More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[brenthutch 444]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

it. does. Not. MATTER.

"Popping Popcorn"

So, you accomplished your mission, Ranger.

I look to the Constitution to ascertain “commander’s intent” and execute accordingly.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

38 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I look to the Constitution to ascertain “commander’s intent” and execute accordingly.

We are the Borg. Resistance  is futile. You will be assimilated.

[BIGUN 1,314]

9 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

We are the Borg. Resistance  is futile. You will be assimilated.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Good catch. I've previously posted here that armed speech can deter unarmed speech in the public square. That is to observe that in the presence of an armed individual or mob some folks might consider their privilege to speak freely abridged. Is such an effect not damaging to the specific intent of founders in the First Amendment?

You could make it even simpler, is it right that someone should cross and walk on the other side of the road when faced with an armed group walking at them? That is to ask, just who gets the right to say someone should, or should not, be fearful of something that is publicly known to cause death or permanent harm to vast numbers of Americans annually. Is that not an abridgement of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States? Seems to me that making one Constitutional Amendment ineffective in the extreme so as to make another overly extreme runs contrary to original intent and to congresses obligation to make laws that equally protect every citizen. 

I see this as no different than denying the right to speed in school zones or throw rocks at windows as being no deprivation of privileges and immunities but rather a simple protection of the rights of others. We should do the same with gun rights.

[BIGUN 1,314]

5 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I see this as no different than denying the right to speed in school zones or throw rocks at windows as being no deprivation of privileges and immunities but rather a simple protection of the rights of others. We should do the same with gun rights.

I may have missed the mark with, "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." My intent was to remind that phrase is mentioned more than once in the Constitution and the Commander's "intent" was to have congress develop laws that supported the constitution AND the welfare of the people. 

If we think gun responsibility laws can't be done, then all we need to do is look at the NFA and understand that is the reason not everyone has a machine gun on their hip or suppressor on their guns. I don't understand these judges overturning laws for gun responsibility, yet allow the NFA to exist. 

And, of course, as soon as I say that - that too might get tossed out.      

[kallend 2,027]

More than 2% of the population of a Mississippi town killed in a mass shooting today, and people reckon Chicago is bad.

https://wreg.com/news/local/6-dead-in-arkabutla-ms-shooting-suspect-in-custody/ 

[kallend 2,027]

DeSantis came to Chicago last week to lecture us about crime and policing,

Maybe he should put his own house in order:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/22/us/shooting-florida-orange-county/index.html

(and, of course, there's Parkland.)

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

15 minutes ago, kallend said:

DeSantis came to Chicago last week to lecture us about crime and policing,

Maybe he should put his own house in order:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/22/us/shooting-florida-orange-county/index.html

(and, of course, there's Parkland.)

Oh piffle. 

You're using FACTS again, Professor.

His base are the people who believe (among other things) that Antifa burned Portland to the ground, Trump won the election, Covid is a Chinese engineered bio-weapon AND a hoax (at the same time), the vaccines have tracking chips in them and have killed millions.

Of course they believe that Chicago is a violent, dystopian hell-hole (instead of Florida being one ).

[winsor 236]

3 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Oh piffle. 

You're using FACTS again, Professor.

His base are the people who believe (among other things) that Antifa burned Portland to the ground, Trump won the election, Covid is a Chinese engineered bio-weapon AND a hoax (at the same time), the vaccines have tracking chips in them and have killed millions.

Of course they believe that Chicago is a violent, dystopian hell-hole (instead of Florida being one ).

I don't believe much of anything, and I'm certainly not a supporter of any of the usual suspects.

Having said that, Antifa burnt more things to the ground than I'd prefer.  If Portland survived their attentions good for them.

SARS-COV-2 is rather a definitive bioengineered pathogen, its release most certainly the result of blunder rather than intent.

The response to the pandemic was also an exercise in incompetence (any time something actually turns out to be due to conspiracy I'm quite impressed).

I've lived in both Chicago and Florida, and both have areas that are either genteel to the point of idyllic or violent, dystopian hell holes, depending on who's doing the finger pointing.

The only difference between one side of the aisle and the other the population to whom they pander.  Both groups are equally FUBAR.

 

BSBD,

Winsor 

[GeorgiaDon 362]

It must be quite the burden for you, being wise beyond the comprehension of everybody else, and yet so deeply cynical.  At least you are eloquent!

BTW there is no compelling evidence to support the idea that Covid-19 is a bioengineered weapon.  On the other hand there is very strong evidence that it is a naturally occurring virus, spilled over from a zoonotic reservoir (probably bats), likely through a secondary zoonotic host, and into humans.  There are many related coronaviruses that cause occasional spillover infections in people, and it is only a matter of time before it occurs again in circumstances that support higher transmission to people, selection for adaptive mutations, and yet another pandemic.  A spillover infection in a small farming community almost always burns itself out, but the same virus brought to a "wet market" in a densely populated city presents a vastly greater risk.  A problem with the "bioengineered" mythology is that it discounts the role of spillover of natural viruses, encourages politicians to dismiss that threat, and discourages efforts to find and track these spillover events and prepare for future pandemics.  Of course, it is politically expedient, in that it allows politicians of a certain inclination to blame China (or any other entity it is convenient to direct the base's hate towards) while slashing funding for efforts to deal with present and future pandemics.

