Warren Redlich: ‘Why They Hate Rifles’

Editorial by IPR owner Warren Redlich. While some other IPR writers agree others may not.

In the wake of the Parkland school shooting the gun control leadership is going all out to ban modern rifles like the AR-15. It might seem completely irrational if you pay attention to facts, logic and public policy. But it makes sense if you understand their real motivation.

Let’s be clear who I’m talking about. I don’t mean your nice neighbor who’s upset about the shootings and has fallen for the incessant propaganda about the AR-15 magical demon gun. It’s the motivation of those behind the movement and the propaganda that are the focus of this article.

I should mention that third parties come into play on this issue. The Green Party supports banning so-called assault weapons, while the Libertarian Party generally opposes government restrictions of any kind.

The insiders’ focus on rifles makes no sense from a public policy standpoint. Rifles are rarely used in crimes. If banning guns actually saved lives the first type of gun they would focus on would be handguns, which are used to kill at least 20 times as many people as rifles. Don’t forget that the Virginia Tech shooter killed 33 people with two relatively low-power pistols.

Propaganda is extremely effective. I frequently see otherwise intelligent people make absurd statements like that the AR-15 shoots at a much higher rate than a regular handgun. Only a very brief amount of thought dispels this nonsense. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle. It fires one bullet for every pull of the trigger. The most common handguns, Glocks and 1911s, are also semi-automatic and fire one bullet for every pull of the trigger.

The AR-15 does not make the shooter’s finger faster.

Part of the programmed messaging from the propagandists is the notion that the AR-15 is an automatic military rifle, a weapon of war, designed to kill large numbers of innocent people. There’s so much wrong with this.

The AR-15 is a downgrade from the true M-16 and M-4 military rifles to which it bears some similarity. Unlike those actual military rifles the AR-15 has no automatic fire capability. One pull of the trigger gets you one shot. That’s it. There’s no burst mode. It can’t go full auto where you hold the trigger down and it keeps firing.

No military in the world uses the AR-15 rifle. It has never been used in war.

The AR-15 is not designed to kill civilians at all. The main idea behind these rifles was for battlefield circumstances. The term “assault rifle” has nothing to do with assaulting a person. It comes from the German for “storm rifle” because this type of rifle was used to storm, or assault, a battlefield position.

The underlying reason why insiders hate the AR-15 and other rifles has nothing to do with crime or school shootings. The main advantage of rifles in general over pistols and shotguns is range.

Most people can make hit a head-sized target with a good rifle at 100 yards with just a few hours of training and practice. After a couple days of training that shooter can make head shots at 200 yards and head-and-torso shots at 400 yards.

Pistols are far less accurate. While competitive shooters do better, most average shooters with substantial experience struggle to hit torso targets consistently at 50 yards. Even 25 yards can be difficult for some. Shotguns do little better than pistols but 100 yards is about as far as most shooters go with them and with buckshot and birdshot 50-75 yards is about the limit of effective range.

So the key distinguishing feature of rifles is their accuracy and effectiveness at distance. That makes it harder for a battlefield enemy to advance on your position. This, of course, has little value in most mass shootings where the victims are often well within 25 yards of the shooter.

That gets to why the insiders hate such rifles. Their true distinguishing role in history is that they shift the balance of power away from big government. As Wired Magazine put it about the AR’s rival AK-47:

The AK … has fundamentally rewritten the rules of modern warfare, giving bands of moderately skilled fighters with few other resources the power to take on, and defeat, some of the best-resourced armies in the world.

The propagandists and their victims scoff that we could never defend ourselves against the full force of the US military with mere rifles. But of course that is exactly what happened in Vietnam and continues to happen in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other parts of the world.

Any state military can take on opponents armed with mere handguns and shotguns because the government riflemen can make precision shots from 100 yards without fear from the short ranged weapons left in the hands of the populace. But when the people have rifles and can hit targets at 400 yards or more, it becomes far harder to subdue them.

If they do take away our modern semi-auto rifles, their next grab will be for long-range rifles like those that shoot .50 BMG and .338 Lapua. A well trained marksman with the right rifle can kill a target at 1000 yards or even farther. In such a world it’s very difficult for governments to keep tyrants (and their minions and cronies) safe. The AR-15 can hit targets at that distance but loses about 90% of its relatively low energy (among rifles) so it can hit but generally won’t kill.

The propagandists will scoff that our government would never come for us. Pay no attention to the history behind the curtain, democides by governments, or the government conspiracies to attack our own people. Don’t worry about their massive government debts and money printing binges. They’ll tell you it can’t happen here.

They’re right – as long as we have modern rifles. And that’s why they want to take them.

167 thoughts on “Warren Redlich: ‘Why They Hate Rifles’

  1. robert capozzi

    dL,

    Yes, a conspiracy is being alluded to here, and yet no effort is made to identify the conspirators.

    Strikes me that there are weapons that are unacceptably inherently dangerous, and therefore are not worthy of 2A protections. WMD come to mind.

    Automatic weapons have long been all-but-banned, and I don’t hear many calling for their re-legalization. Should they be?

    Should rapid-fire semi-automatic weapons have the same 2A protections as the most basic hand gun? Should bump stocks? I don’t know.

    It doesn’t seem to be an unreasonable question.

  2. paulie

    Automatic weapons have long been all-but-banned, and I don’t hear many calling for their re-legalization. Should they be?

    Of course.

  3. DJ

    I thought before reading the comments the article was preaching to the choir. I guess not.

    RC: Yes, a conspiracy is being alluded to here, and yet no effort is made to identify the conspirators.

    Me: Moron,snow fake leftists and their handlers/promoters. Their handlers are the control freaks of the world many of whom reside here, many in the form of talking heads, pundits, leftist (American model) politicians and comedians who believe themselves smart and those who look to all the afore mentioned for intellectual discourse. They don’t mind telling others what they believe is best because they ‘feel’ as though they’re morally superior- that means anyone who feels they have a moral directive, or a nefarious one, both are sinister and out of line, morally and intellectually.

    RC: Strikes me that there are weapons that are unacceptably inherently dangerous, and therefore are not worthy of 2A protections. WMD come to mind.

    Me: Why? BTW, any weapon can be used for mass destruction- including propaganda.

    RC: Automatic weapons have long been all-but-banned, and I don’t hear many calling for their re-legalization. Should they be?

    Me: Yes.

    RC: Should rapid-fire semi-automatic weapons have the same 2A protections as the most basic hand gun? Should bump stocks? I don’t know.

    Me: Yes.

    RC: It doesn’t seem to be an unreasonable question.

    Me: “shall not be infringed.” Plain. Simple. English.
    No one, including you, or snow flake morons has the right, nor are they entitled, to tell another what he needs,never mind what he wants.
    Needs are, air, water, food, clothing and shelter.
    All else is want/desire.
    Why would any ‘thinking’ person deny another the right to choose?
    That is the question that needs answering.

    Maybe we need to ban cars. Baseball bats, knives, fists, feet, rocks, beer bottles, bath tubs, swimming pools, tractors, trucks, motorcycles, 4 wheelers, race cars, airplanes, hear attacks, the flu, HIV, pneumonia, aneurysm’s, poison, etc. I’ve got an idea, let’s make crimes illegal. Make gun free zones.

    When authorities lay down their weapons, then civilians ‘might’ think about it. Maybe the snow flake morons will hold their breath waiting.

  4. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Yes, I recall that you look forward to the day when half of all subway riders have a machine gun in their laps.

    Very Thunderdome….

  5. paulie

    You shouldn’t confuse Hollywood screenwriters’ vision of how something would play out with how it actually would. I saw a 60 Minutes segment about how most men and even underage boys walk around with full automatics and even shoulder fired missile launchers in Peshawar and crime is virtually non-existent. High rates of automatic weapon ownership also don’t appear to have caused any massive crime waves in Switzerland or Israel.

    Also contrary to Hollywood portrayals, violent gun crime was not endemic in the “Wild West” either, nor in general in the US before alcohol prohibition (and even then, it was only a few well publicized bank robberies and shootouts among gangsters fighting for control of an alcohol market because disputes could not be settled legally and peacefully as with normal business). It’s not like any significant percentage of crimes were ever committed with automatic weapons before or after they were made illegal.

    Subways should be privatized and their owners could then decide on what sorts of gun policies to have on their property.

  6. dL

    Yes, a conspiracy is being alluded to here, and yet no effort is made to identify the conspirators.

    I’m just not exactly clear who the “insiders” are on this issue. Redlich alluded to the Green Party; is the Green Party part of the insider establishment? I’m not sure insider/outsider is the right way to understand the conspiratorial dynamics of the issue.

    Automatic weapons have long been all-but-banned, and I don’t hear many calling for their re-legalization. Should they be?

    Well, they haven’t been banned. The manufacture and sale of automatic weapons is still entirely legal. I could scrounge up a long list of automatic weapons manufacturers. Of course, the “client base” for these weapons are usually the military and police. And I hear very few, if any, calling for the complete prohibition on the manufacture of such weapons. I certainly haven’t heard you call for it.

    The Gun control debate is not a debate about gun prohibition. It is basically two sides promoting slightly different versions of necropower, i.e., the self-appointed power and capacity to dictate who may live and who may die.

    The conservative tripe about guns as a bulwark against government tyranny might have a bit more credibility if the conservatives simultaneously weren’t advocates of trillion dollar military budgets and unqualified police immunity. The libertarian approach, or at least what I would call the libertarian approach, is just a bit more consistent: (1) refer to “gun control” as victim disarmament of the weak (2) attack the “state of exception” premise, i.e, the state is that exceptional entity that is the exception to the structure of law and decides on the exception.

    I’m a bit skeptical of that Wired piece that forms much of the underlying basis of Redlich’s essay . The game changer vis a vis insurgencies overcoming the occupation of a superior military power is still basically the same: external state support. Vietnam and Afghan I were US-Soviet proxy wars. The US supplied game changing weapon in Afghan I was certainly not an automatic rifle…it was the stinger surface to air missiles.

    I’m cynical enough to proffer that if the US military faced a home grown insurgency, it would arm the insurgents. That’s basically what it is more or less doing now.

  7. dL

    Very Thunderdome….

    Actually, The Road Warrior is a pretty good argument for military disarmament, given that the franchise blames the depicted post apocalyptic world on a mindless US-Soviet war.

  8. dL

    “There are those that just wish to be left alone… and there are those that just won’t leave them alone. Which one are you?”

    “Those that just won’t leave them alone” is much too an inclusive category for “insider status.” Not a ton of outsiders with that definition.

  9. robert capozzi

    pf: High rates of automatic weapon ownership also don’t appear to have caused any massive crime waves in Switzerland or Israel.

    me: My quick research indicates that automatic weapons cannot be bought like milk in either “nation,” (aka, territory held by a particular gang, to use NAPster framing).

    Please double check your statement.

    If it’s objectively true that domestic tranquility would be maximized by recognizing 2A protection for ANY AND ALL weapons, then perhaps the LP should make that explicit (kind of again) in its platform. Perhaps any candidate or officer of any affiliate state party should be required to explicitly embrace the most unrestrictive arms position in order to either run for office or manage a state party or be on the LNC.

    The only ad that Kokesh 2020 should produce could have the candidate in a rail car filled with people toting machine guns. He can vociferously call for repeal of the National Firearms Act of 1934. He might mention the repeal of age of consent laws; legalize third-trimester abortions on demand; demand abolition of the armed services, the FDA, and of course the federal government.

    Why not?

    Hold high the banner! If these positions are objectively divinable implications of the self-evidently true NAP, put them out there! Why pussyfoot around with half-measures?

  10. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Note that if a military person possesses an automatic weapon, that’s not “ownership” from a NAPster perspective. Governments don’t “own” things, they steal them, right?

  11. DJ

    RC: My quick research indicates that automatic weapons cannot be bought like milk in either “nation,” (aka, territory held by a particular gang, to use NAPster framing).

    Me: They can’t be bought like milk here. What’s your point?

    “shall not be infringed”. Plain. Simple. English.

    Pseudo intellectuals using emotional reasoning to sell controlling others is intellectually dishonest.
    Using straw man arguments trying to enhance a pseudo intellectual argument is intellectually dishonest.
    Intellectual dishonesty is at the heart of pseudo intellectual rhetoric.

    And that is ALL this bullshit is. A few loudmouthed bone heads claiming their 15 min of fame with intellectually dishonest, emotional rhetoric, pushed by kids, bullshit.

  12. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    I take it you are a Yes, repeal the National Firearms Act of 1934.

    Do you think it should be the #1 issue for LP candidates for federal office?

  13. paulie

    My quick research indicates that automatic weapons cannot be bought like milk in either “nation,” (aka, territory held by a particular gang, to use NAPster framing).

    Please double check your statement.

    Nothing to check, as I made no such claim. I said they are widely available, ie present in many homes as well as public locations. It’s true that they are made available in conjunction with military training, but that training is pretty universal in those countries and presumably there are other family members in many of those homes who could theoretically gain access to the weapons and ammunition present there. For a place where they can be bought like milk, Peshawar is an example, and not much crime there either.

    If it’s objectively true that domestic tranquility would be maximized by recognizing 2A protection for ANY AND ALL weapons,

    A reasonable case could be made that it would not be maximized by weapons which are incapable of being individually targeted, but the cure (an organization with a monopoly on such weapons) could still be worse than the disease.

    perhaps the LP should make that explicit (kind of again) in its platform.

    Perhaps it should, but for the moment I will accept the omissions plank, the statement of principles and the Dallas accord as sufficient. Personally I tend to glaze over a bit getting down in the platform nitty gritty muck (bylaws even more so). I’m OK with a directional approach to the platform too.

    Perhaps any candidate or officer of any affiliate state party should be required to explicitly embrace the most unrestrictive arms position in order to either run for office or manage a state party or be on the LNC.

    I think that would be too narrow of an appeal for a political party even though it’s my personal preference for candidates, affiliates and officers to take that position. On the other hand, I’d like to see the party have a better immunity system against nominating candidates with the views Bill Weld expressed on the issue and continued to express as the nominee. At least the latter part should have been prevented as a condition of nomination, much as the LP back in the day made Ron Paul promise not to emphasize his abortion restrictionist views as a condition of nomination.

    Another reasonable suggestion I’ve seen is to require anyone who speaks for the party as a candidate or party officer to emphasize that any of their views which go directly against the party’s general position on any issue are at odds with the party’s. That would still leave room for such people to be nominated while not creating the confusion that their personal positions reflect the party’s.

    The only ad that Kokesh 2020 should produce could have the candidate in a rail car filled with people toting machine guns. He can vociferously call for repeal of the National Firearms Act of 1934. He might mention the repeal of age of consent laws; legalize third-trimester abortions on demand; demand abolition of the armed services, the FDA, and of course the federal government.

    Why not?

    Dunno. Does he have that kind of ad budget? Sounds like a lot of props just to make that ad.

  14. paulie

    Note that if a military person possesses an automatic weapon, that’s not “ownership” from a NAPster perspective. Governments don’t “own” things, they steal them, right?

    That’s right, but so what? If those military personnel have those weapons at home along with other family members they are still widely available regardless of what you, me or anyone else thinks about how ownership is or should be defined.

  15. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    As for “emotional reasoning,” I would like to hear more about what you mean by this term. It strikes me that the concept of “self evident truths” has to have an emotional component to it. It feels right, or somesuch.

    Was 2A drafted with no emotional component? Or was it like the solution to a math problem? Was God in the room in 1787, dictating the draft to the conventioneers?

    Definitely want to hear more….

  16. robert capozzi

    pf: Dallas accord

    me: Hmm, one hears about this, but I’ve never actually seen such a thing.

    Perhaps you simply mean what Harlos calls the “depth charges” in the Bylaws and the 7/8ths rule?

  17. robert capozzi

    dj: “shall not be infringed”. Plain. Simple. English.

    me: True. “Arms,” however, were not defined, and “bear” did not specific where such bear-ing could take place. In your opinion, would a person have 2A protections to shop in Walmart with a dirty-bomb in a briefcase? It is, after all, a weapon that the person is bear-ing.

