info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
[OT] Red Flagged Nation
82 views
Skip to first unread message
Ed Stasiak
Jun 16, 2022, 9:47:45 AM6/16/22
to
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/red_flagged_nation_gun_confiscation_laws_put_a_target_on_the_back_of_every_american
June 14, 2022
Red Flagged Nation: Gun Confiscation Laws Put a Target on the Back of Every American
“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.” - Ayn Rand -
What we do not need is yet another pretext by which government officials can violate the Fourth Amendment at will under the guise of public health and safety.
Indeed, at a time when red flag gun laws (which authorize government officials to seize guns from individuals viewed as a danger to themselves or others) are gaining traction as a legislative means by which to allow police to remove guns from people suspected of being threats, it wouldn’t take much for police to be given the green light to enter a home without a warrant in order to seize lawfully-possessed firearms based on concerns that the guns might pose a danger.
Frankly, a person wouldn’t even need to own a gun to be subjected to such a home invasion.
SWAT teams have crashed through doors on lesser pretexts based on false information, mistaken identities and wrong addresses.
Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have adopted laws allowing the police to remove guns from people suspected of being threats. If Congress succeeds in passing the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order, which would nationalize red flag laws, that number will grow.
As The Washington Post reports, these red flag gun laws “allow a family member, roommate, beau, law enforcement officer or any type of medical professional to file a petition [with a court] asking that a person’s home be temporarily cleared of firearms. It doesn’t require a mental-health diagnosis or an arrest.”
In the wake of yet another round of mass shootings, these gun confiscation laws—extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws—may appease the fears of those who believe that fewer guns in the hands of the general populace will make our society safer.
Of course, it doesn’t always work that way.
Anything—knives, vehicles, planes, pressure cookers—can become a weapon when wielded with deadly intentions.
With these red flag gun laws, the stated intention is to disarm individuals who are potential threats… to “stop dangerous people before they act.”
While in theory it appears perfectly reasonable to want to disarm individuals who are clearly suicidal and/or pose an “immediate danger” to themselves or others, where the problem arises is when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police.
We’ve been down this road before.
Remember, this is the same government that uses the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.
This is the same government whose agents are spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies to identify potential threats.
This is the same government that has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.
For instance, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.
Moreover, as a New York Times editorial warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car.
Let that sink in a moment.
Now consider the ramifications of giving police that kind of authority: to preemptively raid homes in order to neutralize a potential threat.
It’s a powder keg waiting for a lit match.
Under these red flag laws, what happened to Duncan Lemp—who was gunned down in his bedroom during an early morning, no-knock SWAT team raid on his family’s home—could very well happen to more people.
At 4:30 a.m. on March 12, 2020, in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic that had most of the country under a partial lockdown and sheltering at home, a masked SWAT team—deployed to execute a “high risk” search warrant for unauthorized firearms—stormed the suburban house where 21-year-old Duncan, a software engineer and Second Amendment advocate, lived with his parents and 19-year-old brother.
The entire household, including Lemp and his girlfriend, was reportedly asleep when the SWAT team directed flash bang grenades and gunfire through Lemp’s bedroom window.
Lemp was killed and his girlfriend injured.
No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, had a criminal record.
No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, was considered an “imminent threat” to law enforcement or the public, at least not according to the search warrant.
So what was so urgent that militarized police felt compelled to employ battlefield tactics in the pre-dawn hours of a day when most people are asleep in bed, not to mention stuck at home as part of a nationwide lockdown?
According to police, they were tipped off that Lemp was in possession of “firearms.”
Thus, rather than approaching the house by the front door at a reasonable hour in order to investigate this complaint—which is what the Fourth Amendment requires—police instead strapped on their guns, loaded up their flash bang grenades and carried out a no-knock raid on the household.
According to the county report, the no-knock raid was justified “due to Lemp being ‘anti-government,’ ‘anti-police,’ currently in possession of body armor, and an active member of the Three Percenters,” a far-right paramilitary group that discussed government resistance.
This is what happens when you adopt red flag gun laws, painting anyone who might be in possession of a gun—legal or otherwise—as a threat that must be neutralized.
Therein lies the danger of these red flag laws, specifically, and pre-crime laws such as these generally where the burden of proof is reversed and you are guilty before you are given any chance to prove you are innocent.
Red flag gun laws merely push us that much closer towards a suspect society where everyone is potentially guilty of some crime or another and must be preemptively rendered harmless.
Where many Americans go wrong is in naively assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged and targeted for some form of intervention or detention.
In fact, all you need to do these days to end up on a government watch list or be subjected to heightened scrutiny is use certain trigger words (like cloud, pork and pirates), surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, limp or stutter, drive a car, stay at a hotel, attend a political rally, express yourself on social media, appear mentally ill, serve in the military, disagree with a law enforcement official, call in sick to work, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, appear confused or nervous, fidget or whistle or smell bad, be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely resembling a gun (such as a water nozzle or a remote control or a walking cane), stare at a police officer, question government authority, appear to be pro-gun or pro-freedom, or generally live in the United States.
Be warned: once you get on such a government watch list—whether it’s a terrorist watch list, a mental health watch list, a dissident watch list, or a red flag gun watch list—there’s no clear-cut way to get off, whether or not you should actually be on there.
You will be flagged as a potential threat and dealt with accordingly.
You will be tracked by the government’s pre-crime, surveillance network wherever you go.
Hopefully you’re starting to understand how easy we’ve made it for the government to identify, label, target, defuse and detain anyone it views as a potential threat for a variety of reasons that run the gamut from mental illness to having a military background to challenging its authority to just being on the government’s list of persona non grata.
The government has been building its pre-crime, surveillance network in concert with fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the private sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).
Combine red flag laws with the government’s surveillance networks and its plan to establish an agency that will take the lead in identifying and targeting “signs” of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home, and you’ll understand why some might view gun control legislation with trepidation.
No matter how well-meaning the politicians make these encroachments on our rights appear, in the right (or wrong) hands, benevolent plans can easily be put to malevolent purposes.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be—and has been—perverted, corrupted and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation.
The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, the war on COVID-19: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the government’s hands.
No matter how well-intentioned, red flag gun laws will put a target on the back of every American whether or not they own a weapon.
June 14, 2022
Red Flagged Nation: Gun Confiscation Laws Put a Target on the Back of Every American
“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.” - Ayn Rand -
What we do not need is yet another pretext by which government officials can violate the Fourth Amendment at will under the guise of public health and safety.
Indeed, at a time when red flag gun laws (which authorize government officials to seize guns from individuals viewed as a danger to themselves or others) are gaining traction as a legislative means by which to allow police to remove guns from people suspected of being threats, it wouldn’t take much for police to be given the green light to enter a home without a warrant in order to seize lawfully-possessed firearms based on concerns that the guns might pose a danger.
Frankly, a person wouldn’t even need to own a gun to be subjected to such a home invasion.
SWAT teams have crashed through doors on lesser pretexts based on false information, mistaken identities and wrong addresses.
Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have adopted laws allowing the police to remove guns from people suspected of being threats. If Congress succeeds in passing the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order, which would nationalize red flag laws, that number will grow.
As The Washington Post reports, these red flag gun laws “allow a family member, roommate, beau, law enforcement officer or any type of medical professional to file a petition [with a court] asking that a person’s home be temporarily cleared of firearms. It doesn’t require a mental-health diagnosis or an arrest.”
In the wake of yet another round of mass shootings, these gun confiscation laws—extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws—may appease the fears of those who believe that fewer guns in the hands of the general populace will make our society safer.
Of course, it doesn’t always work that way.
Anything—knives, vehicles, planes, pressure cookers—can become a weapon when wielded with deadly intentions.
With these red flag gun laws, the stated intention is to disarm individuals who are potential threats… to “stop dangerous people before they act.”
While in theory it appears perfectly reasonable to want to disarm individuals who are clearly suicidal and/or pose an “immediate danger” to themselves or others, where the problem arises is when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police.
We’ve been down this road before.
Remember, this is the same government that uses the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.
This is the same government whose agents are spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies to identify potential threats.
This is the same government that has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.
For instance, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.
Moreover, as a New York Times editorial warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car.
Let that sink in a moment.
Now consider the ramifications of giving police that kind of authority: to preemptively raid homes in order to neutralize a potential threat.
It’s a powder keg waiting for a lit match.
Under these red flag laws, what happened to Duncan Lemp—who was gunned down in his bedroom during an early morning, no-knock SWAT team raid on his family’s home—could very well happen to more people.
