights cannot be taken away arbitrarily. There is a thing called the rule of law. Otherwise democracy is dead and we all live in a perpetual tyranny. Try again Macdoc.

There is only one person in lala dreamland and it's you.

Rights are granted and can be taken away .....they are ALL man made agreements enforced by the state and some are tougher to alter via legislation than others but all are "arbitrary"......just ask anyone who has been under marshall law.

Your "rights" ......are non-existent by the stroke of a pen.

There is the rule of law. If my rights are violated I can challenge it in courts. The state cannot just take away me rights and get away with it. Otherwise we don’t live in a democratic society. This is true in Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, etc.

It takes the rule of law to change rights. But it’s not arbitrary. Perhaps you should learn what the word means?

Will will you learn one thing the USA's political system is not democratic. So stop referring to democracy. You dont have it. You have an electoral system which is a mis-mash.

willhud9 wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:
Like hell they can’t be taken away arbitrarily.

A brief search of the YouTubes for “1st Amendment Audit” will return thousands of recordings of pig cops doing exactly that.

Try walking through your post office with a video camera recording sometime. You will taste a constitutional right being ripped away first hand.

That is not the right being taken away though. Poor enforcement of my rights on the part of the government is not equivalent to the government taking my rights away without rule of law.

This is why we have the judicial branch of government. To prevent abitrary decision making abusing the rule of law in a republic.

Yeah. That’s cute. Getting handcuffed and trundled off of public property for exercising a constitutionally protected activity isn’t having one’s first amendment rights removed?

You don’t understand what it is to have a right you think you have taken from you by force. Or perhaps your understanding of a right differs from mine.

No. It does not remove it. Just because authority unlawfully prevented me from exercising my rights does not mean they did away with my rights, otherwise it would not be unlawful or unethical.

If the ability to take away rights was arbitrary no one would be able to have an ethical ground to argue that restricting free speech is inhumane. After all, its not based on any system or reason. So arguing that it should be based on a system or reason is irrelevant.

But we do have grounds to argue for the ethics in regards to speech rights. If a government agency restricts speech that society has deemed through a system of shared ethical world views than we call it inhumane and unlawful. So while the government may be breaking the law they are not removing the right.

Like I said, try it yourself.

If you’re so goddamned sure of your right to photograph what you can see from a public place like a post office, post up the link to your successful audit.

How many pigs do we see convicted of shooting people? Tell us all about how those dead motherfuckers had rights. Better yet, let’s hear your explanation to their families how the pigs who killed their kids protected their dead relatives' constitutional rights.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

willhud9 wrote:
But they have to have authority and the ability to be enforced or else they are useless.

And we have to have the intellect and the balls to walk away as well.

Fox lose advertising over idiotic attacks on Parkland teens.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/38085 ... ahams-show