  18. robert capozzi

    pf: Another reasonable suggestion I’ve seen is to require anyone who speaks for the party as a candidate or party officer to emphasize that any of their views which go directly against the party’s general position on any issue are at odds with the party’s.

    me: While you are the most thoughtful NAPster I know, I don’t find this to be practical. Every interview, every utterance, by a L candidate would potentially have to be clarified, “I believe this about that, but the LP platform has a different take.”

    That severely hampers the messaging, I submit.

  19. DJ

    RC: As for “emotional reasoning,” I would like to hear more about what you mean by this term.

    Me: Feeling, not intellect.

    RC: It strikes me that the concept of “self evident truths” has to have an emotional component to it. It feels right, or somesuch.

    Me: True, sorta, except that Truth is constant while emotions, like knowledge, evolve.

    RC: Was 2A drafted with no emotional component? Or was it like the solution to a math problem? Was God in the room in 1787, dictating the draft to the conventioneers?

    Me: Immaterial.

    RC: Definitely want to hear more….

    Me: shall not be infringed. That is an intellectual statement, backed emotionally.

  20. DJ

    RC: True. “Arms,” however, were not defined, and “bear” did not specific where such bear-ing could take place. In your opinion, would a person have 2A protections to shop in Walmart with a dirty-bomb in a briefcase? It is, after all, a weapon that the person is bear-ing.

    Me: True, and at the same time, “shall not be infringed” leaves no room for argument.
    The extremist straw man dirty bomb in Walmart in a brief case is just that.

  21. robert capozzi

    dj: Truth is constant while emotions, like knowledge, evolve.

    me: There’s yang in that yin. I buy the notion that truth is constant (I’d add eternal as well). And, yes, emotions and knowledge are not constant. However, you claim that it’s “immaterial” whether 2A is emotional at least in part, too.

    “Shall not be infringed” is pretty freaking clear, but you refuse to engage on WHAT shall not be infringed. The right to keep and bear tortoises?

    The “right” to bear a dirty bomb on private property is not intended to be a straw man, just an extreme example. It’s my process…testing the extremes in my stumbling toward ever-elusive truth. It’s frustrating, I know, but I’ve never happened upon a truer, more effective, process. 😉

  22. DJ

    RC: I take it you are a Yes, repeal the National Firearms Act of 1934.

    Me: Yep.

    RC: Do you think it should be the #1 issue for LP candidates for federal office?

    Me: Don’t care. If the Party decides it’s worth the effort, or attention, so be it. If they don’t, so be it.

    I’ve stated, more than once, The Declaration of Independence should be the major ideology of ALL Party’s. “Issues” for one aren’t issues for another. ALL “issues” can be resolved with the federal gov’t doing it’s job as designed- keeping it’s nose out of civilian lives. The ‘only’ federal crime should be when a federal employee is involved. All others are states “issues”. State constitutions are supposed to be in line with the federal constitution- “shall not be infringed”, there are no caveats.

    Now, do I favor open carry? No…. at the same time I don’t favor a militarized police force either and they open carry, so why can’t civilians? Cops are not special. They have no more right to defend themselves than a civilian does. Their job, according to the Black robed idiots held in supremacy, is not to protect- so why do they have open carry weapons and actual combat arms and equipment? Inquiring minds want to know. Inquiring mind denotes an intellectual bent- emotional minds fore-go their intellect and demand only “special” people should have “arms”, i.e., police.

  23. robert capozzi

    dj: Inquiring minds want to know. Inquiring mind denotes an intellectual bent- emotional minds fore-go their intellect and demand only “special” people should have “arms”, i.e., police.

    me: I have a different perspective. Inquiring and emotional minds can AND DO have a wide range of viewpoints on various issues. There’s a lot of evidence that all minds do both in a vacillating manner. There’s even some evidence that the emotional part of the mind makes most if not all decisions, and the inquiring mind rationalizes those decisions ex-post.

    On some level, all decisions are emotional. If there were a truly objective means to say 2+2=4, but that result felt really off, I wonder how many would cling to the putatively objective truth? Happily, for most, both the inquiring and emotional mind are OK with basic math.

  24. DJ

    RC: “Shall not be infringed” is pretty freaking clear, but you refuse to engage on WHAT shall not be infringed. The right to keep and bear tortoises?

    Me: This is about the 2nd amendment, right? Or, was the subject changed? If so I didn’t I didn’t see it.

    RC: The “right” to bear a dirty bomb on private property is not intended to be a straw man, just an extreme example. It’s my process…testing the extremes in my stumbling toward ever-elusive truth. It’s frustrating, I know, but I’ve never happened upon a truer, more effective, process.

    Me: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Extreme is extreme, regardless of a stated intent. But, I’m more of the, yes it is intentional school, especially when an emotional argument/discussion is taking place. The “Truth” is; No one has the right to tell another what his choices are, in any situation, unless that other is threatening or has harmed the one he’s telling. At that point, all bets are off, and the federal gov’t was not ‘given’ that authority (choice making) for civilians- the fed gov’t’s role is clearly out lined in the rules meant to keep it out of civilian lives. The most important is free speech, the second most important is the recognition that civilians have the right to defend themselves, and others if necessary and that “right” “shall not be infringed” by a gov’t entity, the fed gov’t in particular in this discussion.

  25. robert capozzi

    dJ: Don’t care. If the Party decides it’s worth the effort, or attention, so be it. If they don’t, so be it.

    me: Not caring whether the LP pushes for re-legalization of machine guns is admirably transcendent on one level. On another, it is profoundly tone deaf, a kind of willful ignorance of the game of politics.

    It damages the greater purpose of maximizing liberty to EVEN HINT that a political organization or candidate advocates legalizing automatic weapons. Transcend that if you must, but then accept that you are more interested in dreaming about liberty than advancing it.

  26. DJ

    RC: me: I have a different perspective. Inquiring and emotional minds can AND DO have a wide range of viewpoints on various issues. There’s a lot of evidence that all minds do both in a vacillating manner. There’s even some evidence that the emotional part of the mind makes most if not all decisions, and the inquiring mind rationalizes those decisions ex-post.

    On some level, all decisions are emotional. If there were a truly objective means to say 2+2=4, but that result felt really off, I wonder how many would cling to the putatively objective truth? Happily, for most, both the inquiring and emotional mind are OK with basic math.

    Me: On some level anything can be justified with any number of excuses, even telling the unwitting that 2+2 = 5 and that being an authority figure that makes it accurate. Decisions are made with emotion, and carried out with intellect if they are to be successful. Arguing for intellectual discourse with an emotional objective will fail. Conversely, arguing emotionally for an intellectual objective helps it be convincing- therefore, many “feel” presenting their emotions as intellectual discourse is convincing- it ain’t, unless they’re preaching to a choir already convinced their emotions are to be the deciding factor for others not involved in the discussion(s). Gun control advocates, and freaks believe their emotions legitimize their rhetoric- it doesn’t to anyone who is intellectually honest because it does come down to “shall not be infringed” is the law.

  27. robert capozzi

    dj: the second most important is the recognition that civilians have the right to defend themselves,

    me: That may have been the Framers’s view, given the order of the BoR. I’m not sure I would rank them that way, actually. Perhaps the 4th would be a 1st, and so on.

    I certainly believe civilians have the right to defend themselves. Implicit and according to the jurisprudential precedent, proportionality matters quite a bit. If someone slaps you, you don’t have the right to shoot a flamethrower at them, for ex.

    If you have a dirty bomb in your briefcase, I am within my rights to bar your entry.

    And so forth….

    I wish things were as cut-and-dried as you seem to seek them to be. Sadly, they are not so.

  28. DJ

    RC: It damages the greater purpose of maximizing liberty to EVEN HINT that a political organization or candidate advocates legalizing automatic weapons. Transcend that if you must, but then accept that you are more interested in dreaming about liberty than advancing it.

    Me: No sir. I live it. I set an example to those in my circle. I don’t care about ANY Party. I don’t care about any group. I can read. The Constitution clearly states- shall not be infringed. Any politician, or voter who believes differently is welcome to convince me other wise, intellectually. I don’t deal well with emotional bullshit in this discussion.

  29. DJ

    RC: That may have been the Framers’s view, given the order of the BoR. I’m not sure I would rank them that way, actually. Perhaps the 4th would be a 1st, and so on.

    Me: May have? How you or I would rank them is irrelevant. The law is, right?

    RC: I certainly believe civilians have the right to defend themselves. Implicit and according to the jurisprudential precedent, proportionality matters quite a bit.

    Me: Slap me and find out.

    RC: If someone slaps you, you don’t have the right to shoot a flamethrower at them, for ex.
    Me: Sam Colt says differently.

    RC: If you have a dirty bomb in your briefcase, I am within my rights to bar your entry.

    Me: In your space only.

    And so forth….

    RC: I wish things were as cut-and-dried as you seem to seek them to be. Sadly, they are not so.

    I can read and comprehend simple English, sadly not many can and if they can and don’t that’s what’s sad- education, founded in Truth can cure that, over time. There are no immediate fixes.

  30. robert capozzi

    dj: arguing emotionally for an intellectual objective helps it be convincing

    me: Maybe. I’m pretty freaking sure that getting emotional about the need to repeal the law against automatic weapons would be the opposite of “convincing,” unless the goal is to “convince” others that one harbors lunatic ideas.

    Some especially skilled demagogues can get all agitated and persuade the weak-willed to follow their program. This is best done by manipulating their fears rather than appealing to the better angels of our nature. eg: our current president.

  31. robert capozzi

    DJ: I don’t deal well with emotional bullshit in this discussion.

    me: Dripping with emotion vs intellect! 😉

  32. wredlich Post author

    “I’m just not exactly clear who the “insiders” are on this issue. Redlich alluded to the Green Party; is the Green Party part of the insider establishment? ”

    No I was not referring to the Green party as insiders. In my more paranoid moments I might think that the GP and LP are heavily infiltrated by establishment operatives, but I’m only that far gone about 6 1/2 days a week.

    I’m not sure how many Ellsworth Touheys there are these days and who they are exactly but that’s who I mean.

  33. dL

    No I was not referring to the Green party as insiders. In my more paranoid moments I might think that the GP and LP are heavily infiltrated by establishment operatives, but I’m only that far gone about 6 1/2 days a week.

    I think the behavior of the State can be predicted by rational choice methodology; hence, there is no need for conspiracies to explain things. It’s the conspiracy without the conspiracy.

    As I mentioned earlier, I don’t think the Insider/Outsider applies particularly well to gun control. Insider/Outsider==privileged/non-privileged. Who is the ultimate privileged class when it comes to gun control? It’s the police. I’m no fan of the police, but in this instance I can’t say pig organization or the pig lobby is a driving force for gun control.

  34. robert capozzi

    dj: Any politician, or voter who believes differently is welcome to convince me other wise, intellectually. I don’t deal well with emotional bullshit in this discussion.

    me: I am not trying to “convince” you of anything. I am simply trying to establish a baseline for conversation. Before we can start sharing opinions, we need to define our terms. I have not even taken a position on the matter.

    Could that be any fairer?

    In this case, we need to define “arms” and more precisely define where those protected “arms” can be borne with 2A protections. How you consider this endeavor to be “emotional” is not at all clear.

    You keep reciting the “shall not be infringed” clause, and I’ve stipulated that that language is clear. The plain language of the text is silent on the questions I ask.

    Again, I’ve not even taken a position on the matter. On the question of where 2A protected arms can be borne, I am heavily influenced by MN Rothbard and his insight on the question of shouting fire in a theater. 1A protections do not extend this far.

    Rothbard, I’ve come to believe, was wrong on so many issues, so I’m inclined to rather easily let this one go, too. And, yet, I see no holes in this particular argument of his.

  35. DJ

    I don’t care what Rothbard thinks – “I”, and word definition, influence my opinion. Interpretation can’t exist without definition.

    To start with, I didn’t say ‘you’ were trying to convince me of anything. You’re throwing out straw man arguments to play devil’s advocate- or, you believe words don’t have definition. You can dress it any way you choose- but putting lipstick on a pig doesn’t change the fact that a pig is a pig.

    There are a lot of loud mouths in the news right now trying to convince others their beliefs trump my “rights”, as in plural. Once a right is defined by what one can determine for another it becomes a ‘grant’- unalienable rights are not grants, they’re not negotiable. Grants are negotiable and can be taken by whim (emotional outrage, feigned or real).
    Rights are not an opinion. No discussion, base lined or other wise, will change that.

    Arms has a definition. What needs defining is what “right” does anyone have telling another which arm they have the right to protect themselves with. Opinions are interpretations- that is a “right”. Forcing another to abide by it is not. How that arm, any arm, is used can be deemed unsatisfactory- if and when ‘it’ is used to commit a crime. Any rule or law against something is thought policing. There is no crime until another is involved against another without provocation. “It” is singular- not broad brushing and “it” didn’t commit a crime. It was used by a person who ‘chose’ to assault with a tool somebody sees as an opportunity to paint with a broad brush so they can have their 15 min of fame with feigned out rage pretending a moral high ground- because (in this case) NRA- by some it’s because Trump.

    Right now the argument seems to be focused on AR15’s- described as an assault weapons.
    ALL weapons can be used to assault. That is the purpose of a weapon- arms. Most murders are not committed with AR15’s, but ALL murders are assaults- as is defense. Threats of assault are carried out with all manner of tools. AR15’s are called out from looks. Its look assaults sensitivities. Sensitivities are emotions. Emotions have a place- law making is not it.

  36. DJ

    RC: In this case, we need to define “arms” and more precisely define where those protected “arms” can be borne with 2A protections. How you consider this endeavor to be “emotional” is not at all clear.

    Me: Schools are gun free zones are they not? Murder is already illegal, is it not? Property owners can be the decider of where. The fed gov’t isn’t a private property owner. The BoR is rules what the fed gov’t can and can’t do. Period. “shall not be infringed” has no caveats and leaves no room for opinion/interpretation.
    Arguing it is emotion trying to trump intellect.

  37. robert capozzi

    DJ: Arms has a definition.

    me: Stop. Yes, dictionaries have definitions like: “weapon, esp firearms.” If we defer to THAT definition, we are a left with a hazy understanding. Does that mean “nuclear arms” or only “weapons that a person ‘fires’ a projectile through a barrel,” or something else?

    DJ: What needs defining is what “right” does anyone have telling another which arm they have the right to protect themselves with.

    me: You are slipping in a qualifier — whether you realize it or not — of self-protection. Such language is simply NOT in 2A’s text. There is discussion about militia and regulation, but we haven’t even gotten there yet.

    I happen to agree with you that people have the right to self protect.

    I would say that IF the Constitution does not delegate to the government the power to seize nuclear arms, then we need an amendment right quick! How about you?

    DJ: There is no crime until another is involved against another without provocation.

    me: I like the sentiment. Can you imagine that there are arms that are SO inherently dangerous that seizing them is compellingly in the public’s interest, above and beyond any presumed right of mere possession?

    DJ: Right now the argument seems to be focused on AR15’s- described as an assault weapons.
    ALL weapons can be used to assault.

    Me: Agreed. This is propaganda. Or marketing by manufacturers! I am endeavoring to establish a serviceable first principle before tackling the current question of semi-automatic rifles and handguns.

    Without a serviceable first principle, we are at sea, lost in emotion.

  38. DJ

    I’m not slipping in anything.

    RC: I would say that IF the Constitution does not delegate to the government the power to seize nuclear arms, then we need an amendment right quick! How about you?

    Me: No. And no- it doesn’t. Although there is a process for that- feel free to take up the cause- it could be de jour.

    What was it Thomas Jefferson said?
    “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
    ? Thomas Jefferson

    RC: Without a serviceable first principle, we are at sea, lost in emotion.

    Me: Qualifier^^^^^^^^ the first principle has been established- Rights.

    RC: Stop. Yes, dictionaries have definitions like: “weapon, esp firearms.”

    Me: “esp” = qualifier. Though I am glad to see you believe the definition, even though you have chosen to focus on an extreme= straw man- nuclear weapons this time.