At 4:30 a.m. on March 12, 2020, in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic that had most of the country under a partial lockdown and sheltering at home, a masked SWAT team—deployed to execute a “high risk” search warrant for unauthorized firearms—stormed the suburban house where 21-year-old Duncan, a software engineer and Second Amendment advocate, lived with his parents and 19-year-old brother.
The entire household, including Lemp and his girlfriend, was reportedly asleep when the SWAT team directed flash bang grenades and gunfire through Lemp’s bedroom window.
Lemp was killed and his girlfriend injured.
No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, had a criminal record.
No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, was considered an “imminent threat” to law enforcement or the public, at least not according to the search warrant.
So what was so urgent that militarized police felt compelled to employ battlefield tactics in the pre-dawn hours of a day when most people are asleep in bed, not to mention stuck at home as part of a nationwide lockdown?
According to police, they were tipped off that Lemp was in possession of “firearms.”
Thus, rather than approaching the house by the front door at a reasonable hour in order to investigate this complaint—which is what the Fourth Amendment requires—police instead strapped on their guns, loaded up their flash bang grenades and carried out a no-knock raid on the household.
According to the county report, the no-knock raid was justified “due to Lemp being ‘anti-government,’ ‘anti-police,’ currently in possession of body armor, and an active member of the Three Percenters,” a far-right paramilitary group that discussed government resistance.
This is what happens when you adopt red flag gun laws, painting anyone who might be in possession of a gun—legal or otherwise—as a threat that must be neutralized.
Therein lies the danger of these red flag laws, specifically, and pre-crime laws such as these generally where the burden of proof is reversed and you are guilty before you are given any chance to prove you are innocent.
Red flag gun laws merely push us that much closer towards a suspect society where everyone is potentially guilty of some crime or another and must be preemptively rendered harmless.
Where many Americans go wrong is in naively assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged and targeted for some form of intervention or detention.
In fact, all you need to do these days to end up on a government watch list or be subjected to heightened scrutiny is use certain trigger words (like cloud, pork and pirates), surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, limp or stutter, drive a car, stay at a hotel, attend a political rally, express yourself on social media, appear mentally ill, serve in the military, disagree with a law enforcement official, call in sick to work, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, appear confused or nervous, fidget or whistle or smell bad, be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely resembling a gun (such as a water nozzle or a remote control or a walking cane), stare at a police officer, question government authority, appear to be pro-gun or pro-freedom, or generally live in the United States.
Be warned: once you get on such a government watch list—whether it’s a terrorist watch list, a mental health watch list, a dissident watch list, or a red flag gun watch list—there’s no clear-cut way to get off, whether or not you should actually be on there.
You will be flagged as a potential threat and dealt with accordingly.
You will be tracked by the government’s pre-crime, surveillance network wherever you go.
Hopefully you’re starting to understand how easy we’ve made it for the government to identify, label, target, defuse and detain anyone it views as a potential threat for a variety of reasons that run the gamut from mental illness to having a military background to challenging its authority to just being on the government’s list of persona non grata.
The government has been building its pre-crime, surveillance network in concert with fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the private sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).
Combine red flag laws with the government’s surveillance networks and its plan to establish an agency that will take the lead in identifying and targeting “signs” of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home, and you’ll understand why some might view gun control legislation with trepidation.
No matter how well-meaning the politicians make these encroachments on our rights appear, in the right (or wrong) hands, benevolent plans can easily be put to malevolent purposes.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be—and has been—perverted, corrupted and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation.
The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, the war on COVID-19: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the government’s hands.
No matter how well-intentioned, red flag gun laws will put a target on the back of every American whether or not they own a weapon.
Tiglath
Jun 16, 2022, 3:05:22 PM6/16/22
to
The gun debate is the most pathetic political issue from a logical point of view. When will a gutsy politician assert unequivocally the evident truth that the gun problem CANNOT be fixed. IT'S TOO LATE.
For the simple reason that there are ALREADY more guns than people in the US.
Say that liberals get their dream legislation and guns are banned, just as they are most countries. Then what?
Who is going to go around the homes collecting guns? Even if they used tanks and the army to do it, they would fail.
The ONLY solution is for a few generations to die and new ones begin to figure out that IF guns made people safe, the US would be the safest place on Earth by orders of magnitude. Is it? Let the data answer the question.
Do people really NEED to shoot prairie dogs and other varmint? One of the usual excuses of why guns are essential.
When new generations start thinking and acting according to these answer, then a solution will be discernible at the end of a long tunnel, and finally by the year 2222 or so, guns may become illegal in the US, with widespread popular support.
Until then, fogettaboutit. You can't legislate the problem away, it's impossible.
Engineers may try to come to the rescue and fix things partially, let us say that they adapt ankle bracelet technology to guns and we can trace guns so that if one enters a prohibited place, a courthouse, school, etc., the police can respond to violations. As far as freedom lovers go, tracing a gun is no less repressive than having a smart phone, which allows to trace the carrier, ditto for users of any computer with an IP address connected to the Internet.
Or perhaps a new kind of non-lethal, disabling bullet will render guns less dangerous... I don't think many scientists are working on that, given the many other problems the planet has.
But then again, who is going to collect the guns without the trace capability or traditional bullets?
As I said. NO SOLUTION. We are all going to keep our guns, and shops will sell even more... The slaughter of children, shoppers, churchgoers. etc. will also continue, ad infinitum in the game of American roulette, in which we all are unwitting players, because people are unpredictable or evil or both, and anyone proposing legislative solutions this century or the nest is just full of shit - switch channels.
For the simple reason that there are ALREADY more guns than people in the US.
Say that liberals get their dream legislation and guns are banned, just as they are most countries. Then what?
Who is going to go around the homes collecting guns? Even if they used tanks and the army to do it, they would fail.
The ONLY solution is for a few generations to die and new ones begin to figure out that IF guns made people safe, the US would be the safest place on Earth by orders of magnitude. Is it? Let the data answer the question.
Do people really NEED to shoot prairie dogs and other varmint? One of the usual excuses of why guns are essential.
When new generations start thinking and acting according to these answer, then a solution will be discernible at the end of a long tunnel, and finally by the year 2222 or so, guns may become illegal in the US, with widespread popular support.
Until then, fogettaboutit. You can't legislate the problem away, it's impossible.
Engineers may try to come to the rescue and fix things partially, let us say that they adapt ankle bracelet technology to guns and we can trace guns so that if one enters a prohibited place, a courthouse, school, etc., the police can respond to violations. As far as freedom lovers go, tracing a gun is no less repressive than having a smart phone, which allows to trace the carrier, ditto for users of any computer with an IP address connected to the Internet.
Or perhaps a new kind of non-lethal, disabling bullet will render guns less dangerous... I don't think many scientists are working on that, given the many other problems the planet has.
But then again, who is going to collect the guns without the trace capability or traditional bullets?
As I said. NO SOLUTION. We are all going to keep our guns, and shops will sell even more... The slaughter of children, shoppers, churchgoers. etc. will also continue, ad infinitum in the game of American roulette, in which we all are unwitting players, because people are unpredictable or evil or both, and anyone proposing legislative solutions this century or the nest is just full of shit - switch channels.
Peter Jason
Jun 16, 2022, 5:27:58 PM6/16/22
to
>
>As I said. NO SOLUTION. We are all going to keep our guns, and shops will sell even more... The slaughter of children, shoppers, churchgoers. etc. will also continue, ad infinitum in the game of American roulette, in which we all are unwitting players, because people are unpredictable or evil or both, and anyone proposing legislative solutions this century or the nest is just full of shit - switch channels.
>
anarchy.
Americans have too much freedom.
Ed Stasiak
Jun 16, 2022, 7:49:36 PM6/16/22
to
> tiglath
of the same coin: politicians from both sides KNOW these policies are retarded
but the Powers That Be require them to keep pushing, so as to distract the People
from what what's really going on and sucker voters into thinking they've actually
have a choice in who they elect.
https://i.postimg.cc/4NRNCxbP/1626356136581.jpg
> When will a gutsy politician assert unequivocally the evident truth that the gun
> problem CANNOT be fixed. IT'S TOO LATE.
> For the simple reason that there are ALREADY more guns than people in the US.
Indeed, even loyal Dem voters have a gun or two stashed in the closet.
> Say that liberals get their dream legislation and guns are banned, just as they
> are most countries. Then what?
> Who is going to go around the homes collecting guns? Even if they used tanks
> and the army to do it, they would fail.
Which is the entire point of the right to keep & bear arms.