[Phil1111 1,149]

31 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

It must be quite the burden for you, being wise beyond the comprehension of everybody else, and yet so deeply cynical.  At least you are eloquent!

...  Of course, it is politically expedient, in that it allows politicians of a certain inclination to blame China (or any other entity it is convenient to direct the base's hate towards) while slashing funding for efforts to deal with present and future pandemics.

and spend more money on big defense projects to combat Chinese aggression.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

56 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

It must be quite the burden for you, being wise beyond the comprehension of everybody else, and yet so deeply cynical.  At least you are eloquent!

BTW there is no compelling evidence to support the idea that Covid-19 is a bioengineered weapon.  On the other hand there is very strong evidence that it is a naturally occurring virus, spilled over from a zoonotic reservoir (probably bats), likely through a secondary zoonotic host, and into humans.  There are many related coronaviruses that cause occasional spillover infections in people, and it is only a matter of time before it occurs again in circumstances that support higher transmission to people, selection for adaptive mutations, and yet another pandemic.  A spillover infection in a small farming community almost always burns itself out, but the same virus brought to a "wet market" in a densely populated city presents a vastly greater risk.  A problem with the "bioengineered" mythology is that it discounts the role of spillover of natural viruses, encourages politicians to dismiss that threat, and discourages efforts to find and track these spillover events and prepare for future pandemics.  Of course, it is politically expedient, in that it allows politicians of a certain inclination to blame China (or any other entity it is convenient to direct the base's hate towards) while slashing funding for efforts to deal with present and future pandemics.

The disconcerting trend is that intervals between coronovirus outbreaks has been decreasing. SARS to MERS was 10 years. MERS to COVID was 6 years. If that trend continues we are about ready for a new coronavirus outbreak.

 

 

[JoeWeber 2,720]

6 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

The disconcerting trend is that intervals between coronovirus outbreaks has been decreasing. SARS to MERS was 10 years. MERS to COVID was 6 years. If that trend continues we are about ready for a new coronavirus outbreak.

 

 

Winsor is brilliant, especially compared to junkyard dogs like me, for example, and highly educated too. I think it's a bit unfair to condemn his transient points without contextualizing those with his dominant point which is that in the long term we are fucked. For sure that's a hard point to argue.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

24 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Winsor is brilliant, especially compared to junkyard dogs like me, for example, and highly educated too. I think it's a bit unfair to condemn his transient points without contextualizing those with his dominant point which is that in the long term we are fucked. For sure that's a hard point to argue.

Yes in the end we all die. Brilliant observation. Who knew.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

Yes in the end we all die. Brilliant observation. Who knew.

That's trivial and not at all what Winsor is saying if I get at all what he is saying. 

[kallend 2,027]

4 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Yes in the end we all die. Brilliant observation. Who knew.

John Maynard Keynes.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

1 minute ago, kallend said:

John Maynard Keynes.

Forgive them for they know not what they do, or say.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

20 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

That's trivial and not at all what Winsor is saying if I get at all what he is saying. 

He is saying both sides are the same and nothing can be saved. I don't find fatalism all that insightful.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

Just now, SkyDekker said:

He is saying both sides are the same and nothing can be saved. I don't find fatalism all that insightful.

Winsor is not fatalistic. It's easy to not capture his thinking. To be sure, I think his ideas on human nature are inexact but his focus is not on what we think and, yes, he disregards the societal impact on certain individuals and groups. But he is spot on about the future which should be our focus.

[headoverheels 333]

4 hours ago, kallend said:

John Maynard Keynes.

To be fair, Maynard G. Krebs knew, too.

[winsor 236]

9 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Yes in the end we all die. Brilliant observation. Who knew.

Gee, and here I thought the reference was to the explosion of the population based on the assumption that natural resources, to include fossil fuels, were inexhaustible, compounded by going into debt at a level beyond that which can be repaid, and generally following policies that have spelled doom for a civilization every time they have been tried.

Thank goodness it was simply a matter of mortality on an individual basis.  What a relief.

[Phil1111 1,149]

10 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

He is saying both sides are the same and nothing can be saved. I don't find fatalism all that insightful.

Joe gets like that when the good rum runs out and he has to settle for Kirkland jugs.

[kallend 2,027]

1 hour ago, winsor said:

Gee, and here I thought the reference was to the explosion of the population based on the assumption that natural resources, to include fossil fuels, were inexhaustible, compounded by going into debt at a level beyond that which can be repaid, and generally following policies that have spelled doom for a civilization every time they have been tried.

Thank goodness it was simply a matter of mortality on an individual basis.  What a relief.

duplicate. . . 

Edited February 24, 2023 by kallend

[kallend 2,027]

1 hour ago, winsor said:

 

Thank goodness it was simply a matter of mortality on an individual basis.  What a relief.

Keynes was well ahead of you there,

[winsor 236]

53 minutes ago, kallend said:

Keynes was well ahead of you there,

If I can't take it with me, I'm not going.