    I find it interesting you choose to ignore gun free zones and things already illegal (assault/murder etc). Have you noticed these deterrents don’t stop the perpetrator? Do you wonder why that is? Let’s turn the table; What law do you “feel” would stop murder?
    You seem to want to focus on cherry picked wording on things you think can be interpreted. Interpreted = qualifier. Interpretation can’t exist w/o definition. Rights are inherent. Granting is permission. Permission can be rescinded. Rights are not negotiable. The fed gov’t doesn’t have the best reputation for temporary- it’s history is replete with fed law intervening in private matters based on interpretation by people who pay others to teach them to lie- albeit legally because they subscribe to interpretation trumps definition. Example: One lawyer in particular (Bill Clinton) believes he has the the right to interpret is.

    Nancy Pelosi believes the will of the people mandates whatever she happens to champion on a given day- was she granted that permission or did she misinterpret her job classification?

    Obama is said to be a constitutional lawyer- ??????? Which Constitution did he bother not to read?

    Bush claimed the constitution was just a god damned piece of paper….

    So, tell the class just what law(s) will be just, or adhered to by law breakers? Laws, generally speaking, punish the many for the crimes of the few. What are the words of oath congress critters take when assuming office? Can those words be interpreted to suit their feelings?

  39. robert capozzi

    t: the first principle has been established- Rights.

    me: Sadly, that’s not nearly a complete principle, given my and probably most people’s epistemic requirements. It may well be self-evident TO YOU, but simply exclaiming “RIGHTS” means almost nothing without some operating examples and crisp, widely recognized and understood standards.

    So it seems best to let this conversation end.

    As for gun-free zones, I’ve said previously that the idea of training and arming some teachers has potential. I don’t think that should include automatic weapons, although I make no claims about having firearms expertise.

    I’d hoped to establish a baseline for conversation before addressing your point, but it appears that is not to be.

  40. DJ

    RC: As for gun-free zones, I’ve said previously that the idea of training and arming some teachers has potential. I don’t think that should include automatic weapons, although I make no claims about having firearms expertise.

    Me: Right. What we need is a complete police state ensuring authority figures are the only ones who are capable, while simultaneously brain washing kids into believing they don’t have the “right” to disbelieve, or question authority. Yes, that is where this very slippery slope is leading. Making demands you want from a gov’t ensures (and often insures) that next time it’ll be your turn to cry.

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    RC: I’d hoped to establish a baseline for conversation before addressing your point, but it appears that is not to be.

    Me: Baseline. Law. shall not be infringed. The “right” to bear arms. And you continue to ignore my questions. Instead you want to “qualify” straw man appeal with extremist postulation.
    What law(s) would you think will stop murder? Taking away guns from law abiding citizens? Do you really believe criminals care about law? By definition they don’t.

    RC: Sadly, that’s not nearly a complete principle, given my and probably most people’s epistemic requirements. It may well be self-evident TO YOU, but simply exclaiming “RIGHTS” means almost nothing without some operating examples and crisp, widely recognized and understood standards.

    Me: It is complete and allegedly ensured by law. If “most people” don’t comprehend it then I’d say their education is incomplete and not founded in Truth- which leads us full circle. Education founded in Truth is what will change the course of the dynamic with minimal damage.

    The conversation you’re wanting to have wants me (and those like me) to succumb to your beliefs, and could, conceivably, end badly for those caught unawares.

    BTW, there’s a saying about riding a Harley which could apply here, which I touched on briefly above- “if I have to explain you wouldn’t understand”- which leads me to, I don’t have to explain my rights, to you or anyone else- what is important is; You and everyone else best believe your desire to take my rights will be met with resistance. Forcing your will on another (regardless of intent) is the root of ALL conflict- that is the Truth. And yes, that is what is being attempted, and always ends badly.

  41. robert capozzi

    dj: What we need is a complete police state ensuring authority figures are the only ones who are capable, while simultaneously brain washing kids into believing they don’t have the “right” to disbelieve, or question authority. Yes, that is where this very slippery slope is leading.

    me: I’ve said nothing of the kind. And now you are importing the tangential issue of the unwisdom of public education, a deeply important one that I — in the abstract — am highly sympathetic to a rethink along the lines of separating school and state.

    dj: What law(s) would you think will stop murder? Taking away guns from law abiding citizens? Do you really believe criminals care about law?

    me: Sorry I’ve missed these other tangential questions previously. No, I don’t believe the law against murder stops ALL murder. But I do support the anti-murder laws, don’t you? The law signals what behaviors are unacceptable in a civil society. I do support taking automatic weapons away from civilians if they have them, as well as even deadlier technologies that are unacceptably inherently dangerous. You are on record as saying that you believe 2A protects private automatic weapon ownership, but you have thus far refused to comment on WMD’s status in your mind and reading of 2A. Your reasons escape me, other than you have not thought the issue through sufficiently, and are instead relying on a highly simplistic (as opposed to merely simple and literalistic) interpretation of the Constitution, which itself is a construct designed — putatively, as least — to maintain domestic tranquility.

    As for whether criminals care about the law, I don’t know, mostly because I don’t know any criminals. I wonder how many criminals have automatic weapons…are you familiar with any good stats on the matter? I can’t say I’ve heard about a machine-gun toting in my many decades on this mortal coil. There’s probably been some, of course. Didn’t SCARFACE tote a Tommy? Pacino certainly did! 😉 My sense is that by banning machine guns, machine guns are not a standard weapon of choice for criminals, and that, as Martha Stewart says, is a good thing.

    Now, of course, there WAS the shooting in LV a few months ago. I’m inclined to support banning enabling technologies that make non-automatic weapons into automatics, such as bump stocks reportedly do. Without bump stocks, Stephen Paddock may still have killed many but fewer than he did. Slowing lone nuts down through banning tools which can kill many fast strikes me as a worthwhile enterprise.

    I’m guessing you disagree.

    The law against automatic weapons has generally worked, near as I can tell, and I support it, absent a better argument for their re-legalization.

  42. dL

    In America, private citizens in most states can legally own automatic weapons. You do need a Federal Class III license.

    I believe a III license is a dealer license. If you want to buy, say, a machine gun, you have to go through the ATF rigmarole with a III licensed dealer for the sale and transfer.

  43. dL

    Me: Right. What we need is a complete police state ensuring authority figures are the only ones who are capable, while simultaneously brain washing kids into believing they don’t have the “right” to disbelieve, or question authority. Yes, that is where this very slippery slope is leading. Making demands you want from a gov’t ensures (and often insures) that next time it’ll be your turn to cry.

    Correct. If the result of compulsory education is a school environment so unsafe that it has to be patrolled by armed pigs and teachers, then it is time to terminate that “experiment.” It’s a fucking prison.

  44. robert capozzi

    gp,

    Thanks for the clarification. A way of framing this is that automatic weapons require special requirements, ones that few follow through on. Are these special requirements justified?

    My sense is Yes, they are. Machine guns represent too much of a potential threat to domestic tranquility to be easily available like, say, knives are. This seems mostly a function of the number of deaths and injuries that a person can enact by using automatic weapons.

    So the old saw Guns don’t kill people, people kill people is true, but it misses the point. People die, that’s what bodies do. Our civil society has near unanimity that premature deaths are especially tragic. Purposeful-human-caused deaths are even more tragic. Weapons that cause large numbers of purposeful-human-caused deaths are even more tragic still.

    In response to this prevailing viewpoint, it strikes me as rational to heavily disincentivize ownership of machines that can be used to kill large numbers of people quickly. In this case, for me, the presumption of liberty is swamped by the unacceptable inherent threat of easy access to automatic weapons.

    That that NAP cannot process this concept is more a statement about the limitations of the NAP than the wisdom of the policy. This is NOT to say that the details about how any restrictions might be codified because there are of course many ways to address the fundamental concern about unnecessary premature deaths. We don’t ban automobiles, for example, because most assess that automobiles have great utility, on balance. But we do restrict unacceptably DANGEROUS uses of cars through speed limits and other terms and conditions.

    Guns also have great utility, as well as appealing to our innate sense that we have the right to protect ourselves. Too much of a good thing, however, can be problematic.

  45. DJ

    RC: Too much of a good thing, however, can be problematic.

    Me: Not IF people are properly educated. However, it seems some can’t comprehend a simple statement: “shall not be infringed”- so, they use fear (an emotion) and try to justify their fears with extreme scenarios to try to force others to see it their way- or be punished. So, obviously their education is incomplete. They want ALL to conform to their feelings or be punished- that is at its base, immoral. Yes, restricting many for the actions of a few is punishing.

    They keep repeating the same thing over and over (sometimes with different words) hoping to make others feel the way they do. ALL conflict starts with one (or many) trying to force their will on another (or others).

    RC: I’ve said nothing of the kind. And now you are importing the tangential issue of the unwisdom of public education, a deeply important one that I — in the abstract — am highly sympathetic to a rethink along the lines of separating school and state.

    Me: Putting armed authority figures in the public schools is not in the abstract. It’s what you suggested you believed had some merit. So, is your belief in the abstract? Desensitizing is what happens when something becomes the norm. Nothing abstract about it. It is subtle, but effective.

    RC: Sorry I’ve missed these other tangential questions previously. No, I don’t believe the law against murder stops ALL murder. But I do support the anti-murder laws, don’t you?

    Me: The point is- straight forward. What I support is immaterial and irrelevant. It is ALREADY illegal. Straight forward.

    RC: You are on record as saying that you believe 2A protects private automatic weapon ownership, but you have thus far refused to comment on WMD’s status in your mind and reading of 2A.

    Me: I most certainly have addressed it. ANY weapon can cause mass destruction. That includes fists, feet, baseball bats, knives forks, combs, broken glass, beer bottles, whiskey bottles, ALL wheeled vehicles, incorrectly prescribed medicines, ALL poisons, religion and lies and selling fear to punish the many for the actions of a few. I “fee” there should be a law against that. Don’t you?

    RC: Your reasons escape me, other than you have not thought the issue through sufficiently, and are instead relying on a highly simplistic (as opposed to merely simple and literalistic) interpretation of the Constitution, which itself is a construct designed — putatively, as least — to maintain domestic tranquility.

    Me: The words are “insure domestic tranquility” (FYI) and yes it is simplistic- KISS. Simple> Plain> English- “shall not be infringed.”

    My reasons are one. It is a right- rights are inherent and pre-date the constitution- The Declaration of Independence points out “among these” and the Constitution recognized a few to be left alone by gov’t with rules helping to ensure they remained that way, to “ensure domestic tranquility”. I know you don’t accept that, but that is your problem. It also shows that no matter how many big words you use your education is incomplete and not founded in Truth. It’s founded in opinion based on emotion (feeling) with smart sounding words… it is founded on shifting sand, always evolving/changing/moving- Truth is constant, never changing, solid. I know you don’t like that, and that is your right, and I will defend your right to the death, but it doesn’t mean I have to believe your emotional tangents laced with smart words are any more valid than inherent rights- and I won’t. I believe it immoral to force your will on anyone- which is what you’re doing, using emotion to elicit fear to sell it which makes it no less egregious, and I will defend their right to their beliefs to the death- and when “we the people” are gone, who will defend your rights,and how?

    I just saw this;

    RC: Maybe. I’m pretty freaking sure that getting emotional about the need to repeal the law against automatic weapons would be the opposite of “convincing,” unless the goal is to “convince” others that one harbors lunatic ideas.

    Me: No law should be made based on emotion. They ALL punish the many for the actions of the few. They disrespect the sovereignty of the individual and force the will of a few people to oppress (or punish) those who are not causing harm. “Might” cause harm is thought policing. Period.

    RC: Some especially skilled demagogues can get all agitated and persuade the weak-willed to follow their program. This is best done by manipulating their fears rather than appealing to the better angels of our nature. eg: our current president.

    Me: Yes we’re witnessing it everyday in the news- skilled demagogues in the form of talking heads who have the same incomplete education you have selling with fear to force their will.

    Me: Ah, because Trump- how intellectual. LMFAO.

    RC: As for whether criminals care about the law, I don’t know, mostly because I don’t know any criminals.

    Me: You seem to have great insight into what ‘might’ happen so are you telling us you don’t read the news or watch the talking heads exploding about the latest crimes?

    RC: I wonder how many criminals have automatic weapons…are you familiar with any good stats on the matter?
    Me: You feel you’re full of facts. You tell me. I posited the question about criminals. Or, how about you punish the whole country instead- isn’t that your preferred course?

    RC: Now, of course, there WAS the shooting in LV a few months ago. I’m inclined to support banning enabling technologies that make non-automatic weapons into automatics, such as bump stocks reportedly do. Without bump stocks, Stephen Paddock may still have killed many but fewer than he did. Slowing lone nuts down through banning tools which can kill many fast strikes me as a worthwhile enterprise.

    I’m guessing you disagree.

    Me: Yep. I’ve addressed your fears previously. Repeating them doesn’t change the facts.

  46. wredlich Post author

    “Machine guns represent too much of a potential threat to domestic tranquility to be easily available like, say, knives are. This seems mostly a function of the number of deaths and injuries that a person can enact by using automatic weapons.”

    Machine guns were legal here for much of the time they have been in existence. When the Gatling Gun was introduced it was purchased by private citizens. The NY Times owner used more than one of them to fend off Civil War rioters in 1863.

    https://events.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/harp/0801.html

    “Henry Raymond, owner and editor of The New York Times, averted the rioters with Gatling guns, one of which he manned. The mob, instead, attacked the headquarters of abolitionist Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune until forced to flee by the Brooklyn Police. ”

    Notice the plural “guns”. And notice that those who did not have them were vulnerable to the mob.

    Machine guns are not necessarily more effective at killing large numbers of people. They are effective in warfare as a defensive weapon because they deter enemy troops from coming forward by filling the air with lead. If you want to kill people, aiming one shot at a time is generally more effective than spray and pray.

  47. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    I wish I had your certainty.

    WR,

    Right, it is certainly possible that machine guns would not be viewed as unacceptably inherently dangerous by the most of the population, and that they should be available over the counter. It may well be that citizens have some Creator-endowed right to purchase them. We COULD ask the Creator for Its opinion on the matter, but I’m skeptical that we’d get a reliable answer.

    My sense is that re-legalization is not happening any time soon, as it’s my sense that the vast majority find them to be unacceptably inherently dangerous, however. Do you disagree? If so, do you believe that L candidates and the LP should be advocating FOR re-legalization? Is there a level of potential lethality that you would support the vast majority’s view that there are classes of weapons that there is no “right” to possess?

  48. DJ

    RC: I’m skeptical that we’d get a reliable answer.

    Me: You’re skeptical you’d get the answer you want.

    Moving the goal post doesn’t change the fact(s) as presented. You keep bringing up and back subjects already discussed and use different words when at the core, you, and those like you, want to force your will on others. All your rhetoric is just an excuse- an excuse is just an attempt (often lame) to justify an action, thought, or inaction. No one has the right to force his will on another and is the root of ALL conflict. At that point all bets are off on what tool is available to defend or retaliate or initiate.

    No problem is solved by restricting another’s choices. ALL prohibition sends marketable items under ground making them excessively expensive and more difficult to attain which opens an under ground market where only those not interested in your rights have access.

    My surety is from observation and looking at the big picture of History and not being blinded by rhetoric or emotion. Wars are started by and encouraged continuing using emotion- intellect wins the war, though it may lose a few battles due to demagoguing rhetoric (fancy words for excuses) by those who choose to wallow in their ignorance, unsure of themselves because they are ill educated.

    And I’m not picking on you, necessarily, rather that “abstract” education system, (where you offer arming guards has merit) which has been wrongly trusted, to educate and has failed, miserably. I’ll acknowledge many have been educated as that is simply a passing of knowledge from one to another- it’s not the fault of the educated, while young, but is the fault of those trusted- exacerbated by gov’t intervention and know it all’s who “feel” they know what’s best. They don’t and never have and we are living the results- arguing about rights. Once in the real world, free from the class room, simple observation and reading is all that is needed to see the fallacy’s introduced in education are just that- fallacy’s. That will help with surety.

  49. robert capozzi

    dj: those like you, want to force your will on others.

    me: False.

    Are you a mind reader?

  50. DJ

    RC: me: False.

    Are you a mind reader?

    Me: No, I read. And I don’t subscribe to thought policing, example: Might cause harm.

    In the 8th grade I read 1984- at the time I thought it to be entertaining never dreaming it might actually happen.