> The ONLY solution is for a few generations to die and new ones begin to figure
> out that IF guns made people safe, the US would be the safest place on Earth
> by orders of magnitude. Is it? Let the data answer the question.
The devil is in the details. Young Black-American males account for over half
the murders in the U.S. despite being something like 2-3% of the population.
If you only look at White murder rates, we're on par with Belgium and Canada.
Clearly, guns aren't the problem.
> Do people really NEED to shoot prairie dogs and other varmint? One of the
> usual excuses of why guns are essential.
It's not about hunting. Self defense is a natural human right, thus the right to
keep and bear arms is also natural human right.
Without it, we're living in a world where might makes right and grandma is forced
to duke it out hand-to-hand with a 20 year old male attacker.
> When new generations start thinking and acting according to these answer, then
> a solution will be discernible at the end of a long tunnel, and finally by the year
> 2222 or so, guns may become illegal in the US, with widespread popular support.
Judging from what kids are like nowadays, it wouldn't surprise me...
> Engineers may try to come to the rescue and fix things partially, let us say that they
> adapt ankle bracelet technology to guns and we can trace guns so that if one enters
> a prohibited place, a courthouse, school, etc., the police can respond to violations.
> As far as freedom lovers go, tracing a gun is no less repressive than having a smart
> phone, which allows to trace the carrier, ditto for users of any computer with an IP
> address connected to the Internet.
"The cops will protect you!"
That sure worked out well in Uvalde Texas, amiright? Where the cops sat outside the
school for over 40mins while the killer had free reign to do whatever he wanted.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
June 28, 2005
“Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone”
> The slaughter of children, shoppers, churchgoers. etc. will also continue, ad infinitum
> in the game of American roulette, in which we all are unwitting players, because people
> are unpredictable or evil or both,
Except as I pointed out above, most (White) people are NOT in danger of being randomly
killed and further more, most of the mass shooters (defined as four or more victims) have
been Black males.
https://i.postimg.cc/kMvh9709/2021-Mass-Shooters.png
>
> The gun debate is the most pathetic political issue from a logical point of view.
I'd say the Dem anti-gun fundies and the Rep anti-abortion fundies are two sides
> The gun debate is the most pathetic political issue from a logical point of view.
of the same coin: politicians from both sides KNOW these policies are retarded
but the Powers That Be require them to keep pushing, so as to distract the People
from what what's really going on and sucker voters into thinking they've actually
have a choice in who they elect.
https://i.postimg.cc/4NRNCxbP/1626356136581.jpg
> When will a gutsy politician assert unequivocally the evident truth that the gun
> problem CANNOT be fixed. IT'S TOO LATE.
> For the simple reason that there are ALREADY more guns than people in the US.
> Say that liberals get their dream legislation and guns are banned, just as they
> are most countries. Then what?
> Who is going to go around the homes collecting guns? Even if they used tanks
> and the army to do it, they would fail.
> The ONLY solution is for a few generations to die and new ones begin to figure
> out that IF guns made people safe, the US would be the safest place on Earth
> by orders of magnitude. Is it? Let the data answer the question.
the murders in the U.S. despite being something like 2-3% of the population.
If you only look at White murder rates, we're on par with Belgium and Canada.
Clearly, guns aren't the problem.
> Do people really NEED to shoot prairie dogs and other varmint? One of the
> usual excuses of why guns are essential.
keep and bear arms is also natural human right.
Without it, we're living in a world where might makes right and grandma is forced
to duke it out hand-to-hand with a 20 year old male attacker.
> When new generations start thinking and acting according to these answer, then
> a solution will be discernible at the end of a long tunnel, and finally by the year
> 2222 or so, guns may become illegal in the US, with widespread popular support.
> Engineers may try to come to the rescue and fix things partially, let us say that they
> adapt ankle bracelet technology to guns and we can trace guns so that if one enters
> a prohibited place, a courthouse, school, etc., the police can respond to violations.
> As far as freedom lovers go, tracing a gun is no less repressive than having a smart
> phone, which allows to trace the carrier, ditto for users of any computer with an IP
> address connected to the Internet.
That sure worked out well in Uvalde Texas, amiright? Where the cops sat outside the
school for over 40mins while the killer had free reign to do whatever he wanted.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
June 28, 2005
“Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone”
> The slaughter of children, shoppers, churchgoers. etc. will also continue, ad infinitum
> in the game of American roulette, in which we all are unwitting players, because people
> are unpredictable or evil or both,
killed and further more, most of the mass shooters (defined as four or more victims) have
been Black males.
https://i.postimg.cc/kMvh9709/2021-Mass-Shooters.png
Tiglath
Jun 16, 2022, 11:59:43 PM6/16/22
to
On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 7:49:36 PM UTC-4, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> > tiglath
> > Who is going to go around the homes collecting guns? Even if they used tanks
> > and the army to do it, they would fail.
> Which is the entire point of the right to keep & bear arms.
I share your like for guns and agree with you on guns mostly, but not 100%.
Reasonable people admit that the Second Amendment needs amending because of obvious truths. When it was written, they were considering muskets and 18th century arms technology. Would the venerable authors of the Second Amendment write it as it is in our world today?
I don't think so. Because...
Laws are supposed to be for the public good. And when the public is being slaughtered continually by mass murder enabled by legal rapid firing weapons with large capacity magazines, shooting bullets three times as fast as an 9mm round, that tumble through the innards of children and other victims, mangling and causing death in ways more certain that the writers of the Constitution ever thought possible, then we have laws that DO NOT promote the public good, and need to be changed.
If you make the argument that civilians need rifles and pistols to protect themselves against the government, then we'll have to agree to disagree. This is an historically unneeded protection. King George is dead. As long as the US the government controls the military, civilians would never win. So... the point is merely academic.
I still like to have a gun at home, just in case. But let us unfold this argument. I only feel this way in America. I live six months in Virginia and six months in Italy at present. I feel safer in my Tuscany home with a stick behind the door, than I do in Virginia with 20 guns in the house. I know that if I ever get a home intruder in Virginia, he will probably have a firearm. So it's a race of iffy odds. And if I am asleep I will lose, because I will probably wake up with a barrel up my nose.
So the argument becomes that we need guns because everybody has guns, and even petty criminals will have them.
I suffered burglars in England twice, no guns. I was mugged once in Spain, no guns. All I lost was property I don't even remember.
I like guns, and also like explosives, since I was in the army. I love artillery, but such things are for war, not peace. When people learn the difference in America the Second Amendment will be toast.
Do you need any more evidence that THE REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD, to see this point? Travel helps. Americans are just people like other people, but they just can't shake off the Wild West mentality and the fake coolness Hollywood puts on guns. And the social problems Americans created for themselves by creating a citizen underclass of non-whites is not helping.
I don't see a lot of blacks committing the sensational massacres at schools and other gathering places, either, the only shootings we seem to care about. Nobody seems to care what happens in black neighborhoods, much as statistics show that numbers are much higher that all school shootings put together.
Time discussing this is also time wasted, because nothing will change - our guns are safe, don't worry - in our lifetime. I worry about bigger threats like Czar Pootin, and how we might still live to experience microplastics in our lungs, killer climate and other products of human greed and folly.
> > The ONLY solution is for a few generations to die and new ones begin to figure
> > out that IF guns made people safe, the US would be the safest place on Earth
> > by orders of magnitude. Is it? Let the data answer the question.
> The devil is in the details. Young Black-American males account for over half
> the murders in the U.S. despite being something like 2-3% of the population.
>
As I said before, dark skin pigmentation DOES NOT induce people to become murderers.
The devil in the details of this one, is that SOME people, fucking racist people, even in the 21st century, look down on dark skin, thinking their pale skin makes them better people. They are wrong.
Economically and educationally deprived people have no choice but to live in the poorest part of towns, i.e. ghetto, inner city, what have you. When people face a bleak future because of discrimination, crime becomes very tempting, if not the only way out of abject poverty. The WHITE people's War on Drugs, gave these criminals, mostly Black and Hispanic, ONE way to be rich, albeit risky, dealing and trafficking drugs, which leads to turf battles and terrible gun violence, forever depicted in movies and in the front page of newspapers.
That is the reason why you get more Black and Hispanic crime that white people crime, because most white people need not resort to it, thanks to the privileges of the system they crafted for themselves. I see this situation improving but it's slow going.
There are now more and more, black college graduates and black people with good jobs. Where is the violence in that group? It's proof positive that it's not the color but POVERTY that causes crime, and in this country most of the poor are non-whites, because of historical reasons and incredible levels of discrimination from whites.
> If you only look at White murder rates, we're on par with Belgium and Canada.
>
> Clearly, guns aren't the problem.
Clearly? How about this...
Homo Sapiens from other countries have trigger fingers to shoot just like us, Americans. They have good and bad tempers like us, they have sane and insane people like us, they also have lots of black people and drug prohibitions also, yet, they do not have a gun problem. Only we do. What is the difference between us: lots of guns. It's called a clue.
> > Do people really NEED to shoot prairie dogs and other varmint? One of the
> > usual excuses of why guns are essential.
> It's not about hunting. Self defense is a natural human right, thus the right to
> keep and bear arms is also natural human right.
>
Rights are a man-made thing. No such thing. All there is is biology. Even the Constitution is full of crap. "All created equal" Really? I agree that accepting certain noble tenets, true or not, make life better for more people, so we go along with so called 'rights.' There is nothing natural in them or the Constitution, much as it is a compendium of idealized good rules for better living and that is where its value lies. Nothing natural. Nature is red in the tooth and the claw. And constantly, something living has to die for other living things to endure. That's the divine plan, did you forget? "Rights' are a human invention trying to improve on God's design, and they 'exist' only by mutual consent. If rights can be taken away, as they can, it means you never really had them and were never part of nature.
I love America, but let us call a spade a spade. What are the chances that on guns all other civilized countries are wrong and we are right? The only thing that could made us right and they wrong is the clear results of such unique access to guns. But results speak for themselves, no need to elaborate.
>
> That sure worked out well in Uvalde Texas, amiright? Where the cops sat outside the
> school for over 40mins while the killer had free reign to do whatever he wanted.
>
It doesn't matter if a shooter had an AR-15 or a bazooka, when the police take 78 minutes to react. He could have a revolver and still kill dozens. Or a machete, for that matter. Despite the huge tragedy, he was a very inefficient killer despite having a very efficient killing tool.
It may take a couple of centuries for every gun-nut to have a loved one killed by a legal gun, the only effective way to date to change a gun-nut's mind on the subject. Sad but true.
> > tiglath
> > Who is going to go around the homes collecting guns? Even if they used tanks
> > and the army to do it, they would fail.
> Which is the entire point of the right to keep & bear arms.
Reasonable people admit that the Second Amendment needs amending because of obvious truths. When it was written, they were considering muskets and 18th century arms technology. Would the venerable authors of the Second Amendment write it as it is in our world today?
I don't think so. Because...
Laws are supposed to be for the public good. And when the public is being slaughtered continually by mass murder enabled by legal rapid firing weapons with large capacity magazines, shooting bullets three times as fast as an 9mm round, that tumble through the innards of children and other victims, mangling and causing death in ways more certain that the writers of the Constitution ever thought possible, then we have laws that DO NOT promote the public good, and need to be changed.
If you make the argument that civilians need rifles and pistols to protect themselves against the government, then we'll have to agree to disagree. This is an historically unneeded protection. King George is dead. As long as the US the government controls the military, civilians would never win. So... the point is merely academic.
I still like to have a gun at home, just in case. But let us unfold this argument. I only feel this way in America. I live six months in Virginia and six months in Italy at present. I feel safer in my Tuscany home with a stick behind the door, than I do in Virginia with 20 guns in the house. I know that if I ever get a home intruder in Virginia, he will probably have a firearm. So it's a race of iffy odds. And if I am asleep I will lose, because I will probably wake up with a barrel up my nose.
So the argument becomes that we need guns because everybody has guns, and even petty criminals will have them.
I suffered burglars in England twice, no guns. I was mugged once in Spain, no guns. All I lost was property I don't even remember.
I like guns, and also like explosives, since I was in the army. I love artillery, but such things are for war, not peace. When people learn the difference in America the Second Amendment will be toast.
Do you need any more evidence that THE REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD, to see this point? Travel helps. Americans are just people like other people, but they just can't shake off the Wild West mentality and the fake coolness Hollywood puts on guns. And the social problems Americans created for themselves by creating a citizen underclass of non-whites is not helping.
I don't see a lot of blacks committing the sensational massacres at schools and other gathering places, either, the only shootings we seem to care about. Nobody seems to care what happens in black neighborhoods, much as statistics show that numbers are much higher that all school shootings put together.
Time discussing this is also time wasted, because nothing will change - our guns are safe, don't worry - in our lifetime. I worry about bigger threats like Czar Pootin, and how we might still live to experience microplastics in our lungs, killer climate and other products of human greed and folly.
> > The ONLY solution is for a few generations to die and new ones begin to figure
> > out that IF guns made people safe, the US would be the safest place on Earth
> > by orders of magnitude. Is it? Let the data answer the question.
> The devil is in the details. Young Black-American males account for over half
> the murders in the U.S. despite being something like 2-3% of the population.
>
The devil in the details of this one, is that SOME people, fucking racist people, even in the 21st century, look down on dark skin, thinking their pale skin makes them better people. They are wrong.
Economically and educationally deprived people have no choice but to live in the poorest part of towns, i.e. ghetto, inner city, what have you. When people face a bleak future because of discrimination, crime becomes very tempting, if not the only way out of abject poverty. The WHITE people's War on Drugs, gave these criminals, mostly Black and Hispanic, ONE way to be rich, albeit risky, dealing and trafficking drugs, which leads to turf battles and terrible gun violence, forever depicted in movies and in the front page of newspapers.
That is the reason why you get more Black and Hispanic crime that white people crime, because most white people need not resort to it, thanks to the privileges of the system they crafted for themselves. I see this situation improving but it's slow going.
There are now more and more, black college graduates and black people with good jobs. Where is the violence in that group? It's proof positive that it's not the color but POVERTY that causes crime, and in this country most of the poor are non-whites, because of historical reasons and incredible levels of discrimination from whites.
> If you only look at White murder rates, we're on par with Belgium and Canada.
>
> Clearly, guns aren't the problem.
Homo Sapiens from other countries have trigger fingers to shoot just like us, Americans. They have good and bad tempers like us, they have sane and insane people like us, they also have lots of black people and drug prohibitions also, yet, they do not have a gun problem. Only we do. What is the difference between us: lots of guns. It's called a clue.
> > Do people really NEED to shoot prairie dogs and other varmint? One of the
> > usual excuses of why guns are essential.
> It's not about hunting. Self defense is a natural human right, thus the right to
> keep and bear arms is also natural human right.
>
I love America, but let us call a spade a spade. What are the chances that on guns all other civilized countries are wrong and we are right? The only thing that could made us right and they wrong is the clear results of such unique access to guns. But results speak for themselves, no need to elaborate.
>
> That sure worked out well in Uvalde Texas, amiright? Where the cops sat outside the
> school for over 40mins while the killer had free reign to do whatever he wanted.
>
It may take a couple of centuries for every gun-nut to have a loved one killed by a legal gun, the only effective way to date to change a gun-nut's mind on the subject. Sad but true.
The Horny Goat
Jun 17, 2022, 2:31:35 PM6/17/22
to
unfettered access to guns are causing massive problems especially in
major cities.
It's not as if people are currently dueling with the pistols and
muskets of 1776 after all. The radical increase in firepower have made
them considerably more dangerous and the apparent abandonment of the
militia justification in the Second hasn't brought America the
supposed benefits of widespread firearm availability.
In the 21st century how does America benefit from 'well organized
militias' anyhow? Because clearly the Founding Fathers wouldn't have
instituted anything they felt wouldn't be in the national interest
right?
Ed Stasiak
Jun 17, 2022, 7:40:43 PM6/17/22
to
> tiglath
> > Ed Stasiak
since the early 1990s and this despite a bazillion MORE guns added to
the population.
https://i.postimg.cc/Bbf3mFVD/US-Violent-Crime-1990-2020.png
The obvious truth is that despite ever more Americans owning guns and
now almost all states having “shall issue” CPL laws allowing them to legally
carrying handguns on the street, the murder rate has declined.
If guns were the problem, this would have had the opposite effect.
> When it was written, they were considering muskets and 18th century arms
> technology. Would the venerable authors of the Second Amendment write it
> as it is in our world today?
The Founding Fathers were among the best educated people on the planet and
knew technology had evolved and would continue to do so, yet they made no
specific restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, simply stating that the People
had a right to “arms” (which back then, included cannons).