    Nineteen Eighty-Four, often published as 1984, is a dystopian novel published in 1949 by English author George Orwell.[2][3] The novel is set in Airstrip One, formerly Great Britain, a province of the superstate Oceania, whose residents are victims of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance and public manipulation. Oceania’s political ideology, euphemistically named English Socialism (shortened to “Ingsoc” in Newspeak, the government’s invented language that will replace English or Oldspeak) is enforced by the privileged, elite Inner Party. Via the “Thought Police”, the Inner Party persecutes individualism and independent thinking, which are regarded as “thoughtcrime

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

    Are you part of the inner party elite? Two can play that game. I thought you wanted to initiate a conversation. What you want is a conversation you can win…. answers you want to hear/see. That’s a one sided conversation usually held with a narrow minded wall.

    Here we are wanting to prevent what might happen and demanding (which encourages force and mind reading) ….. but, you want the gov’t to initiate the force. Make what you fear illegal.

    You earlier brought up suit case/brief case nukes- what next? Make suit cases illegal? Briefcases?

    A polite suggestion- read and absorb the following.

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    Make no mistake- you’re next. All the evidence necessary is all around you-

    More evidence:

    How Many Federal Laws Are There? No One Knows.

    No one knows how many laws there are in the United States. Apparently, no one can count that high.

    They’ve been accumulating, of course, for more than 200 years. When federal laws were first codified in 1927, they fit into a single volume. By the 1980s, there were 50 volumes of more than 23,000 pages.

    And today? Online sources say that no one knows. The Internal Revenue Code alone, first codified in 1874, contains more than 3.4 million words and, if printed 60 lines to the page, is more than 7,500 pages long.

    *****There are about 20,000 laws just governing the use and ownership of guns.*****

    New laws mean new crimes. From the start of 2000 through 2007, Congress had created at least 452 new crimes, so that at that time the total number of Federal crimes exceeded 4,450.

    http://www.kowal.com/?q=How-Many-Federal-Laws-Are-There%3F

  51. robert capozzi

    dj: you want the gov’t to initiate the force.

    me: No, that’s not how I look at the landscape. I look at what is, and I seek to make progress from where we are. Yes, from a NAPster perspective, government initiates force, if one chooses to look at it that way.

    Here’s another to look at things. We have a very large, dysfunctional government. Ideally, I’d like to see it a lot smaller. I would like to see the state’s intrusiveness significantly reduced over time. But in that process, I would want to see domestic tranquility maintained as well as possible.

    If Ls were ever to be consequential, this means accepting state-functions for the foreseeable future. I would want to see strategies advocated that take into account the current state of play and ideas marketed that position Ls as thoughtful, reasonable, positive, and realistic.

    In my judgment, advocating legalizing automatic weapons positions Ls as crazy people. It’s possible that my judgment is incorrect and that there are silent super-majorities who actually want machine guns legalized, but frankly I severely doubt that possibility.

    I also support laws and restrictions against third-term abortions on demand, which some Ls believe that such a law or regulation is also an “initiation of force.” Pro-life Ls might take the opposite view, that the morning-after pill is an “initiation of force.”

    Ditto for age of consent laws. Stringing together several fringey ideas ensures that Ls are not taken seriously except to its tiny base.

    I simply don’t find the NAP to have much, if any, application in the current context. It might decades from now, after the State has been reduced to a fraction of its current size.

    So, in a sense, there are things about the current state of affairs that I accept. One is the near-banning of machine guns, which is reasonably well justified.

    Using the NAP as an easily divined moral right/wrong litmus test is an unworkable model, IMO. Too often, Ls come across as sanctimonious fundamentalists, and recently the charge of “autistic” has been leveled. Perjorative and overstated, but apparently non-empathetic pronouncements delivered robotically is too often closer to accurate for comfort.

    Politics well played, I contend, blends a strong sense of virtue and a flexible pragmatism, with an emphasis on marketing here-and-now solutions that move the dial toward individual liberty and away from state power.

    dj: Make what you fear illegal.

    me: Is it necessary to make it personal? I personally have almost no fear about machine guns or any weapons. I figure, if it’s my time, it’s my time. Indeed, my only fears are for government-created catastrophes, like economic collapse or WWIII.

    I’m offering my perspective on a different path forward. That’s all.

    I thank you to not make it personal, at least with me. It’s not productive, and tends to distract from actual adult conversations, which are my strong preference.

  52. DJ

    Okay- make what others fear illegal. Punish many for the crimes of the few. That is the desire of the loud mouth talking heads, politicians and the kids in school all of whom believe they have some sort of moral high ground that gives them an authority which doesn’t exist- or they want the gov’t to do it for them, because they fear what might happen.

    The above is a change of position from all the previous posts about weapons where ‘you’ wanted (and didn’t address this in the above) to argue rights. Looking at what is is the gov’t initiating force against gun owners of a particular type. That is at least discriminatory. ‘You’ have been advocating for that. ‘You’ questioned nuclear weapons as though they are a part of the landscape. I’ve offered honest, forthright answers to all your questions- yet ‘you’ haven’t offered what you feel the law ought to be. ‘You’ve’ pointed out a perceived problem with no remedy. That isn’t productive since I (and many others) don’t see the problem therefore we can offer no solution. Like I said- perceived problem.
    All the you’s are proxy for-

    Look at it like this; The US is a portrait. The portrait has a few flaws, but instead of wanting to fix the flaws an entire portrait re-do is desired- THAT is a/the problem. The flaws are human error- not the constitution. Respecting the rights of others is not a flaw. There is an incorrect perception that gov’t has the authority to take individual rights away from law abiding citizens because of a perceived problem. That is human error in the form of a lack of education.The Constitution plainly states- shall not be infringed. That is the law for the gov’t. It’s not a grant for the gov’t. It’s a Stop Sign. The gov’t wages war against drugs and poverty- neither has worked out well. (History is a great teacher but lacking completeness in the education system- human error). Neither war is in the purview of a fed gov’t authority- yet, the loud mouths want the gov’t to intervene. Their education is sorely lacking (human error). The words are “promote the general Welfare”- that is not provide for welfare in general. That is human error in the education system, and at this point I’d say it’s an intentional omission.

    Morality cannot be effectively legislated. Laws. Will. Be. Broken. One only needs to look to DC for evidence. The Constitution is THE law for politicians which they take an oath to adhere to- yet, human error, in their education, leads them to believe interpretation trumps definition which is impossible.

    As for ‘your’ contention about Ls- I gave my opinion in another thread of what I believe could be effective, and even pointed out flaws which could be addressed later as opposed to the on going whose dick is bigger arguments. I was ridiculed. That is their problem- it didn’t make their dick any bigger though. I’ve even stated their arguing reminds me of Republicans- which leads to why I refuse Party association of any stripe. “I” am a libertarian. “I” will survive, in spite of, if not to spite the will of the people- that includes Ls. Everyone wants an immediate fix- instant gratification. Everyone. The most effective effort is; Sow seeds. They will bear fruit. It takes time. Instant fruit is plastic and will not provide nourishment, it will only curb the hunger pains. Which seeds to sow? Freedom. Liberty. Justice for all.

    When people recognize that ‘a’ Party represents what they believe they will come. It is that simple. All the flowerdy, esoteric (factions) words are ineffective- minds will follow hearts. People are even ignorantly trusting- they will believe whatever a Party tells them- to wit; the past 100+ years. So, IF the Ls party wants to be effective, they need to broadcast the l belief and stop arguing about the L platform. Freedom. Liberty. Justice for all.

  53. robert capozzi

    dj: The flaws are human error- not the constitution.

    me: Interesting but unsupported assertion. Prove it. Prove that the Constitution is unassailable.

    dj: Respecting the rights of others is not a flaw.

    me: Sounds nice. What are “rights”? Who established them, and by what authority? Show us “rights.”

  54. DJ

    Libertarian platform should be limited to education founded in Truth. Since Truth is no longer recognized, or self evident, it has to start at the beginning- before “apple pie” was a norm.

    All men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights Endowed.

  55. DJ

    dj: The flaws are human error- not the constitution.

    me: Interesting but unsupported assertion. Prove it. Prove that the Constitution is unassailable.

    Me: I’ve never said it was unassailable- I said it isn’t the flaw- human error in not teaching it.

    dj: Respecting the rights of others is not a flaw.

    me: Sounds nice. What are “rights”? Who established them, and by what authority? Show us “rights.”

    Me: Rights are Endowed- inherent. Being born establishes them. Rights are ‘choice’. Why does an authority tell me what my rights are? Authority is “granted”. Who granted an authority the authority to tell another what his choices are? Not the Constitution.

  56. DJ

    And “you” still ignore offering a solution to a perceived problem. Instead you ‘choose’ to establish a cherry picked base line you believe “you” can effectively argue- the reasoning escapes me- except to say, again. “your” education is sorely lacking- and all the you’s are proxy as well as personal. When education isn’t founded in Truth it offers opportunity to disregard the obvious and focus on the made trivial. However, had it been ingrained at an early age this conversation wouldn’t be necessary. Truth is constant, what was true yesterday is true today and will be true tomorrow- all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, Endowed- the most basic is choice in the “among these”.

  57. DJ

    Any adult who ‘chooses’ to defer to an authority is then bound to that authority- except congressional critters of course- most (the law degree holders) paid someone to tell them they have the authority to interpret and not adhere to definition- education not founded in Truth. Education. Seeds sown. Fruit harvested. We are living evidence.

  58. robert capozzi

    dj: Rights are Endowed- inherent. Being born establishes them.

    me: According to whom?

    dj: “your” education is sorely lacking.

    me: Thanks for the feedback. I’ve read Hayek and Lao Tzu and the Federalist papers and Rothbard. What’d I miss?

  59. wredlich Post author

    RC: “it’s my sense that the vast majority find them to be unacceptably inherently dangerous, however. Do you disagree?”

    The vast majority doesn’t know the difference between a 30-06 and a .22LR. Do you?

    In other words, I don’t care what the vast majority thinks. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.

    From the Supreme Court in 1939, US v. Miller:

    “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.”

    In 1939 short barreled shotguns were not ordinary military equipment. But in 1939, as well as today, and as far back as the 1860s, machine guns were ordinary military equipment.

    Side note, as of today some segments of the US military now use shotguns with barrels as short as 14″.

  60. DJ

    me: Thanks for the feedback. I’ve read Hayek and Lao Tzu and the Federalist papers and Rothbard. What’d I miss?

    Me: Asking the questions you ask doesn’t present the picture of a ‘good’ education, when Truth is the discussion. Maybe you should broaden your reading list. Maybe some George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine “quotes”. Personally, I like novels- especially with History or current events as part of the story. The Time it Never Rained is excellent as is In The Spirit of Crazy Horse which is about Leonard Peltier an Indian activist railroaded by the “law”- The Life and Times of David Crockett- Some authors I like; John Sanford- David Baldacci- James Lee Burke- John Grisham- Elmer Kelton- Larry McMurtry- Mike Blakely- Zane Grey- Michael Connelly- Robert B. Parker- C.J. Box- Craig Johnson, to name a few …I also like movies- Lonesome Dove is my all time favorite. Music can be pretty informative as well…. one of my favorite is “You’ve Got to Stand For Something or You’ll Fall For Anything”. My new personal favorite is “I cast No Stones”. Observation is recommended as well. There are many ways to be educated, knowledge isn’t biased where it comes from. Formal is way over rated except in the Sciences where advanced math is the norm. Education is only as good as the user makes it. The “user”. Note the singular. The Individual. Not the will of the people- not a law- not a politician, not an authority figure- but, the user.

  61. DJ

    W: Side note, as of today some segments of the US military now use shotguns with barrels as short as 14?.

    Me: Most cop cars have shotguns as a weapon as well- if not readily handy then in the trunk. And most cops now days are militarized.

  62. robert capozzi

    wr: In other words, I don’t care what the vast majority thinks. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.

    me: I also believe in 2A rights. I have never claimed to be a weapons expert. I am trying to get the theory right for me, at least. Others may or may not be persuaded.

    If the vast majority believed that 2A protects the rights to private nukes, I would think they are making a HUGE mistake. How about you?

    They are “arms,” so a literalistic reading of the words of 2A may elicit what we call “rights” to them, yes?

    I’m certainly not qualified to play jurisprudence games, especially with an attorney, since I’m not one. The Heller case, though, didn’t say that arms rights are unlimited, is my understanding. (Of course, I’m not especially interested in the opinions of the Supremes; I’m more interested in discovering serviceable principles from which to assess real-world dilemmas.)

    From a stare-decisis perspective, I would think that the Heller opinion trumps Miller–but again I’m not an attorney and I’m not sure that jurisprudence is the optimal way to find truth. It probably isn’t, actually, but it’s what we have to work with so I’m OK with employing it on a technical basis.

    Did Heller certify that more lethal weapons like machine guns, bazookas, and nukes have 2A protections? If not, then it seems obvious that the word “arms” can be qualified. If not, why not?

    Regardless, would extending 2A protections to these more-lethal weapons be a good idea?

    I’m biased against, in fairness. I can understand why vast Cmajorities probably agree with me on this matter. “Constitutionalists” may bristle at this concept, but words have elastic meanings, and the Framers were clearly NOT omniscient, so I’m OK with challenging their word’s meanings.

  63. robert capozzi

    dj: Asking the questions you ask doesn’t present the picture of a ‘good’ education, when Truth is the discussion.

    me: Could be. Your reading list is appreciated, though Lao Tzu and Hayek like deeper thinkers to me.

  64. DJ

    RC: Could be. Your reading list is appreciated, though Lao Tzu and Hayek like deeper thinkers to me.

    Me: The list was only partial and lead me to deep thinking…. education isn’t biased where it comes from.

  65. DJ

    This whole argument about the 2nd amendment is puzzling to me. It’s 26, easy to understand words, concluding with the definitive: shall not be infringed. Yet people want to argue about the definition—- deep thinkers indeed. Over thinkers is more like it. Trying to find an excuse to force their will on others by punishing the many for the actions of the few- and being a lawyer is irrelevant. Lawyers pay others to teach them to intentionally misinterpret words as a way of life. Lawyers, nor the entire judiciary has that authority- legally or morally. In fact, I’ll contend that a “vast majority” of the judiciary and law makers choose to act immorally all the time. It’s an ingrained way of life. Yes, I’ve seen the argument ‘words change meaning over time’—– and? Show me in the dictionary where shall, not, be, or infringed has changed meaning. Oh, “arms” nukes, yada, yada, yada. Selling fear to promote an agenda is immoral. Educated beyond intellect- amazing. But hey, what do I know? I’m just an un-formally educated rube that can’t read or think deeply—- LOL….

  66. DJ

    Deep Thinking: Leads to an objective analysis of ALL evidence.

    RC: I’m biased against, in fairness.

    Me: Leads to superficial and subjective analysis.
    “Punish the many for the actions of a few and use fear to sell it”. That is “the objective” goal. It’s not an objective analysis. If it is believed to be, that is intellectual dishonesty. Intellectual dishonesty is a ‘tool’ used to create an illusion of superiority which allows the user to pretend superficiality is legitimate deep thinking. By definition it can’t be. Superficial is the top, the surface, what can be seen- the polar opposite of deep which has to be delved into to see and often requiring light to help. The light is Truth- no one has the authority, morally or legally, to force his will on another regardless of circumstances, i.e., fear of what “might” happen. That is Thought Policing- oh, I forgot to mention, I read 1984 in the 8th grade- possibly before your parents were born. So? I’ve been reading longer than you’ve been alive- gathering evidence along the way- looking “deep” into ALL aspects of human behavior- singularly and collectively- my conclusion? “”I” will survive in spite of if not to spite the will of the people”. Coincidentally, “I” is the first letter in Individual. Individuals have certain unalienable rights, Endowed- inherent. Collectively Individuals defer to an authority figure, bound indefinitely, and are disrespected almost entirely unless/until one becomes more equal which is what happens when superficiality is the norm.

    BTW, don’t forget the movies and music- they’re instrumental in evidence gathering.

  67. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    Yes, I’m big on film and music; in fact, I’ve written a book about film.

    However, it appears that this conversation is not a communication. You continue to deflect and evade.

    It’s very simple. You are talking about the literal words of 2A, without being willing to DEFINE YOUR TERMS. “Nuclear arms” are “arms.” Therefore, it MUST be that you believe they have 2A protections IF you want to read 2A literally, as you claim to do.