> And when the public is being slaughtered continually by mass murder enabled
> by legal rapid firing weapons
Except the public isn’t being “continually slaughtered by mass murderers”,
these types of attacks are in fact vanishingly rare and it’s the Mainstream
Media going above and beyond to continually hype the stories, as it feeds
into the gun control agenda.
> If you make the argument that civilians need rifles and pistols to protect
> themselves against the government, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
> This is an historically unneeded protection.
The greatest killers throughout human history have been governments
unrestrained by an armed populace.
> I feel safer in my Tuscany home with a stick behind the door, than I do in
> Virginia with 20 guns in the house.
You’re not seeing the trees for the forest, because the White murder rate in
the U.S. is on-par with Europe (despite bazillions of more guns in the U.S.)
https://i.postimg.cc/XqKbmvRP/Murder-Rates.png
> Do you need any more evidence that THE REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD,
> to see this point? Travel helps.
No need to travel the world to see the differences in murder rates, you can
see that right here in the U.S.
Michigan for example had 567 murders in 2010 but 363 of them (64%) were
Blacks killing other Blacks in the city of Detroit and this despite Detroit only
making up 7.2% of the state’s population and all Michigan residents having
the same access to guns and being subject to the same state and Federal
regulations.
Guns are not and have never been the problem.
> As I said before, dark skin pigmentation DOES NOT induce people to become
> murderers.
Neither did I but there’s no denying the CULTURE of machismo within Black
American society, where young Black guys will whip out a gun at the drop of
a hat.
This is not a problem throughout the U.S. nor does it translate to the need
to disarm all Americans.
> When people face a bleak future because of discrimination, crime becomes
> very tempting, if not the only way out of abject poverty.
And yet in Appalachia, the beyond-a-doubt poorest part of America, (W.Virginia
by the way, has the highest per capita rate of gun ownership in the U.S.) the murder
rate is nowhere even near approaching that of Black-Americans and the same
goes for dirt-poor illegal Mexican migrants in the U.S.
> Homo Sapiens from other countries have trigger fingers to shoot just like us,
> Americans. They have good and bad tempers like us, they have sane and insane
> people like us, they also have lots of black people and drug prohibitions also,
> yet, they do not have a gun problem.
In the UK just as in the U.S., crime of all sorts is overwhelmingly concentrated
in predominantly non-White areas regardless of economic and educational
conditions.
> Rights are a man-made thing. No such thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights
> I love America, but let us call a spade a spade. What are the chances that on
> guns all other civilized countries are wrong and we are right?
The Swiss have shitloads of guns, including straight-up military assault rifles
_issued by the government to the people_ yet their murder rate is minuscule.
If guns were the problem, why isn’t the U.S. murder rate more or less equal
throughout the U.S.? In fact, why don’t the states with the highest percentage
of gun ownership also have the highest murder rates?
https://i.postimg.cc/FHH4CNDP/US-Gun-Ownership.jpg
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > Which is the entire point of the right to keep & bear arms.
>
> > Which is the entire point of the right to keep & bear arms.
>
> Reasonable people admit that the Second Amendment needs amending
> because of obvious truths.
I see nothing reasonable about it. The murder rate has been in decline
> because of obvious truths.
since the early 1990s and this despite a bazillion MORE guns added to
the population.
https://i.postimg.cc/Bbf3mFVD/US-Violent-Crime-1990-2020.png
The obvious truth is that despite ever more Americans owning guns and
now almost all states having “shall issue” CPL laws allowing them to legally
carrying handguns on the street, the murder rate has declined.
If guns were the problem, this would have had the opposite effect.
> When it was written, they were considering muskets and 18th century arms
> technology. Would the venerable authors of the Second Amendment write it
> as it is in our world today?
knew technology had evolved and would continue to do so, yet they made no
specific restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, simply stating that the People
had a right to “arms” (which back then, included cannons).
> And when the public is being slaughtered continually by mass murder enabled
> by legal rapid firing weapons
these types of attacks are in fact vanishingly rare and it’s the Mainstream
Media going above and beyond to continually hype the stories, as it feeds
into the gun control agenda.
> If you make the argument that civilians need rifles and pistols to protect
> themselves against the government, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
> This is an historically unneeded protection.
unrestrained by an armed populace.
> I feel safer in my Tuscany home with a stick behind the door, than I do in
> Virginia with 20 guns in the house.
the U.S. is on-par with Europe (despite bazillions of more guns in the U.S.)
https://i.postimg.cc/XqKbmvRP/Murder-Rates.png
> Do you need any more evidence that THE REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD,
> to see this point? Travel helps.
see that right here in the U.S.
Michigan for example had 567 murders in 2010 but 363 of them (64%) were
Blacks killing other Blacks in the city of Detroit and this despite Detroit only
making up 7.2% of the state’s population and all Michigan residents having
the same access to guns and being subject to the same state and Federal
regulations.
Guns are not and have never been the problem.
> As I said before, dark skin pigmentation DOES NOT induce people to become
> murderers.
American society, where young Black guys will whip out a gun at the drop of
a hat.
This is not a problem throughout the U.S. nor does it translate to the need
to disarm all Americans.
> When people face a bleak future because of discrimination, crime becomes
> very tempting, if not the only way out of abject poverty.
by the way, has the highest per capita rate of gun ownership in the U.S.) the murder
rate is nowhere even near approaching that of Black-Americans and the same
goes for dirt-poor illegal Mexican migrants in the U.S.
> Homo Sapiens from other countries have trigger fingers to shoot just like us,
> Americans. They have good and bad tempers like us, they have sane and insane
> people like us, they also have lots of black people and drug prohibitions also,
> yet, they do not have a gun problem.
in predominantly non-White areas regardless of economic and educational
conditions.
> Rights are a man-made thing. No such thing.
> I love America, but let us call a spade a spade. What are the chances that on
> guns all other civilized countries are wrong and we are right?
_issued by the government to the people_ yet their murder rate is minuscule.
If guns were the problem, why isn’t the U.S. murder rate more or less equal
throughout the U.S.? In fact, why don’t the states with the highest percentage
of gun ownership also have the highest murder rates?
https://i.postimg.cc/FHH4CNDP/US-Gun-Ownership.jpg
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Tiglath
Jun 18, 2022, 2:05:57 AM6/18/22
to
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 7:40:43 PM UTC-4, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> > tiglath
> > tiglath
> > Rights are a man-made thing. No such thing.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights
You should read the references you post.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights
The first and foremost definition of the word 'natural' is:
"Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."
Therefore, rights given by nature as opposed to given by humankind don't exist. If they did, a smart man like you would be able to enumerate them.
Can you?
Rights are moral or legal entitlements to have or obtain something, and that does not describe any part of nature, biology or the physical laws.
The other meaning of 'natural' is 'according to custom,' which has nothing to do with nature. In that sense, there are certainly many rights according to custom, and all can be denied (alienable), because they are abstract human concepts under our control, not the control of nature. In that sense and only in that sense, it can be natural to bear arms, because it's been in the culture a long time. But that is not what you meant, I think.
The belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment is always something that can be challenged. Some kings believed they had a natural right to a bride's first night, and the concept was open to challenge.
You cannot challenge nature and natural things. Xerxes and Caligula tried and whipped the sea.
The Constitution's "self-evident truth that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is just a piece of wishful thinking, no less that a belief in benevolent gods.
It''s a well-intention lie/inaccuracy, an untrue belief of great utilitarian value and the more people who respect it the more beneficial. But nature has NOTHING to do with it, including the right to bear arms, sorry. No such right in nature., in fact, nature bestows no rights at all, according to the definition of the word.
People misuse words all the time for good and bad purposes. "Natural," "divine," sacred," are some of the the words people use to persuade others. Nothing more. We all do it, as did philosophers and politicians since antiquity. It doesn't matter who says it, saying something man-made is natural, doesn't make it so, and never will.
Today Lavrov said that Russia didn't invade Ukraine, and went on to misuse other words too. Break a leg.
One needs to be aware of these things, to sort the grain from the straw, lest one be swept by any charlatan that saunters by.
I have nothing more to say about guns. Thank you for your replies.
Surreyman
Jun 18, 2022, 4:12:46 AM6/18/22
to
Massively detailed "logical" arguments from both sides.
For what it's worth, from a Brit who has much visited and loves (most of!) USA life ...
So many USites of all ethnics, ages etc. have the cowboy complex - it's as simple as that.
It's an endearing (maybe necessary) trait that has driven much of USA history and dynamics.
It covers guns, attitudes to central powers, defence of property, go-get materialism, ever-ready hospitality and generosity (well, often!) ... well, you carry on the list.