    And, yet, you evade and hand wave.

    Unless and until you are willing to answer the question, it seems best to leave this subject alone. It seems pointless. All due respect.

  68. dL

    Yes, I’m big on film and music; in fact, I’ve written a book about film.

    ah, “Reel Vision: Unlocking Metaphysical Meaning in Movies”. Unfortunately, your metaphysical deconstruction of The Matrix is a mumbo jumbo, something that you could probably have gotten away if not for The Matrix Trilogy, which established a much less open-ended interpretation of the franchise.

  69. robert capozzi

    dL,

    Sorry you feel that way. RV is certainly not for everyone.

    I’d hoped to address M2 and M3 in a Vol. 2, and I guess I still do. Whether all three have to be taken as a piece vs individually is an interesting perspective. Could be…not sure. There are many, quite different interpretations of the franchise and its components.

  70. DJ

    RC: However, it appears that this conversation is not a communication. You continue to deflect and evade.

    Me: And “you” still ignore offering a solution to a perceived problem. Instead you ‘choose’ to establish a cherry picked base line you believe “you” can effectively argue.

    RC: It’s very simple. You are talking about the literal words of 2A, without being willing to DEFINE YOUR TERMS. “Nuclear arms” are “arms.” Therefore, it MUST be that you believe they have 2A protections IF you want to read 2A literally, as you claim to do.

    Me: Yes- I’ve addressed Nuclear arms- I asked you about what you want next? Make suit cases illegal? Brief cases? And “you” still ignore offering a solution to a perceived problem. Instead you ‘choose’ to establish a cherry picked base line you believe “you” can effectively argue. I don’t have to define my terms. Arms are arms and you provided a definition- I responded to that post- I’ve responded to your posts about Nuclear arms.

    com·mu·ni·ca·tion
    k??myo?on??k?SH(?)n/
    noun
    noun: communication

    1.
    the imparting or exchanging of information or news.

    RC: However, it appears that this conversation is not a communication.

    Me: I beg to differ, per the definition above. Attempting a one sided conversation like you’re presenting is “lecturing”- it becomes communication when I respond.

    And “you” still ignore offering a solution to a perceived problem.

    Instead you ‘choose’ to establish a cherry picked base line you believe “you” can effectively argue.

    So, tell me why you keep referring to nukes. What do you fear? Why are you not willing to “communicate” on what I’ve asked over and over?

  71. DJ

    RC: Yes, I’m big on film and music; in fact, I’ve written a book about film.

    Me: I’ve written a book on “I”…… film and books were an influence and referenced though not the deciding factors.

  72. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    Sorry, I will answer deflecting questions, at least for the time being.

    No, I cannot imagine a case for banning brief- or suit-cases. They are not in any way inherently dangerous, much less unacceptably so.

    Care to answer the straightforward question now about 2A protections for WMD?

    Answer Yes, and destroy credibility with virtually all of humanity.

    Answer No, and open the door for (the inevitable) interpretation of the text of 2A.

    The Red Pill tells me the answer is No! 😉

  73. DJ

    RC: Sorry, I will answer deflecting questions,

    Me: That’s your opinion. Period.

    RC: Care to answer the straightforward question now about 2A protections for WMD?

    Me: I have addressed WMD- and nuke questions- but, for the record; ANY weapon can cause mass destruction. And you’ve still “deflected” from; What do you fear? And I’ll add, again, why do you “feel” as though you can tell others (or have the gov’t do it for you) what choices they have? Why not ban suit cases? They can house/hide nuclear weapons.

    Oh, a disclaimer: In all “fairness”. I don’t own any semi automatic, or automatic weapons, or shot guns or nukes or chemical poison(s)- except ant and roach killers- and I guess you could class acetone and turpentine as killers- and some spray paint- some super glue.

    My weapon(s) of choice are a 357 Ruger revolver and a 357 Henry lever action rifle. I prefer the up close and personal one shot one kill (without compunction) method so my eyes can be seen- unless I have my sunglasses on.

  74. DJ

    de·flect
    d??flekt/
    verb
    gerund or present participle: deflecting

    cause (something) to change direction by interposing something; turn aside from a straight course.
    “the bullet was deflected harmlessly into the ceiling”
    synonyms: turn aside/away, divert, avert, sidetrack; More
    distract, draw away;
    block, parry, fend off, stave off
    “she wanted to deflect attention from herself”
    (of an object) change direction after hitting something.
    “the ball deflected off his body”
    synonyms: bounce, glance, ricochet, carom; More
    diverge, deviate, veer, swerve, slew
    “the ball deflected off the wall”
    cause (someone) to deviate from an intended purpose
    …………….

    What is ‘your’ intended purpose?

  75. robert capozzi

    dj,

    OK, so a deflection is to not answer a direct question. You do so IMO when you say: “ANY weapon can cause mass destruction. ” You are avoiding the issue. But perhaps I’ve given you too much latitude in how I’ve asked the question before, so let me phrase this so you can only answer Yes or No?

    Do you believe that 2A protects the private ownership of a nuclear weapon?

    Yes or No.

  76. DJ

    RC: Regardless, would extending 2A protections to these more-lethal weapons be a good idea?

    Me: Would limiting an individual’s choice be a good idea? Why?

    RC: I’m biased against, in fairness.

    Me: Obviously.

    RC: I can understand why vast Cmajorities probably agree with me on this matter. “Constitutionalists” may bristle at this concept, but words have elastic meanings, and the Framers were clearly NOT omniscient, so I’m OK with challenging their word’s meanings.

    Me: Then frame a constitution you accept- until the time it is accepted, legally, the one we have doesn’t mention anything about elasticity- in fact, the second amendment leaves no doubt in it’s meaning- shall not be infringed. The one we have has been so distorted due to “elasticity” that the results have led to arguing about is is- or not, depending on the predicament. Predicaments offer caveats- there are NO caveats in the constitution. Do you feel the framers didn’t know what caveats were? Do you feel they weren’t well enough read about History to predict what an unarmed populace will suffer? Notice I didn’t say “might” suffer. History was their guide. Our authority figures (and those who side with their feelings) ignore History- or, if they don’t then they have nefarious intentions. What would those be? Why do they demand punishment for the actions of the few? What is to be gained by that? What was it Ben Franklin said concerning security? What did Thomas Jefferson say? Both were pretty good word smiths…. are you saying you’re smarter than them? Do you believe that promoting the general Welfare should be read providing for welfare in general? Do you believe peace and tranquility can be achieved through oppressive restrictions by an entity? For who? The few or the many?

  77. DJ

    RC: Do you believe that 2A protects the private ownership of a nuclear weapon?

    Me: Yes! How many ways or times do I have to say that?!

    Now, do you believe that just because I own one I’m going to threaten your livelihood? Why?

  78. DJ

    ANY weapon can be used for mass destruction- period. You really need to read, and ABSORB;

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
    ……………….

    Make no mistake, they will come for you.

  79. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    Thanks for answering the question. I’m sorry if I didn’t see an answer from you previously.

    I get that you don’t care what others think, but my sense is that yours is a minority view even among NAPsters, particularly non-constitutionalist NAPsters. Most of them I believe were persuaded by Walter Block’s paper on the issue.

    IIRC, he argued that the inability to point nukes makes possessing them not a natural right. While I buy that as far as it goes, NAPsters should consider thinking through that “point” standard more closely. It requires subjective judgment to discern how precise and how potentially lethal any weapon might be. NAPsterism really can’t produce a hard-and-fast rule for “pointing ability,” in the end.

    I cannot think of a more radioactive position than private nuke “rights,” so I would suggest that any thought system that exclaims such “rights” is almost certain to completely self-marginalize its advocates. If one believes in private nuke rights, ALL positions are likely to rejected by near-unanimous majorities. It might be best for the cause of lessarchy for private nuke absolutists to at least keep their own counsel on the subject.

    This is why I, for ex., am concerned about NAPsters like Chris Cantwell. His high-profile as a alt-right hater does a lot of damage to the greater cause of lessarchism.

    Finally, I’ve already addressed my lack of personal concern on this subject. I’m simply sharing ideas to form a more-perfect union/civil society.

  80. DJ

    RC: I get that you don’t care what others think, but my sense is that yours is a minority view even among NAPsters, particularly non-constitutionalist NAPsters. Most of them I believe were persuaded by Walter Block’s paper on the issue

    Me: You’re absolutely correct. I don’t allow others, groups especially, to think, or speak for me, I don’t care what their political association or status is. I’m okay with being in the minority- “I” will survive. Groups are a dime a dozen and come and go on whims- they evolve, divide amongst themselves and fade away. Truth is constant. “I” have unalienable rights. Groups, or individuals, who disbelieve that are fooling themselves. The “I”ndividual will remain, in spite of, if not to spite the group(s). Morality cannot be effectively legislated, or forced and lord knows it’s not from lack of trying. It can be changed by changing hearts- minds will follow. Those who don’t will pass into obscurity- perhaps through violence- but pass they will- no matter what their intent. Block tries too hard to be intellectual- he’s an economist, right? Numbers are black and white. He’s anarcho-capitalist, right? WTF does that even mean. I’ve read a lot of his letters on Lew Rockwell- seems to me he’s trying too hard to sell essays and books or have others invest their time to read his discourse- why? Why can’t they make their own minds up? Form their own opinions on his opinions.

    A more perfect union/civil society is best achieved by not using force, or coercion with the threat of force or incarceration by legislating others freedoms away, which only makes competition illegal- which means more rules against- which means more criminals- which is a continuous, vicious circle- and prevents a very small contingent- but punishes a majority contingent- preventing union, civil or otherwise.

    This whole gun rights BS is used as a tool to divide and conquer. It’s becoming more effective as more are buying the BS as opposed to thinking- never mind thinking deeply. The chances of an Individual purchasing a nuclear weapon are slim to none- so It’s moot. The US gov’t is the only user, to date- and this conversation is perpetuated by those in gov’t- who will use a nuke as long as they deem it necessary- see Eisenhower’s thoughts on Korea.

  81. Libertydave

    robert capozzi asks the question should nukes should be banned. This is a false and miss leading question designed to induce fear and deflect from the truth.

    When the government bans weapons, the ban never apply to the government. You may trust the government now to be the only people with these weapons but as times change the people in government also change and not always for the good. History has shown us that when the government is the only ones with the weapons they eventually use these weapons against the very people who were disarmed by the weapon bans. And yes, this has happened in the United States. Just ask the Native Americans who were banned guns during the 18th and 19th centuries, the African Americans when they were slaves and then after during jim crow, and the Japanese Americans during WW2.

    So as long as governments are allowed to have these weapons then everyone should be allowed to have these weapons.

  82. dL

    robert capozzi asks the question should nukes should be banned.

    yes, they should be. I’m 100% for nuclear disarmament. The only entities that have them(and the only entities that would ever have them) are states, so that’s where you would start.

    So as long as governments are allowed to have these weapons then everyone should be allowed to have these weapons.

    Nuclear weapons(weapons of mass destruction) are a government invention. They are useless for private defense because the use of such a weapon entails indiscriminate obliteration of you along with whatever you are defending against. The cost to produce them are prohibitive. The only way such a weapon would get into private hands is by way of a black market government cache.

  83. robert capozzi

    LD and dL,

    The notion of worldwide nuclear disarmament sounds grand. But I find it irrelevant to the question at hand, which is whether private proliferation is something that is tolerable. I say No, it’s intolerable.

    Do you see that an advocate of such a right is a showstopper? It rivals Chris Cantwell’s “libertarian racism” stance in terms of credibility-destroying positioning.

    dL may or may not be correct that there would ONLY be nukes but for government, but so what? There IS government, and there ARE nukes. It should be easy to say, “Of course I oppose private nukes.” Wrapped around the axles of a theoretical construct, some Ls are willing to claim a “right” that all-but-ensures severe marginalization.

    I note that dirty bombs could be fabricated without government facilitation. Those too should be illegal.

    What I’m considering is what might be a serviceable standard for private weapon either prohibition or strict licensure. Rallying around the slogan A Stinger Missile in Every Garage is political suicide! 😉

  84. Libertydave

    robert capozzi, a worldwide ban on nukes for everyone, governments included, is very relevant to your question “Should nukes be banned?”.

    My position is the only ethical and moral position. What is illegal for one person should be illegal for a group of people and what is legal for a group of people should be legal for a single person. It doesn’t matter what the group of people call themselves, be it government or gang, when you use force to control what people do it is called slavery.

  85. dL

    The notion of worldwide nuclear disarmament sounds grand. But I find it irrelevant to the question at hand, which is whether private proliferation is something that is tolerable. I say No, it’s intolerable.

    The question is not irrelevant because the only possibility of private proliferation is by government cache. So, I do not think governments building weapons of mass murder is argument for a private market for those weapons, but by the same token, the fact that governments build those abominable things does not discredit the liberal(or libertarian) right to self-defense. Governments having nuclear weapons only demonstrates that the state is an organization of eventual mass extinction. Even when the cold war ended, they wouldn’t get rid of them.

    Rallying around the slogan A Stinger Missile in Every Garage is political suicide!

    Once again, Stinger missiles in private hands is by government cache. Example: the Afghan mujahideen, covertly supplied by the US government to shoot down Soviet helicopters. Stinger missiles are what turned the tide against the Soviet occupation, eventually leading to the Soviet withdrawal in 1980. Unlike nuclear weapons, Stinger missiles could serve an actual self-defensive purpose: combating air superiority of an occupying power. So, a stinger missile in every garage would be means of countering the air superiority of an occupying power, and they almost assuredly be supplied by an external power.

  86. robert capozzi

    dL: The question is not irrelevant because the only possibility of private proliferation is by government cache.

    me: Not the case with dirty bombs.

    Regardless, the government’s cache is the given. Private proliferation is the variable.

    Being for (as DJ and LD are) for private nukes and (as LD seems to be) nuclear disarmament may not technically be inconsistent, it certainly has a strong schizophrenic odor to it.

    It’s a far more fringe view than any I can think of, and I can’t imagine a time-horizon on which it garners anything resembling widespread public support. It’s dorm-room-multiple-bong-hits stuff, which can be fun, but is not politics.

  87. dL

    dL,

    Sorry you feel that way. RV is certainly not for everyone.

    I’d hoped to address M2 and M3 in a Vol. 2, and I guess I still do. Whether all three have to be taken as a piece vs individually is an interesting perspective.

    It’s not open to much interpretation. The Matrix Reloaded was a deconstruction piece, meaning everything you thought about the original movie was wrong.

    Clearly, the Oracle was not a benign program. Not originally. It’s programmatic purpose was to serve as an illusion of choice for a small subset of humans who will wake up from each run of the simulation and pick a leader to populate a new run after the awakened humans and their civilization are exterminated.

    The simulations have to repeat rather than continue over a single iteration because human choice creates a cascading anomalies that eventually grow beyond control of the Architect. The Machines learn from each run of the simulation while the humans start over every time. A iterating system of a more mathematically perfect social control, except for the fact the Oracle at some point changes sides…the machines make choices. When the machines start to make choices, the same anomalous unbalanced equations crop up, but now the implications are machine extinction.

    Neo represents the illusion of choice for human rebellion. Agent Smith represents the consequences of The Oracle’s choice for rebellion against programmatic purpose. The Oracle guides them both to final confrontation. But the real choice between peace and annihilation is given to Neo(humans).

    Pretty cut and dried. A lot of people didn’t like the sequels because they crowded out the more open-ended spiritual speculations of the original. The sequels answered the question: what is the Matrix?

  88. dL

    me: Not the case with dirty bombs.

    A dirty bomb is not a nuclear weapon…

    Being for (as DJ and LD are) for private nukes and (as LD seems to be) nuclear disarmament may not technically be inconsistent, it certainly has a strong schizophrenic odor to it.

    Nuclear disarmament is schizophrenic? Hmm, I think your position demonstrates the extreme sociopathy of someone willing to tolerate(and perhaps even celebrate) the State of Exception(that is, the state’s self-appointed right to decide who lives and who dies) simply to score debate points as a gun grabber.

  89. robert capozzi

    dL,

    No, the position that goes something like this:

    =FOR nuclear disarmament but if that’s not to be, then FOR private nuke rights if states have them=

    feels schizophrenic to me. As a former NAPster, I get that it’s not entirely inconsistent, but I would imagine that those uninitiated with the peculiar thought system would find it odd.

    My tolerance for state power is more a recognition of reality than anything. I certainly support many checks and balances in the meantime, and I accept but yet I oppose the death penalty. I’m certainly open to anarchist experiments, but thus far none have proven especially sustainable. Of course, pretty much anyone COULD go off grid to escape the State, but for me and most, the benefits of living in civil society with a State is preferable to stateless isolation.

  90. DJ

    RC: My tolerance for state power is more a recognition of reality than anything. I certainly support many checks and balances

    Me: The States power was limited, intentionally, by law. A check, if you will. The balance is; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed- by law. THAT is the reality.
    Your perception is your reality. The recognition of does not entitle you (or anyone else) to force anyone else. You’ve not given a compelling argument for restricting citizens. Your reality wishes everyone would see your perceptions as something they aren’t- compelling. The reality is; the State wouldn’t exist w/o the citizens.
    We can carry that further with; this union of states was not the founding of a Nation. It was a coming together to form a Country- unified against a State- Britain in particular. To help ensure the Country could stand against tyranny, locally or from invasion, the Law was ratified by the states representatives with no caveats.
    Another reality is; Millions and millions of words have tried (in vain) to compel. None have been successful. I’ll not ask why. I know the answer so I’ll let you set out a perception.

  91. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    Curious: If you take an absolutist stance on the Constitution for the Federal government, how about the states?

    Your perspective reminds me of constitutionalist NAPsters I’ve encountered through the years. They note that the Constitution didn’t apply to the states at first. After adoption of the Constitution, some states had established religions, for ex., iirc.

    Do you want enforcement practices to go back to, say, those in 1800?

    If so, if RI wanted to ban private nukes today for RIers, would that be OK in your book?

  92. DJ

    States have their own constitutions. If they are contrary to the US Constitution they are not adhering to the agreement of contract. That’s a breach of contract. They also have the authority per the US Constitution to ignore the fed gov’t (nullification) if and when the fed gov’t over steps its authority per the US Constitution. Of course they haven’t but the times they are a changing. (There are several nullification efforts as we speak). The US Constitution plainly states ALL issues not addressed are left to the states. The “issue” we’re talking about is addressed- shall not be infringed- the law for the US. When states signed on, or were admitted into, an oath was taken to defend the US Constitution- it’s a contract absent punishment for failure to adhere. That doesn’t mean it’s legal to do what you want and expect fed support. States can pass laws they want as long as they don’t subvert the US law. RI can do what it wants about nukes, but Tx doesn’t have to abide by it’s law. By law- shall not be infringed is the law of the land. For that matter, RIers could sue the state gov’t in fed court, for breach of contract. Would they? I doubt it. Hell they won’t even nullify the fed reserve- or fed monetary grants in general- but, they could, legally. The books are stacked against them. The SC favors DC- not states. They’re all from the same class.

  93. robert capozzi

    DJ: RI can do what it wants about nukes, but Tx doesn’t have to abide by it’s law. By law- shall not be infringed is the law of the land.

    me: Yes, of course RI cannot dictate terms to TX.

    Otherwise, you seem to be contradicting yourself. OTOH, you are saying it’s OK for RI to ban private nukes in RI. That was interpretation for the first few decades after the Constitution’s adoption.

    OTO, you seem to be saying RI cannot ban private nukes.

    Which is it?

  94. DJ

    I said RI can do what it wants- that doesn’t make it legal-

    The feds ‘shouldn’t’ back them, per the agreement signed. But, since they are an alleged sovereign state they can do what they want.

    States have their own constitutions.

    If they are contrary to the US Constitution they are not adhering to the agreement of contract. That’s a breach of contract. Citizens should stand up for their rights at the sate level.

    They also have the authority per the US Constitution to ignore the fed gov’t (nullification) if and when the fed gov’t over steps its authority per the US Constitution. If they (RI) ignores the contract they are at fault- it doesn’t mean they can’t do what they want. That means they ‘should’ not be backed by the feds in any fashion.

    Of course they haven’t but the times they are a changing. (There are several nullification efforts as we speak).

    The US Constitution plainly states- ALL issues not addressed are left to the states.

    The “issue” we’re talking about is addressed- shall not be infringed- the law for the US.

    When states signed on, or were admitted into, an oath was taken to defend the US Constitution-

    *it’s a contract absent punishment for failure to adhere.*

    That doesn’t mean it’s legal to do what you want and expect fed support. Like I said, there is no punishment assigned- I’ll add, or implied
    As I said above- state citizens have the authority to stand for their rights. They can’t (or shouldn’t be able to) restrict others rights, legally or otherwise. But, in today’s immoral world they may try and even succeed.

    States can pass laws they want as long as they don’t subvert the US law, per the 14th amendment IIRC. *Allegedly I should add.*

    RI can do what it wants about nukes, but Tx doesn’t have to abide by it’s law.

    By law- shall not be infringed is the law of the land.
    If RI decides it doesn’t have to abide by fed law it ‘should’ have to prove in court why it doesn’t have to abide by the contract it signed- or agreed to or affirmed by oath (or whatever method was agreed to) but, courts are stacked against them and will interpret to suit the agenda de jour. Either could, I suppose sue the other depending on the tenacity of the involved at the time- that doesn’t mean it could or would happen- I’d wager it wouldn’t- because (once again) improper education believing interpretation trumps definition- on both sides of the moot point.

    But, for the sake of argument the state, or a citizen of the state, could sue the state or the feds depending on which way the cards fell. But, again, the courts haven’t been favorable to citizens who take the feds to court- courts choose to interpret their version(s) of law- which BTW is not their job- just like it’s not the fed gov’t’s job to tell citizens what they can or cannot do with exceptions noted in the constitution in the arena’s of commerce and trade which is yet another bastardized, intentionally misinterpreted set of words- which leads to what I’ve said for years- no matter what topic is discussed it turns into a bowl of spaghetti with no beginning and no end….. because interpretation trumps definition. And no amount of back and forth will change it in our life time.

  95. DJ

    A validation of my thinking on education- this is from July 2010- it’s also referenced in the book on “I” will Survive, which is not published nor am I looking to have it published. It’s for my descendants.

    America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution

    https://spectator.org/39326_americas-ruling-class-and-perils-revolution/

    Author

    Angelo M. Codevilla

    Angelo M. Codevilla, a professor of international relations at Boston University, a fellow of the Claremont Institute, and a senior editor of The American Spectator, was a Foreign Service officer and served on the staff of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee between 1977 and 1985. He was the principal author of the 1980 presidential transition report on intelligence. He is the author of The Character of Nations: How Politics Makes and Breaks Prosperity, Family, and Civility.
    ……………

    Excerpt:

    Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters — speaking the “in” language — serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America’s ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.
    ……………….

    By 1853, when Sen. John Pettit of Ohio called “all men are created equal” “a self-evident lie,” much of America’s educated class had already absorbed the “scientific” notion (which Darwin only popularized) that man is the product of chance mutation and natural selection of the fittest. Accordingly, by nature, superior men subdue inferior ones as they subdue lower beings or try to improve them as they please. Hence while it pleased the abolitionists to believe in freeing Negroes and improving them, it also pleased them to believe that Southerners had to be punished and reconstructed by force. As the 19th century ended, the educated class’s religious fervor turned to social reform: they were sure that because man is a mere part of evolutionary nature, man could be improved, and that they, the most highly evolved of all, were the improvers.

    Thus began the Progressive Era. When Woodrow Wilson in 1914 was asked “can’t you let anything alone?” he answered with, “I let everything alone that you can show me is not itself moving in the wrong direction, but I am not going to let those things alone that I see are going down-hill.” Wilson spoke for the thousands of well-off Americans who patronized the spas at places like Chautauqua and Lake Mohonk. By such upper-middle-class waters, progressives who imagined themselves the world’s examples and the world’s reformers dreamt big dreams of establishing order, justice, and peace at home and abroad. Neither were they shy about their desire for power. Wilson was the first American statesman to argue that the Founders had done badly by depriving the U.S. government of the power to reshape American society. Nor was Wilson the last to invade a foreign country (Mexico) to “teach [them] to elect good men.”

    World War I and the chaos at home and abroad that followed it discredited the Progressives in the American people’s eyes. Their international schemes had brought blood and promised more. Their domestic management had not improved Americans’ lives, but given them a taste of arbitrary government, including Prohibition. The Progressives, for their part, found it fulfilling to attribute the failure of their schemes to the American people’s backwardness, to something deeply wrong with America. The American people had failed them because democracy in its American form perpetuated the worst in humanity. Thus Progressives began to look down on the masses, to look on themselves as the vanguard, and to look abroad for examples to emulate.

  96. Chuck Moulton

    I have been involved with the LP for more than 15 years and still Robert Capozzi is the only person I have ever seen start a conversation about private nukes. He seems a little obsessed with them. Please don’t feed the trolls.

  97. robert capozzi

    cm,

    Absolutist stances invite extreme examples. WMD are simply the most extreme weapons, and are convenient. Definitely NOT obsessed in any way, but thanks for your concern.

    I am open to other examples. Got any suggestions?

  98. robert capozzi

    more…

    Importantly, we have 2 commenters here who in fact DO believe that there’s a right to private nukes. There IS an element in the LM who hold that view.

    You’d think that THAT fact would trigger a rethink among NAPsters. That the NAP could lead to SUCH a loopy conclusion should be bracing. Instead, it’s somehow shrugged off.

  99. DJ

    RC: Importantly, we have 2 commenters here who in fact DO believe that there’s a right to private nukes.

    Me: There is one here who seems to believe a gov’t whose rule clearly states “shall not be infringed” tries to convince others it can- when that same gov’t is known for many, many, many more deaths than any combination of civilians, with nuclear weapons no less, (and conventional weapons as well in every manner possible pre-emptively especially and false flags and out right lies), the hypocrisy of which is unmatched regardless of the rules intentionally restricting it. All the questions and suppositions and innocent questioning is, I believe, simply a ruse. To gain what I’m not clear- it is vexing to be sure- recognized none the less.
    I suspect others not weighing in lean one way or the other but realize it’s a moot point- the gov’t already has them and the cost is prohibitive and will use them for mass destruction….. to force its will on others, while your questioning uses might as an example, as though that somehow relates to will, which is possible, but highly unlikely- meaning possible but not probable.

    CM: I have been involved with the LP for more than 15 years and still Robert Capozzi is the only person I have ever seen start a conversation about private nukes.

    Me: I don’t mind going toe to toe with extremist theorist, especially when their words clearly lead the opposite direction of their denials. I’m enjoying the back and forth, sorry.

  100. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    I stipulate that only states currently have nukes and that they are expensive. I find both irrelevant.

    It is, rather, a way to illustrate the absurdity of the position that anyone can have any weapon s/he can obtain as a matter of right. You apparently find your position not only not absurd, but unassailable.

    There’s really not much more to say, now is there?

  101. DJ

    There are 2 contestants in the game. (1) the citizen, (2) the gov’t. If you don’t side with the citizen you side with the gov’t. by default. The citizen has rights inherent- the gov’t has authority granted. You tell me who is right. By default you’re siding with the gov’t- but, the government wasn’t granted the authority you, by default, wish it was. I don’t find my opinion absurd, you do. There is a difference. I find my opinion right, based on the ‘facts’ presented- inherent rights vs granted authority. It is that simple- the irrelevance you see is of your own making since you’re the one who broached the subject. I said, “it’s a moot point”- because it’s not likely to happen because cost is prohibitive. It’s not prohibitive to a gov’t because a gov’t has the authority to steal,legally. The gov’t’s job is to protect and defend the constitution, as written, not intentionally misinterpreted to assuage a fear of somebody might. The language about arms is simple and clear. “shall not be infringed”. An absurdity is trying to say it doesn’t say that or that there is a caveat.

    RC: There’s really not much more to say, now is there?

    Me: Like I said above, I enjoy going toe to toe with extremist theorist.
    Especially those who insist might is a reason. Say all you want- but, keep in mind, reason is a sound explanation of an event or thought. Justification is, often as not, an excuse (usually lame) to try to explain an event or thought- an excuse is an attempt to justify an action, a lack of action, or a thought or a lack of thought.

    example: calling facts absurd to be dismissive of Truth when the facts presented clearly prove otherwise… and concluding with; there’s really nothing more to say, now is there?

    You clearly don’t like the facts and don’t believe rights are inherent- by default you believe an entity grants rights or they’re installed on an assembly line- I don’t, and “I” will survive. The entity will fade away or change hands, evolve if you will, though it could be argued it has devolved- why? Because it’s in denial of the Truth. The arrogance and hypocrisy of man knows no boundaries- and why should it? He can change the climate…ROFLMFAO

  102. robert capozzi

    dj: (1) the citizen, (2) the gov’t. If you don’t side with the citizen you side with the gov’t. by default.

    me: I just don’t buy your setup, which is clearly not a “fact.” It’s your interpretation of how the world works.

    On the matter of the machine-guns-to-nukes class of weapons, my sense is that the vast, vast majority of citizens WANT the government to step in and (all but) ban private ownership of these weapons. Their existence is perceived as an unacceptable threat. Government is acting as the citizenry’s agent in these cases.

  103. DJ

    RC: me: I just don’t buy your setup, which is clearly not a “fact.” It’s your interpretation of how the world works.

    Me: No, sadly it works the way you believe it works, (interpretation trumps definition) which restricts your ability to believe the Truth, because your education, formal and self, didn’t include it, which renders it incomplete, therefore ‘subjective’ which doesn’t make it right, albeit legal at times and trying to ‘achieve’ an objective ignoring ‘being’ objective. And achieving an objective is what we’re led to believe is all that matters.

    My belief is; all men are created equal- FACT-were you not borne? FACT-Was the vast, vast majority not borne? FACT- Being borne rights are endowed, not installed on an assembly line. FACT-Authority is granted. FACT- the 2nd amendment has NO caveats. FACT- Grants can be rescinded. FACT- rights can’t. They can only be taken through force or coercion with the threat of incarceration. Force, regardless of the intent, is still force. FACT- Pre-emptive force is thought policing. FACT- “might” is thought policing. FACT- all laws are meant to restrict one over another. FACT- most laws are now just revenue generators. FACT- moral and laws rarely meet. FACT- “I” will survive- long after the group de jour has vanished, regardless of it’s vastness, and you know what else? It will be Individual effort which ensures it.

    RC: On the matter of the machine-guns-to-nukes class of weapons, my sense is that the vast, vast majority of citizens WANT the government to step in and (all but) ban private ownership of these weapons. Their existence is perceived as an unacceptable threat.

    Me: Your sense is? I’d say you’re in tune with the wrong news channel, and keep in mind their agenda is to appeal to certain segments. Their “perception(s)” are not founded in Truth- “all but ban”…… now. The “vast, vast majority”(?) wants to punish the many for actions of the few. It is THAT simple. There are those who believe the gov’t has that authority- or wishes it did- I’ll be nice and just say they’re misinformed. The gov’t’s job is to protect and defend the constitution- FIRST. The secondary job is to ensure one doesn’t have a legal advantage over another in the arena of commerce and trade- hence a representative republic. Why? Because they lived under tyrannical regimes that changed with the wind adversely affecting their commerce and trade. The rules for its actions are spelled out in the Law. We are supposed to be a Country operating under the rule of law- not emotional whims or perceived threats, or “might”- which brings about thought policing. It also begs the question; where did these people go to school? What did their home life offer in the way of education? It certainly wasn’t freedom. And while I’m no fan of the pledge of allegiance what does it say? Liberty and Justice for ALL- no caveats. Imagine that.

    RC; Government is acting as the citizenry’s agent in these cases.

    Me: That’s not in their authority. They are authorized, by grant, to re present their constituents best interests, to help ensure a level playing field in commerce and trade, declare war, lay and levy taxes.
    The preamble to the constitution clearly states: “promote the general Welfare”. It does not say punish the few for the actions of the many- anywhere. It doesn’t suggest it or imply it anywhere. The oath of office (as though an oath matters today) says to defend and preserve the constitution. They ALL swear in the affirmative to do that.