You'll never lose it. You probably shouldn't lose it. But it means continued gun ownership - and the continuation of all those other allied traits, good and bad.
I love yer, folks, but there are some wrong bits, as with us all! :-))
Tiglath
Jun 18, 2022, 11:37:51 AM6/18/22
to
On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 4:12:46 AM UTC-4, Surreyman wrote:
> On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 7:05:57 AM UTC+1, te...@tiglath.net wrote:
> > On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 7:40:43 PM UTC-4, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> Here we go again .....
> Massively detailed "logical" arguments from both sides.
And without insults, would you believe?
> On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 7:05:57 AM UTC+1, te...@tiglath.net wrote:
> > On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 7:40:43 PM UTC-4, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> Here we go again .....
> Massively detailed "logical" arguments from both sides.
We beat Tweeter here every day, except when some motherfucker or other insists in Tweeterizing a thread.
> For what it's worth, from a Brit who has much visited and loves (most of!) USA life ...
>
> So many USites of all ethnics, ages etc. have the cowboy complex - it's as simple as that.
>
> It's an endearing (maybe necessary) trait that has driven much of USA history and dynamics.
> It covers guns, attitudes to central powers, defence of property, go-get materialism, ever-ready hospitality and generosity (well, often!) ... well, you carry on the list.
>
> You'll never lose it. You probably shouldn't lose it. But it means continued gun ownership - and the continuation of all those other allied traits, good and bad.
>
> I love yer, folks, but there are some wrong bits, as with us all! :-))
The fact that natural rights do not exist, flows from the definitions of the two words with utmost clarity. In addition...
IF, according to the Wiki reference, natural rights are those NOT conferred by any legal system, country, or culture, THEN the right to bear arms cannot be a natural right, because it is given by precisely that, the American legal system. If the right was obtainable directly from nature, it wouldn't need to be included in our constitution.
That is not only "logical" but also logical.
I am not sure we won't, or shouldn't, lose the cowboy mentality. Italy lost its thirst for gladiatorial games, and adopted soccer instead, a much less cruel past-time (unless you get hit in the face by the football when someone kicks a corner... that is... I have.) Spain's centuries-old bullfighting tradition will soon become a memory. Spanish regions are banning the practice. Progress will eventually make guns in civil hands obsolete, but we need a couple of centuries, I reckon. Gun owners alive today can relax. Anything Congress does on the issue is just ass-covering action with negligible effects on the gun problem.
Ed Stasiak
Jun 20, 2022, 3:02:46 PM6/20/22
to
> tiglath
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights
to protect yourself from an attacker and any man-made legislation
which denies that natural right, is automatically invalid.
Now _enforcing_ this natural right is another story...
> The Constitution's "self-evident truth that all men are endowed by their
> Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is just a piece of wishful
> thinking, no less that a belief in benevolent gods.
So you've now gone off the deep end and we have _no_ rights at all?
> I have nothing more to say about guns. Thank you for your replies.
In that case, I graciously accept your surrender on this issue.
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights
>
> Therefore, rights given by nature as opposed to given by humankind don't
> exist. If they did, a smart man like you would be able to enumerate them.
>
> Can you?
Sure; you have a natural right to defend yourself, it cannot be "illegal"
> Therefore, rights given by nature as opposed to given by humankind don't
> exist. If they did, a smart man like you would be able to enumerate them.
>
> Can you?
to protect yourself from an attacker and any man-made legislation
which denies that natural right, is automatically invalid.
Now _enforcing_ this natural right is another story...
> The Constitution's "self-evident truth that all men are endowed by their
> Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is just a piece of wishful
> thinking, no less that a belief in benevolent gods.
> I have nothing more to say about guns. Thank you for your replies.
Tiglath
Jun 20, 2022, 6:38:37 PM6/20/22
to
On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 3:02:46 PM UTC-4, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> > tiglath
> > > Ed Stasiak
> > tiglath
> > Therefore, rights given by nature as opposed to given by humankind don't
> > exist. If they did, a smart man like you would be able to enumerate them.
> >
> > Can you?
> Sure; you have a natural right to defend yourself,
That is not a right any more than running away cowardly is a right. It's an action compelled by the fight/flight reflex and the survival instinct. You can choose to fight or run. They are feasible choices, not rights. Learn the difference.
The semantics of "right" are given in its definition. I've given it already.
At what point does nature give you such right, before or after birth?
Before or after 18 years-old? If you new what a natural right was, you could give such details.
> it cannot be "illegal"
It certainly can. It depends on how and what you defend yourself with. Try stealing a cop's gun to defend yourself when he hits you with his baton to test your theory.
> In that case, I graciously accept your surrender on this issue.
YOU WIN, I LOSE.
Tiglath
Jun 20, 2022, 9:55:55 PM6/20/22
to
The questions Ed raises are quite interesting and if you know a law or philosophy student, they can give you the full monty.
Moral justification of our actions stem from need and ability. Let us remember that it is logical to argue from the general to the particular, but not the other way around.
Individually, you do something because you can or need to. But once people live together, tribes, countries and societies discover that it is a bad idea to let individuals exercise every ability or satisfy every need, and arguably, certain particular abilities must be prohibited and certain needs repressed for the common good.
Here are some silly but real examples of things that are morally justified IN GENERAL, but illegal or immoral in PARTICULAR cases.
You NEED to eat. But you can't have a meal in a restaurant and stiff the waiter.
You NEED to drink. But you cannot steal a six-pack from the liquor store.
You NEED to breath. But you cannot rip the oxygen tank off the back of another diver.
You NEED to defend yourself. But you cannot do it in ways highly risky to by-standers.
You NEED to fuck. But you can't rape.
You have the ABILITY to reach out and grab that heavenly ass. But if you do, you'll be committing a crime.
...
Self-defense comes under this banner, you may need to defend yourself to survive, and that is enough to make it morally justifiable IN GENERAL, but not in every particular case. Ed is correct, individuals should not be prevented from defending themselves if they need to, whether they are able to do so or not, but only IN GENERAL.
But that is not what Ed is really arguing. He argues a PARTICULAR case of self-defense - with a FIREARM.
A firearm it's not like a fist to punch or a foot to kick, it is a particular human contraption made for a single lethal purpose, and societies are free to attach to their use PARTICULAR considerations according to the effects of its use on society. (And if you are a prize fighter or a karate expert your fists and feet, yet again, merit additional consideration if you harm others with them outside sports.)
But what you cannot do is argue from the PARTICULAR case that because firearms may be prohibited, it means that you are prevented to defend yourself IN GENERAL. Full stop. That is incorrect. It means that you are unable to defend yourself WITH CERTAIN FIREARMS ONLY. There are millions other ways to defend yourself that are still permitted.
Therefore, the argument that we can't defend ourselves if guns for self-defense are prohibited is completely bogus. It's a fallacious instance of arguing from the particular to the general. You'll be laughed at by polite and educated company each time you make that argument.
And I repeat. Ed should read his own references.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights
[MY CAPS]
"NATURAL RIGHTS are those that are NOT DEPENDENT on the laws or customs OF ANY particular culture or GOVERNMENT, and so are universal, [...] Natural law is the law of natural rights."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights
Don't take my word for it, Ed, YOUR REFERENCE tells you that the 2nd Amendment IS NOT a natural right, because it depends on the LAWS OF A GOVERNMENT.
(I don't expect you to admit it, though, so relax).
Furthermore, on NATURAL LAW...
"The foundation for natural law as a consistent system was laid by Aquinas, as he synthesized ideas from his predecessors and condensed them into his "Lex Naturalis". St. Thomas argues that because human beings have reason, and because reason is a spark of the divine, all human lives are sacred and of infinite value compared to any created object, meaning all humans are fundamentally equal and bestowed with an intrinsic basic set of rights that no human can remove."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
As you can see Natural Law has nothing to do with nature, but it is of religious provenance. Which is the same as saying is man-made. Divine, sacred, "natural", is all in the same vein, and it contradicts the first definition of 'natural,' which I already stated. In short, if it's man-made it's not natural.
"All human lives are sacred and of infinite value," is the big clue. Is nature acting in that spirit, you think?
A big wind blows from A to B in a hurry, and thousands of people die in hurricanes. The Earth bowels fart, and the Vesuvius blankets whole towns in 800 degrees ash. Sacred?
I see only two options. Are you religious or naive?
Peter Jason
Jun 20, 2022, 11:30:39 PM6/20/22
to
On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 18:55:53 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>
>The questions Ed raises are quite interesting and if you know a law or philosophy student, they can give you the full monty.