    You can keep ignoring this but it won’t change the Truth. Have you read it? Absorbed it?

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    You can also choose to ridicule George Washington quotes because you don’t believe they apply today.
    I asked you in the other thread to be specific. You’ve not replied. Why? What do you fear? Might?

    The “way the world works” is two fold: (1) NO gov’t never stops at what’s promised- ever. (2) The Truth is (which you and the alleged vast majority refuse to recognize (and ignored History PROVES correct); when you demand from gov’t one thing you will have to accept ‘other’ things you don’t approve of. It’s commonly called compromise, though the compromise isn’t usually for the citizen’s benefit. That is not a perception, it is a fact- we are living the proof. The above poem speaks to Truth of today- because it was true yesterday, and it will be true tomorrow- constant.

    There is a mechanism in place to change the law. It’s called amendments. Good luck with that vast, vast majority….

  104. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    You employ the word “fact” in a very unusual manner. Good luck with that.

    I said the vast, vast majority want machine-guns-to-nukes banned because the least lethal in that continuum — machine guns — are illegal now and my understanding is even the NRA is OK with their being by-and-large banned and the polling I’m seeing on guns.

    But — ever open-minded — I’d like to hear evidence that your position is widely accepted.

  105. DJ

    I think you’re letting the wheels of your own mind drive you crazy- your open mindedness leans in one direction- ignoring facts that disagree with your desires which leads to moving the goal posts.

    I still want to know, from the other thread, what quotes from George Washington don’t apply today.

    I still want to know what your open mind thinks(?) about the poem I’ve posted.

    I’d like to know where your arrogance comes from?

    I’d like to know why you deny Truth.

    My belief is; all men are created equal- FACT-were you not borne?

    FACT-Was the vast, vast majority not borne?

    FACT- Being borne rights are endowed, not installed on an assembly line.

    FACT-Authority is granted.

    FACT- the 2nd amendment has NO caveats.

    FACT- Grants can be rescinded. FACT- rights can’t. They can only be taken through force or coercion with the threat of incarceration. Force, regardless of the intent, is still force.

    FACT- Pre-emptive force is thought policing.

    FACT- “might” is thought policing.

    FACT- all laws are meant to restrict one over another.

    FACT- most laws are now just revenue generators.

    FACT- moral and laws rarely meet.

    FACT- “I” will survive- long after the group de jour has vanished, regardless of it’s vastness, and you know what else? It will be Individual effort which ensures it.

  106. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    Repeating that opinions are facts does not make them facts.

    People are born. Weapons are borne.

  107. DJ

    RC: I said the vast, vast majority want machine-guns-to-nukes banned because the least lethal in that continuum — machine guns — are illegal now and my understanding is even the NRA is OK with their being by-and-large banned and the polling I’m seeing on guns.

    Me: No, you didn’t. You said, and I quote (copy and paste) RC: On the matter of the machine-guns-to-nukes class of weapons, my sense is that the vast, vast majority of citizens WANT the government to step in and (all but) ban private ownership of these weapons. Their existence is perceived as an unacceptable threat.

    Me: The gov’t doesn’t have that authority. It’s not been granted. FACT. You want the many punished for the actions of a few because-might. That is thought policing. I don’t care what the NRA does or says. I don’t subscribe to group think (especially political) regardless of groups alleged influence.

    Like I said, Mr Ever Open Minded, there is a mechanism in place for changing the law. It was made difficult for a reason- to help ensure whims didn’t change the core. Good Luck in your effort- but, please, don’t hold your breath.

    Your “ever open minded” pseudo-intellectual nonsense is horse shit- plain and simple. You present yourself falsely- that is pseudo, to be polite. You’re phony as 3 dollar bill disguised as ever open minded.
    Open minded leads to objective analysis. Opinion forms subjective conclusions. Subjective conclusions lead to false beliefs. False beliefs lead to pseudo-intellectual appraisal- pseudo-intellectual appraisal is shallow- shallow is superficial- superficial is pretentious. Pretentious is arrogance personified- arrogance is disrespectful of ones self- lack of self respect leads to disrespect of others- forcing a belief is the ultimate disrespect of others and self.

    IF and when you become truly open minded then a sincere conversation can be had- with many. Until then, not so much because you believe yourself superior- for some yet to be revealed excuse. You put your pants on one leg at at a time- unless sitting, or you bust your butt- just like anyone else.

    At this point I want you to continue to dodge, weave and continue to tie yourself in knots, in public- I’m tired of your intentional, innocence feigning obstinance. It’s not flattering. It is in FACT- sad.

  108. DJ

    George Washington quote: Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master.

    Thomas Jefferson quote: *Experience* hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and *by slow operations*, perverted it into tyranny.

    Highlight mine. Experience which is History which applies because what was true yesterday is true today and will be true tomorrow. Slow oprerations= incremental

    When they come for you and they will-

    In fact, I think they should take pencils, ball points, ink, computers and type writers from all published authors- because one (or a few) “might” incite or insult or threaten the many- it has in fact been said; the pen is mightier than the sword- that is threatening. So, free speech shouldn’t be protected for published authors.

  109. DJ

    RC: Repeating that opinions are facts does not make them facts.

    People are born. Weapons are borne.

    Me: Weapons are assembled, often on an assembly line. People are borne not assembled, individually or on an assembly line. Word games don’t impress anyone. They are, in FACT, pretentious used by pseudo-intellectual, typically in an esoteric fashion.
    Regurgitating group think is still regurgitating and still group think- groups will change- Truth doesn’t.
    Punishing the many for actions of the few is “group think”.

  110. DJ

    RC: Sorry you feel that way.

    Me: Right- but you’ll continue to espouse force over reason. You shouldn’t call yourself libertarian.

  111. robert capozzi

    DJ

    I’ve found that the vast majority of those who call themselves “libertarian” also don’t believe in the right to private nukes.

    I suspect your call to purge us will not work.

  112. DJ

    RC: I’ve found that the vast majority of those who call themselves “libertarian” also don’t believe in the right to private nukes.

    Me: So you say.

    RC: I suspect your call to purge us will not work.

    Me: I’m not calling for a purging of us- Me: Right- but *you’ll* continue to espouse force over reason. *You* shouldn’t call *yourself* libertarian. You aren’t, and by definition the alleged vast majority, according to you, shouldn’t either. Keep in mind, I don’t care about groups, especially political. I don’t care about a Party. “I” choose not to defer to a group. “I” will survive. Groups are a dime a dozen…. Truth is constant- knowledge evolves. Groups are a collective which will disrespect the rights of the Individual.

    Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government

    The only way a republican government can function, **and the only way a people’s voice can be expressed to effect ****a practicable control of government****, is through a process in which decisions are made by the majority**. This is not a perfect way of **controlling government**, but the alternatives–decisions made by a minority (I’ll elaborate groups or Party’s), or by one person (Individual)–are even worse and are the source of great evil. **To be just, majority decisions must be in the best interest of all the people, **not just one faction.**

    https://famguardian.org/subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff0500.htm

    As I’ve stated, more than once, there is a mechanism in place to change the law- amendment. That will ‘give/grant’ the desired authority- but, bear in mind, they will come for you- careful what you wish for. The price is high- some would say prohibitive- I’d be one of those. The mechanism was made intentionally difficult so as whims (such as threat of “might”) would not become law without a vigorous (read expensive in this day and time) campaign. But, feel free to pursue it. You have that recognized right. But I also said, don’t hold your breath.

  113. DJ

    Chuck Moulton:
    Chuck Moulton
    March 8, 2018 at 13:06

    I have been involved with the LP for more than 15 years and still Robert Capozzi is the only person I have ever seen start a conversation about private nukes. He seems a little obsessed with them. Please don’t feed the trolls.

    RC: I’ve found that the vast majority of those who call themselves “libertarian” also don’t believe in the right to private nukes.

  114. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    CM said “start a conversation.” I suspect that’s close to true, and likely IS true for him. I do use private nukes to expose the weakness of absolutist NAPsterism on the issue of personal rights to certain weapons, or lack thereof.

    You and LD took the bait.

    I respect that you have no problem being a minority in a tiny minority (Ls for private nuke rights). I share that positioning on any number of issues. However, when I have an outlying position, I keep that in my box for THEORY. In PRACTICE, I seek a balance of the “sell-ability” of a position and pointing in a virtuous direction.

    If you can’t find a good rationalization for support for bans on unacceptably dangerous weapons, I urge you to not run for office or leadership of a political advocacy organization. I sense you just want to talk theory, which is fine. In this case, I’m quite comfortable with the L label AND opposing private-nuke “rights” in theory and in practice.

    I’ve heard your counsel to lose the L label given my theoretical views on this matter.

    Thanks, but I’ll stick with the vast majority on this one.

    Good luck with your approach.

    We’re done, I hope….

  115. DJ

    Punish the many because of actions of the few.

    Sell fear with extremist “mights”… politically that is a winner. Personally it’s not very becoming and is cowardly. Demanding someone else (gov’t) use force on others to force your opinion is still using force. Force over reason is not l- it may very well be L-which is secondary to all this back and forth to me. Yes, I took the bait of a troll to point out to everyone who reads this the lack of reason used to come to a subjective conclusion…. which is common in the vast, vast majority of the intellectually dishonest whose education is founded in opinion.

    BTW, I’m an l- I don’t do L. And had you bothered to read you’d see there is no doubt I’ll never ‘run’ for any political position.

    Good luck with your vast, vast majority changing the law, and thanks for playing. Now, go hide somebody “might” do something.

  116. DJ

    LOL…..

    2nd becomes the ‘It Depends’ amendment

    Dick’s and Dunkleberger’s have decided the 2nd Amendment contains a hitherto unknown age restriction on the sale of rifles. In the future, only customers over the age of 21 will be able to buy a scary-looking long gun in those stores.

    Walmart, L.L. Bean and Florida also are banking on age discrimination as a civil rights violation understanding judges will be happy to overlook. Or should turning a biased eye meet with too much pushback, our robed rulers will quickly discover a provision hidden between the lines of the Constitution that legalizes a 2nd Amendment age qualification.

    I’m opposed to knee-jerk ageism as currently proposed, but with just a few tweaks to the regime, I could become an enthusiastic supporter. And I don’t mean by limiting the age restriction. Indeed, I want to expand it.

    If lawmakers and commercial interests think America would be safer if citizens under age 21 aren’t covered by the 2nd Amendment, I can think of many ways the country would benefit from expanding this philosophy to other portions of the Constitution.

    Let’s start with the 1st Amendment. Think how much more mature and less profane culture would be if free speech rights were denied teens and pre-adults. Not being forced to listen to or read about Parkland media darling David Hogg is enough to convince me.

    If that overly-opinionated and under-matured agitator for gun confiscation had to wait four years before free speech rights were conferred, it might give him time to cool off and grow up. Emphasis on the ‘might.’

    More at the link.

    https://personalliberty.com/2nd-becomes-depends-amendment/

  117. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    I sort of agree. I also oppose the call to not apply 2A by law to 18-21 year olds.

    Private businesses, however, have the right to adopt this policy, would be my take. Forcing Dick’s to sell semi-automatics to 19 year olds seems roughly equivalent to forcing bakers to bake cakes for weddings the baker objects to.

    But, yes, “it depends” is a reasonable standard as a GENERAL matter.

  118. DJ

    RC: But, yes, “it depends” is a reasonable standard as a GENERAL matter.

    Me: Reasonable depends on the standard. The gov’t is known for double standards. Who decides either? The fed gov’t? The ones who decide 18 is old enough to serve in the military? The ones who decide 18 can join the military and be trained to kill but can’t buy alcohol legally?

    RC: Private businesses, however, have the right to adopt this policy, would be my take.

    Me: Yes they do. Have the “right”.

    RC: Forcing Dick’s to sell semi-automatics to 19 year olds seems roughly equivalent to forcing bakers to bake cakes for weddings the baker objects to.

    Me: Who suggested otherwise?

  119. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    Under the US Constitution, who decides could be the Supreme Court, or it could be through enabling legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president.

    Sometimes, that process is complicated and messy.

    As for the hypocrisy of forced gay wedding cake baking and the proposed denying of 2A rights to 18-21 year olds, there are probably millions who hold both positions. I wasn’t referring to you…don’t be so defensive! 😉

  120. DJ

    RC: Under the US Constitution, who decides could be the Supreme Court, or it could be through enabling legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president.

    Sometimes, that process is complicated and messy.

    Me: Intentional obfuscation is always messy. In this instance it would also be over-stepping it’s authority, again, much to the joy of some, I’m sure. If in fact the ‘legislation’ is passed, or the votes are garnered in the SC- it’s still compromise- you, and those who would find joy, if History is to be believed, “might” not like the compromise. If not this time, then next time- they will come for you. The use of “might” in this instance is evident throughout our History, where as the fear being used to sell the fear is random and not near as prevalent as the “vast, vast majority”(?) would lead the ignorant to believe.

    RC: I wasn’t referring to you…don’t be so defensive! ?

    Me: Who’s being defensive? I was being inquisitive. Stop relying on supposition.

  121. robert capozzi

    DL: In this instance it would also be over-stepping it’s authority,

    Me: Since at least 1803, I guess, beginning at least with Marbury v. Madison. Whether the current setup is a “compromise,” or whether the Constitution itself read hyper-literally was vague and unworkable is a matter for debate.

    I sometimes wonder whether the Framers made it TOO hard to amend their handiwork, which as I recall of the history, was itself replete with many, many compromises. Had they allowed for amendments to the amendments as they clarified a workable rule of law might lead to a less confused and complicated constitutional history.

    A 😉 means I was kidding!

  122. DJ

    DJ: I’m not DL….. The amendment process was made intentionally difficult to help ensure whims didn’t rule the day. The confusion comes into play when people attempt to interpret to fit their current (whim) opinion. Interpretation can’t exist without definition. Intentional misinterpretation creates confusion leading to obfuscation with the result swaying opinion, at best, blurring the line for sure. There were compromises – the fact it took 13 mos. to arrive at an agreeable, workable, solution is the evidence. I think any debate (by politicians/lawyers/jurist) about the working of the constitution is to intentionally misrepresent what is written. The language is pretty simple. What you like to call hyper isn’t necessary unless one has an agenda contrary to what is written. The “workability” “depends” on the character of the workers (politicians/lawyers/jurist). Character isn’t always humorous. The lawyers/politicians/jurist all subscribe to interpretation trumps definition- as absurd as it is it doesn’t seem to bother those whose livelihood is based on interpretation in order to”win” the game – justice and rights be damned.

    I once participated in a message board back and forth with a man who gave a succinct conclusion about “interpretation” of the constitution with the statement- “it was being abused before the ink was dry” and I’ll agree. So, this is not new- and it will never change, because the character of politicians is usually selfish, which the founders, I’m sure, were very aware of, and they believed hurdles that needed effort to cross would help keep interpretation in check, to a degree. Jefferson believed the people could govern themselves- in that regard I don’t think he was cynic enough. Maybe he was just naive. I believe we could and be much more successful at it with education founded in Truth vs intentional misinterpretation creating a vagueness to blur the lines and obfuscate the agenda of the selfish…. but, unlike Jefferson I have the advantage of 200+ years of immediate evidence to reflect on. That reflection and current events leads me to the conclusion that the arrogance of some is unfuckingbelievable…. and needs to be held in check and “hyper”-repudiated whatever the cost.
    Jefferson also believed when the gov’t fears the people there is liberty. When the people fear the gov’t there is tyranny- when the selfish, arrogant,”learned” (higher educated) intentionally misinterpret simple, plain English the people are confused- confusion leads to fear- when the confuser is the gov’t, who is feared? What is the result? The evidence speaks for itself- all one has to do is look around at the big picture to see the confusion about what the fed gov’t’s role in our lives is supposed to be- and listen to the “kids” regurgitate what they’ve been told as though their 17-18-19 years have lauded them with a wisdom beyond the founders…unfuckingbelievable.

  123. robert capozzi

    DJ: The amendment process was made intentionally difficult to help ensure whims didn’t rule the day.

    Me: Yes, I recall that was the intent. How’s that working out? I’d say pretty poorly.