>
>Moral justification of our actions stem from need and ability. Let us remember that it is logical to argue from the general to the particular, but not the other way around.
>
>Individually, you do something because you can or need to. But once people live together, tribes, countries and societies discover that it is a bad idea to let individuals exercise every ability or satisfy every need, and arguably, certain particular abilities must be prohibited and certain needs repressed for the common good.
>
>Here are some silly but real examples of things that are morally justified IN GENERAL, but illegal or immoral in PARTICULAR cases.
>
>You NEED to eat. But you can't have a meal in a restaurant and stiff the waiter.
No? Students do it all the time.
asphyxiation.
>You have the ABILITY to reach out and grab that heavenly ass. But if you do, you'll be committing a crime.
Only if it's a boy's.
Are you happy?
wrote:
>
>The questions Ed raises are quite interesting and if you know a law or philosophy student, they can give you the full monty.
>
>Moral justification of our actions stem from need and ability. Let us remember that it is logical to argue from the general to the particular, but not the other way around.
>
>Individually, you do something because you can or need to. But once people live together, tribes, countries and societies discover that it is a bad idea to let individuals exercise every ability or satisfy every need, and arguably, certain particular abilities must be prohibited and certain needs repressed for the common good.
>
>Here are some silly but real examples of things that are morally justified IN GENERAL, but illegal or immoral in PARTICULAR cases.
>
>You NEED to eat. But you can't have a meal in a restaurant and stiff the waiter.
>You NEED to drink. But you cannot steal a six-pack from the liquor store.
See above.
>You NEED to breath. But you cannot rip the oxygen tank off the back of another diver.
Oxygen? Nightclubs have fumes and fog. And there's always autoerotic
asphyxiation.
>You NEED to defend yourself. But you cannot do it in ways highly risky to by-standers.
Target practice improves the odds.
>You NEED to fuck. But you can't rape.
Tell that to my girlfriend. I have been tied up!
>You have the ABILITY to reach out and grab that heavenly ass. But if you do, you'll be committing a crime.
>...
>
>Self-defense comes under this banner, you may need to defend yourself to survive, and that is enough to make it morally justifiable IN GENERAL, but not in every particular case. Ed is correct, individuals should not be prevented from defending themselves if they need to, whether they are able to do so or not, but only IN GENERAL.
>
>But that is not what Ed is really arguing. He argues a PARTICULAR case of self-defense - with a FIREARM.
>
>A firearm it's not like a fist to punch or a foot to kick, it is a particular human contraption made for a single lethal purpose, and societies are free to attach to their use PARTICULAR considerations according to the effects of its use on society. (And if you are a prize fighter or a karate expert your fists and feet, yet again, merit additional consideration if you harm others with them outside sports.)
>
>But what you cannot do is argue from the PARTICULAR case that because firearms may be prohibited, it means that you are prevented to defend yourself IN GENERAL. Full stop. That is incorrect. It means that you are unable to defend yourself WITH CERTAIN FIREARMS ONLY. There are millions other ways to defend yourself that are still permitted.
>
>Therefore, the argument that we can't defend ourselves if guns for self-defense are prohibited is completely bogus. It's a fallacious instance of arguing from the particular to the general. You'll be laughed at by polite and educated company each time you make that argument.
>
>And I repeat. Ed should read his own references.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights
>
>[MY CAPS]
>"NATURAL RIGHTS are those that are NOT DEPENDENT on the laws or customs OF ANY particular culture or GOVERNMENT, and so are universal, [...] Natural law is the law of natural rights."
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights
>
>Don't take my word for it, Ed, YOUR REFERENCE tells you that the 2nd Amendment IS NOT a natural right, because it depends on the LAWS OF A GOVERNMENT.
>
>(I don't expect you to admit it, though, so relax).
>
>Furthermore, on NATURAL LAW...
>
>"The foundation for natural law as a consistent system was laid by Aquinas, as he synthesized ideas from his predecessors and condensed them into his "Lex Naturalis". St. Thomas argues that because human beings have reason, and because reason is a spark of the divine, all human lives are sacred and of infinite value compared to any created object, meaning all humans are fundamentally equal and bestowed with an intrinsic basic set of rights that no human can remove."
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
>
>As you can see Natural Law has nothing to do with nature, but it is of religious provenance. Which is the same as saying is man-made. Divine, sacred, "natural", is all in the same vein, and it contradicts the first definition of 'natural,' which I already stated. In short, if it's man-made it's not natural.
>
>"All human lives are sacred and of infinite value," is the big clue. Is nature acting in that spirit, you think?
>
>A big wind blows from A to B in a hurry, and thousands of people die in hurricanes. The Earth bowels fart, and the Vesuvius blankets whole towns in 800 degrees ash. Sacred?
>
>I see only two options. Are you religious or naive?
>
>
The true universal question is....
>
>Self-defense comes under this banner, you may need to defend yourself to survive, and that is enough to make it morally justifiable IN GENERAL, but not in every particular case. Ed is correct, individuals should not be prevented from defending themselves if they need to, whether they are able to do so or not, but only IN GENERAL.
>
>But that is not what Ed is really arguing. He argues a PARTICULAR case of self-defense - with a FIREARM.
>
>A firearm it's not like a fist to punch or a foot to kick, it is a particular human contraption made for a single lethal purpose, and societies are free to attach to their use PARTICULAR considerations according to the effects of its use on society. (And if you are a prize fighter or a karate expert your fists and feet, yet again, merit additional consideration if you harm others with them outside sports.)
>
>But what you cannot do is argue from the PARTICULAR case that because firearms may be prohibited, it means that you are prevented to defend yourself IN GENERAL. Full stop. That is incorrect. It means that you are unable to defend yourself WITH CERTAIN FIREARMS ONLY. There are millions other ways to defend yourself that are still permitted.
>
>Therefore, the argument that we can't defend ourselves if guns for self-defense are prohibited is completely bogus. It's a fallacious instance of arguing from the particular to the general. You'll be laughed at by polite and educated company each time you make that argument.
>
>And I repeat. Ed should read his own references.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights
>
>[MY CAPS]
>"NATURAL RIGHTS are those that are NOT DEPENDENT on the laws or customs OF ANY particular culture or GOVERNMENT, and so are universal, [...] Natural law is the law of natural rights."
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights
>
>Don't take my word for it, Ed, YOUR REFERENCE tells you that the 2nd Amendment IS NOT a natural right, because it depends on the LAWS OF A GOVERNMENT.
>
>(I don't expect you to admit it, though, so relax).
>
>Furthermore, on NATURAL LAW...
>
>"The foundation for natural law as a consistent system was laid by Aquinas, as he synthesized ideas from his predecessors and condensed them into his "Lex Naturalis". St. Thomas argues that because human beings have reason, and because reason is a spark of the divine, all human lives are sacred and of infinite value compared to any created object, meaning all humans are fundamentally equal and bestowed with an intrinsic basic set of rights that no human can remove."
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
>
>As you can see Natural Law has nothing to do with nature, but it is of religious provenance. Which is the same as saying is man-made. Divine, sacred, "natural", is all in the same vein, and it contradicts the first definition of 'natural,' which I already stated. In short, if it's man-made it's not natural.
>
>"All human lives are sacred and of infinite value," is the big clue. Is nature acting in that spirit, you think?
>
>A big wind blows from A to B in a hurry, and thousands of people die in hurricanes. The Earth bowels fart, and the Vesuvius blankets whole towns in 800 degrees ash. Sacred?
>
>I see only two options. Are you religious or naive?
>
>
Are you happy?
Tiglath
Jun 21, 2022, 10:53:38 AM6/21/22
to
On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 11:30:39 PM UTC-4, Peter Jason wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 18:55:53 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 18:55:53 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
> >You NEED to fuck. But you can't rape.
> Tell that to my girlfriend. I have been tied up!
You have a girlfriend?
> Tell that to my girlfriend. I have been tied up!
> >You have the ABILITY to reach out and grab that heavenly ass. But if you do, you'll be committing a crime.
> Only if it's a boy's.
> >
> >I see only two options. Are you religious or naive?
> >
> >
> The true universal question is....
> Are you happy?
Tiglath
Jun 24, 2022, 2:45:07 PM6/24/22
to
If to be safer is what you want, sell your guns and get a SECOND seat belt.
This is a curious statistic:
"According to the NHTSA, approximately 3 million injuries and 40 thousand fatalities are reported each year from seat belts that fail to perform as expected during motor vehicle collisions."
https://www.unionlawfirm.com/2019/11/08/seat-belt-failure-how-does-it-happen/
The total number of annual violent crimes in the US hovers around 1.2 million.
If you are not in the illegal drug trade, your are concerned with a much smaller number, cut that number by about 25% at least.
It means that if you have a gun at home to defend yourself against intruders, there is a 99% ++ chance that your guns will succumb to rust before you get a violent attack in your home.
There are more than a million burglaries in the US annually, but burglars are not stupid, they operate in the day time when nobody is in your home. Your guns are useless against this type of robbery, because you won't be there.
A much smaller number will concern actual home invasions, as opposed to burglaries, when people are up and about or asleep at home, the only time your guns may, or may not, help the situation - no guarantees.
Add to that the number of muggins, where you get surprised in the street by a mugger who comes from behind and hold a knife to your throat, or has the drop on you, both examples of the risk of resisting even if you are packing a gun.
Therefore, as far as the avoidance of risk of death and grievous injury, the odds and wisdom point to getting that SECOND SEAT BELT, before you get a gun.
I don't hear gun aficionados citing safety concerns ever mentioning this, which means that safety has as much to do with the 2nd Amendment as freedom had to do with the Gulf War of 1991.
There are certainly cases when persons have defended themselves successfully with a gun, but I fear they are statistically insignificant in relation to the amount of guns bought for the purpose of self-defense, and the benefits of that SECOND (or third) seat belt.
This is a curious statistic:
"According to the NHTSA, approximately 3 million injuries and 40 thousand fatalities are reported each year from seat belts that fail to perform as expected during motor vehicle collisions."
https://www.unionlawfirm.com/2019/11/08/seat-belt-failure-how-does-it-happen/
The total number of annual violent crimes in the US hovers around 1.2 million.
If you are not in the illegal drug trade, your are concerned with a much smaller number, cut that number by about 25% at least.
It means that if you have a gun at home to defend yourself against intruders, there is a 99% ++ chance that your guns will succumb to rust before you get a violent attack in your home.
There are more than a million burglaries in the US annually, but burglars are not stupid, they operate in the day time when nobody is in your home. Your guns are useless against this type of robbery, because you won't be there.
A much smaller number will concern actual home invasions, as opposed to burglaries, when people are up and about or asleep at home, the only time your guns may, or may not, help the situation - no guarantees.
Add to that the number of muggins, where you get surprised in the street by a mugger who comes from behind and hold a knife to your throat, or has the drop on you, both examples of the risk of resisting even if you are packing a gun.
Therefore, as far as the avoidance of risk of death and grievous injury, the odds and wisdom point to getting that SECOND SEAT BELT, before you get a gun.
I don't hear gun aficionados citing safety concerns ever mentioning this, which means that safety has as much to do with the 2nd Amendment as freedom had to do with the Gulf War of 1991.
There are certainly cases when persons have defended themselves successfully with a gun, but I fear they are statistically insignificant in relation to the amount of guns bought for the purpose of self-defense, and the benefits of that SECOND (or third) seat belt.
Ed Stasiak
Jun 26, 2022, 9:34:18 AM6/26/22
to
> tiglath
there are _at least_ 200,000 incidents of defensive gun use per year in the US,
with the NRA claiming it's more like 2 million.
Again, if "more guns = more crime!" as the anti-gun fundies have insisted for
decades, why aren't we seeing that?
https://i.postimg.cc/Bbf3mFVD/US-Violent-Crime-1990-2020.png
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/10/08/number-of-concealed-carry-permits-surge-past-21-5-million/
8 Oct 2021
Number of Concealed Carry Permits Surge Past 21.5 Million
Data released by the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) show that the number
of concealed carry permits in America has now surpassed 21.5 million.
The CPRC study shows the exact number of concealed permits is over 21.52 million,
which is a "48% increase since 2016."
Moreover, the current number of permits represents "a 10.5% increase over the number
of permits [CPRC] counted a year ago in 2020."
Yahoo News noted that the number of concealed carry permits increased by "a record
two million last year," surpassing the previous yearly record of increase by 200,000.
Alabama leads the Union in the rate of concealed carry permits, with over 32 percent
of Alabama’s adult population being permitted to carry. Indiana is second with a rate
of nearly 22 percent of adults being permitted, and Iowa is third with a rate of 16.5%.
The CPRC researchers noted that the continued growth of constitutional carry means
there is an increasing, and unknown, number of law-abiding Americans who carry guns
each day for self-defense apart from the cumbersome process of being permitted.
The CPRC explained:
"As more and more states decide not to require permits, the number of people who can
legally carry a handgun will increasingly outpace the number of permit holders. The
number of people who carry permitted concealed handguns is clearly related to the
cost of getting permission. When there is no cost whatsoever, concealed carry becomes
very popular."
On June 16, 2021, Breitbart News observed that Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed legislation
making Texas the 21st constitutional carry state. The other 20 states are Alaska, Arizona,
Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New
Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West
Virginia, and Wyoming.
>
> There are certainly cases when persons have defended themselves successfully with a gun,
> but I fear they are statistically insignificant in relation to the amount of guns bought for the
> purpose of self-defense, and the benefits of that SECOND (or third) seat belt.
Absolute nonsense. Even the virulently anti-gun Brady Group grudgingly admits
> There are certainly cases when persons have defended themselves successfully with a gun,
> but I fear they are statistically insignificant in relation to the amount of guns bought for the
> purpose of self-defense, and the benefits of that SECOND (or third) seat belt.
there are _at least_ 200,000 incidents of defensive gun use per year in the US,
with the NRA claiming it's more like 2 million.
Again, if "more guns = more crime!" as the anti-gun fundies have insisted for
decades, why aren't we seeing that?
https://i.postimg.cc/Bbf3mFVD/US-Violent-Crime-1990-2020.png
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/10/08/number-of-concealed-carry-permits-surge-past-21-5-million/
8 Oct 2021
Number of Concealed Carry Permits Surge Past 21.5 Million
Data released by the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) show that the number
of concealed carry permits in America has now surpassed 21.5 million.
The CPRC study shows the exact number of concealed permits is over 21.52 million,
which is a "48% increase since 2016."
Moreover, the current number of permits represents "a 10.5% increase over the number
of permits [CPRC] counted a year ago in 2020."
Yahoo News noted that the number of concealed carry permits increased by "a record
two million last year," surpassing the previous yearly record of increase by 200,000.
Alabama leads the Union in the rate of concealed carry permits, with over 32 percent
of Alabama’s adult population being permitted to carry. Indiana is second with a rate
of nearly 22 percent of adults being permitted, and Iowa is third with a rate of 16.5%.
The CPRC researchers noted that the continued growth of constitutional carry means
there is an increasing, and unknown, number of law-abiding Americans who carry guns
each day for self-defense apart from the cumbersome process of being permitted.
The CPRC explained:
"As more and more states decide not to require permits, the number of people who can
legally carry a handgun will increasingly outpace the number of permit holders. The
number of people who carry permitted concealed handguns is clearly related to the
cost of getting permission. When there is no cost whatsoever, concealed carry becomes
very popular."
On June 16, 2021, Breitbart News observed that Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed legislation
making Texas the 21st constitutional carry state. The other 20 states are Alaska, Arizona,
Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New
Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West
Virginia, and Wyoming.
Tiglath
Jun 27, 2022, 9:16:37 PM6/27/22
to
On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 9:34:18 AM UTC-4, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> > tiglath
> >
What happened to you? You used to be able to make a decent argument.
> > tiglath
> >
Quoting Breibart and the NRA on gun statistics is like quoting the Vatican on the question of the existence of God.
I am open to persuasion, but this is an insult to human intelligence.
There are now TWO reasons for the world to look down on the US, abortion and guns.
Civilized nations correctly see a people so convinced that they are right, in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence, that makes us a favorite party joke.
I travel with a non-American passport for security reasons, but now it is also to avoid embarrassment.
You see, I love America enough to rebuke it for its glaring mistakes and self-destructing anachronisms, and I'd love to be part of the solution, but there isn't one. This thread gives details.
Ed Stasiak
Jul 4, 2022, 5:19:42 PM7/4/22
to
> tiglath
>
> What happened to you? You used to be able to make a decent argument.
What happened to _ME_? I've countered all your purely emotional
>
> What happened to you? You used to be able to make a decent argument.
arguments with facts, statistics and common sense (none of which
you've been able to refute) showing you're simply wrong on this issue,
an issue YOU used to support but for some reason ever since Trump
was president, you've changed your tune.
0 new messages