    It also has a tinge of arrogance; as in, we the Framers have it all figured out, which I submit that they obviously had not. We are going LAY DOWN THE LAW for generations to come.

    DJ: The confusion comes into play when people attempt to interpret to fit their current (whim) opinion. Interpretation can’t exist without definition. Intentional misinterpretation creates confusion leading to obfuscation with the result swaying opinion, at best, blurring the line for sure

    Me: Yes, I’ve heard this argument from constitutionalists over the years. Here’s the obvious problem: Even self-described constitutionalists (literalistic readers of the Constitution) sometimes disagree about what the document means.

    Now, you could maintain the DJ is right about everything, and, say, Ron Paul is misreading the Constitution, but it should be obvious why such a stance is a problem.

    I submit that constitutionalists have an epistemic blindspot. Words have multiple meanings in isolation. String words into sentences and we have an even wider gap in what the Constitution means.

    I agree, it kinda sucks that things aren’t as simple as constitutionalists desire. I share that frustration to a much smaller degree.

  124. DJ

    RC: I submit that constitutionalists have an epistemic blindspot. Words have multiple meanings in isolation. String words into sentences and we have an even wider gap in what the Constitution means.

    Me: Words mean things- sentences are opinions. Opinions tend to be epistemic. Opinions on the constitution are epistemic, I’d submit, intentionally, to *obfuscate- *when you can’t dazzle with brilliance you ‘baffle’ with bullshit* – an intellectual (regardless of title or station in life) seems to make the complicated simple. The pseudo-intellectual intentionally complicates pretending a subject is an esoteric endeavor- lawyers/politicians/jurist pay others to teach them how- using precedent as justification-which is nothing more than an ‘excuse’ in an attempt to explain an action, lack of action, thought, or lack of thought- with precedent, the bar- which is as arrogant as anything I’ve ever witnessed and terribly, terribly shallow minded, since allegedly the intellectual champions original thought.

    DJ: The amendment process was made intentionally difficult to help ensure whims didn’t rule the day.

    RC: Yes, I recall that was the intent. How’s that working out? I’d say pretty poorly.

    Me: Irrelevant. It is what it is. Your question and response though proves what I said is correct- they will come for you.

    RC: It also has a tinge of arrogance; as in, we the Framers have it all figured out, which I submit that they obviously had not. We are going LAY DOWN THE LAW for generations to come.

    Me: The law for DC, by which all other laws are to be ‘judged’. To judge is opportunity to opine. To apply is to execute. To intentionally obfuscate is immoral, and “I’d submit”, criminal.

    The arrogance of man knows no boundaries. Currently the founders arrogance is the law. Those laws, for other laws to be to be judged by, were intended to prevent help tyranny they had lived under, and studied from past gov’t actions throughout History up to their time. There is a mechanism in place to change it- amendment. It was made difficult intentionally to help ensure whims (emotional outbursts) didn’t become law easily. The law is, and should be, altruistic- for the common good of all- opining makes it altruism- opinion filtered through human emotion. I understand that isn’t working out (in this instance) for something favored (gun control), but, it is the law. Or, the Supreme Court could opine a tax isn’t a fine or vice versa- because interpretation trumps definition, especially to lawyers/politicians/jurists whose livelihood is entirely ‘dependent’ on “winning the game” justice and rights be damned. And make no mistake, that is where we’re headed and experiencing. They will come for you- it’s not a matter of if, only a matter of time.

  125. DJ

    Strict constitutionalist vs precedent

    Question: If the law governing the law makers isn’t strictly adhered to why are the laws for the citizens strictly enforced?

    Answer: Precedent. Revenue generation. Force over reason. Punish through restriction of the many for the actions of the few. Rights and justice be damned.

  126. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    You didn’t address that I can see that you and Ron Paul (both apparently constitutionalists) don’t always read the Constitution the same way. You both have the same approach, it appears to me, and yet you don’t have 100% agreement.

    Can you explain that?

    As for precedent, yes, the English common law and the doctrine of stare decisis was not rejected by the Framers. If they didn’t want the law to evolve in this manner, they would have adopted a different theory of jurisprudence for the Constitution. There are others.

    You are misunderstanding my point on the amendment process, so let me try again. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being super easy and 10 being nearly impossible, I’d put the Constitutional amendment process at an 8. Passing a piece of legislation might be a 3.

    I wonder if the amendment process was, say, a 5, whether the evolution of constitutional law may have been MORE disciplined. For ex., the confusion that Marbury caused may have been lessened, as the concept of judicial review might have been clarified. Perhaps the wrangling over slavery might have been less contentious, as the rules for limiting slavery in the period of 1830-60-ish might have proceeded in a less hostile and piqued manner.

    And perhaps the question of whether cannons and later Gatling guns should have 2A protections would have been addressed. And so on…

  127. DJ

    RC: You didn’t address that I can see that you and Ron Paul (both apparently constitutionalists) don’t always read the Constitution the same way. You both have the same approach, it appears to me, and yet you don’t have 100% agreement.

    Can you explain that?

    DJ: I don’t believe him to be a strict constitutionalist. No two people are alike- any number of reasons.

    RC: You are misunderstanding my point on the amendment process, so let me try again. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being super easy and 10 being nearly impossible, I’d put the Constitutional amendment process at an 8. Passing a piece of legislation might be a 3.

    Me: Okay.

    I wonder if the amendment process was, say, a 5, whether the evolution of constitutional law may have been MORE disciplined. For ex., the confusion that Marbury caused may have been lessened, as the concept of judicial review might have been clarified. Perhaps the wrangling over slavery might have been less contentious, as the rules for limiting slavery in the period of 1830-60-ish might have proceeded in a less hostile and piqued manner.

    Me: Sorry- I’m less than interested in hypotheticals. I believe Lincoln over stepped his authority, in more than one way, as has most every POTUS. The hostility (and hundreds of thousand of deaths could have been avoided) relying on the addressed authority of POTUS described in article 2 of the Constitution. I don’t see interpret anywhere, and yes, I’ve heard Ron Paul use the word (which is why I said the above) -which cannot exist w/o definition.

    RC: And perhaps the question of whether cannons and later Gatling guns should have 2A protections would have been addressed. And so on…

    Me: It was addressed. “shall not be infringed”- that is the definitive, nothing ambiguous. The trouble begins when arguments are made to obfuscate the obvious with opinions, often called interpretation, which is really all any opinion is relying on the opinion authors words as opposed to actual words of text or others beliefs, opinions- typically an interpretation misconstrues a context to sway the opinion of another, which is fine when lives, or rights, aren’t hanging in the balance

    And, just for the record:

    Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969) held that students could not be punished for wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War.

    In the Tinker case, the Court held that “students do not shed their rights at the schoolhouse gate.”

    http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about

    From the same page

    The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

    In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.

    Notes: The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law).

    However, Justice Roberts didn’t abide by that- a fine is a tax, therefore legal- a recent example. Interpretation of words that were not there. So he assumed or presumed. I didn’t see that in their power, Granted.

    Now, can you answer my questions?

    DJ: Question: If the law governing the law makers isn’t strictly adhered to why are the laws for the citizens strictly enforced?

    RC: If they didn’t want the law to evolve in this manner, they would have adopted a different theory of jurisprudence for the Constitution.

    Me: They didn’t say anything about opinion either. In the case of the 2nd amendment they made it quite clear- “shall not be infringed.”

    Evolution is typically seen as moving forward. Devolution is the opposite. I seriously doubt they envisioned a devolution by opinions based on whims made law though they didn’t mention it.
    Are we to assume they would approve it? If we get into assumptions we’re idiots. If we get into
    presumptions we’re mind readers. All we have to rely on are the written words. Words mean things. “shall not be infringed.” in this instance speaks volumes w/o assumption or presumption.

    I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

    Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    Neither of those oaths says anything about interpreting to chase votes, or vilify organizations, or Individuals through legislation. But, they do- why? How do they get away with it? Answer: Interpretation (opinion, often as not self-serving and erroneous) trumps definition. It’s what lawyers and politicians and jurist live by. Their livelihood depends on it. That doesn’t mean it has to be gospel. It doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be questioned. It doesn’t mean they don’t over step their authority – it does mean we aren’t living as envisioned.

  128. robert capozzi

    DJ: It was addressed. “shall not be infringed”- that is the definitive, nothing ambiguous.

    me: Arms and bear, as I’ve said before and you apparently cannot address, are ambiguous.

    Since you are SO strict, am I correct that convicted felons 2A rights also can’t be “infringed”?

    DJ: Question: If the law governing the law makers isn’t strictly adhered to why are the laws for the citizens strictly enforced?

    me: I dunno. I’d say the laws governing lawmakers are not interpreted the way you interpret them. Much of that is due to the English common law tradition that was adopted in the US.

    DJ: That doesn’t mean it has to be gospel. It doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be questioned. It doesn’t mean they don’t over step their authority – it does mean we aren’t living as envisioned.

    me: Thankfully so! Slavery, women as chattel, etc.

    I’m a radical, so I encourage questioning everything.

  129. DJ

    RC: me: Arms and bear, as I’ve said before and you apparently cannot address, are ambiguous.

    Me: We have discussed arms- the whole nuke and machine guns deal you seem to have conveniently forgotten. Arms are weapons. Period….”shall not be infringed”. Bear depends on situation but doesn’t deny ownership. Period.

    RC: Since you are SO strict, am I correct that convicted felons 2A rights also can’t be “infringed”?

    Me: No caveats. How many times do I have to say that. Felon conviction is often erroneous…. remember, rights and justice be damned? “Win the game”- interpretation, often intentionally misinterpreted to serve a purpose- win. Regardless, there are no caveats.

    RC: me: I dunno. I’d say the laws governing lawmakers are not interpreted the way you interpret them. Much of that is due to the English common law tradition that was adopted in the US.

    Me: So, criminal is situational dependent? Status? Title? Income? Education? Race? Accent? Ethnicity?

    RC: I’m a radical, so I encourage questioning everything.

    Me: Bullshit. You’re a pseudo-intellectual intentionally complicating the simple trying to appear smart.

  130. DJ

    DJ: The amendment process was made intentionally difficult to help ensure whims didn’t rule the day.

    RC: Yes, I recall that was the intent. How’s that working out? I’d say pretty poorly.
    ……………..

    How is the drug war working out? How did prohibition work out? How is the “legal age” to buy alcohol working out? How is murder being against the law working out? Theft?

    How is, in any instance, is punishing the many because of the actions of the few preventing anything?

  131. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    Curious: Since you believe there is absolutely NO infringement possible by your personal reading of 2A, you then believe that inmates in prison have the right to bear machine guns, is that right?

    In the common law tradition, a key concept is the “reasonable man” standard. While the reasonable man standard is not spelled out in the Constitution, it is assumed, at least by most.

    As for your addressing of the ambiguity of “arms and bear,” you have shared your assertion, but not to my satisfaction, and probably most of humanity’s, either. This doesn’t make you “wrong,” but it DOES make your mere opinion — and your repeating it over and over — highly unpersuasive. Is that all ya got? 😉

    But I really would like to hear you go on record about the bearing of arms in prison.

  132. DJ

    RC: But I really would like to hear you go on record about the bearing of arms in prison.

    RC: you then believe that inmates in prison have the right to bear machine guns

    Me: Copy and paste your question; RC: Since you are SO strict, am I correct that convicted felons 2A rights also can’t be “infringed”?

    I see no mention of prison. I see convicted felon. Convicted felosn don’t always remain incarcerated.

    Me: Don’t be stupid. It’s not very becoming.

    RC: but not to my satisfaction, and probably most of humanity’s, either.

    Me: I care about your “mere opinion” why? I want to see your statistics on most of humanity- your repeating the same thing over and over doesn’t make it so. Ref: vast, vast majority.

    Now, Mr question answering Radical, answer my questions.

    How is the drug war working out? How did prohibition work out? How is the “legal age” to buy alcohol working out? How is murder being against the law working out? Theft?

    How is, in any instance, punishing the many because of the actions of the few preventing anything?

  133. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    I’ve tightened the linguistic noose, adding “incarcerated felons” to text just how absolutist and consistent you are.

    Is there, or is there not, a right to keep and bear arms IN PRISON, yes or no?

    Now, my answers to your questions:

    How is the drug war working out? POORLY

    How did prohibition work out? POORLY

    How is the “legal age” to buy alcohol working out? I SUPPORT IT FOR THOSE UNDER 18. UNDER 21 I DO NOT. I’D SAY THE 21 RULE IS ALSO A BAD IDEA

    How is murder being against the law working out? Theft? GENERALLY WELL. THERE’S NEAR UNANIMOUS RECOGNITION THAT BOTH ARE VERBOTEN.

  134. robert capozzi

    more…

    text > test

    I’d think you would SUPPORT prohibition. It was constitutional, yes?

  135. DJ

    RC: I’d think you would SUPPORT prohibition. It was constitutional, yes?

    Me: It was reversed, yes?

    Why do you want to punish the many for the actions of the few when the above questions clearly shows it prevents nothing.

    RC: How is murder being against the law working out? Theft? GENERALLY WELL. THERE’S NEAR UNANIMOUS RECOGNITION THAT BOTH ARE VERBOTEN.

    Me: Generally well? LOL. Then why do you want to further punish the many for the actions of the few?

    Do you think that near unanimous decision that both being verboten are because they’re against the law? Can you cite statistics to verify that?

    RC: I’ve tightened the linguistic noose, adding “incarcerated felons” to text just how absolutist and consistent you are.

    Me: You’re trying to make the simple complicated and find a gotcha moment. Stop being stupid, it’s not very flattering.

    How is, in any instance, punishing the many because of the actions of the few preventing anything?

    RC: How is the “legal age” to buy alcohol working out? I SUPPORT IT FOR THOSE UNDER 18. UNDER 21 I DO NOT. I’D SAY THE 21 RULE IS ALSO A BAD IDEA

    Me: I didn’t ask what you support, I asked how’s it working out?

  136. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    Thank you SO much! I’ve been challenging extremist NAPster or constitutionalist views for many years now, but never before have I come up with the incarcerated-felons-with-machine-guns foil to expose sloppy and simplistic thinking. You have inspired me!

    Obviously, it’s an absurd idea, and yet — based on a hyper-strict reading of the Constitution — 2A absolutists would have to say Yes, there is a right to bear machine guns in a prison cell.

    That you deflect rather than answer a simple yes-or-no question tells me your circuits have been fried by the question. I can share that sometimes such a dilemma can lead to a breakthrough in your thinking. Exploding an unworkable paradigm can be quite liberating, in my experience. I suggest taking advantage of this opportunity to check your premises on this and probably a range of assumptions that you appear to have invested in.

    Cleaning up my 21 rule answer, I would say that injustice never works. It’s not just to make a class of second-class citizens UNLESS there is a compelling mitigating circumstance. I know no such circumstances in this case.

  137. DJ

    RC: That you deflect rather than answer a simple yes-or-no question tells me your circuits have been fried by the question.

    Me: Bullshit. You’re full of it. You’re incapable of frying my circuits. Making the simple complicated- to what end I could only guess- but, there it is; You look stupid.

    Why do you want to punish the many for the actions of the few? That is an injustice epitomized-

    Oh, BTW, I’m still anxious to see those George Washington quotes that don’t apply to today.

  138. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    Those who deflect regularly must be afraid of something or other. No one else is reading this, most likely, and I don’t know who you are, so why not just answer the question? Yes or no.

    Ya know, now I’ll answer your many/few question. There is much injustice in this world. There are no doubt people in jail who are in fact innocent. That’s tragic…truly tragic. But does that mean we should not have a criminal justice system to avoid this tragedy? It’s appealing, but most benefit from an overarching level of reasonably serviceable levels of domestic tranquility. Having no criminal justice seems unlikely to elicit similar levels of tranquility.

    I don’t want to punish anyone, actually. I do think it’s a good idea to have serviceable rules of the road for a civil society. Some sensible rules to ban machine guns in prisons or the streets does strike me as a good rules of the road, even though most machine gun owners might not use them in an aggressive manner.

    I looked for the GW quote that I’ve seen on Facebook a lot recently. I’ve seen it as a pic on a roadside plaque. It dealt with the virtues of an armed citizenry to overthrow a future tyrannical government, iirc. I’ve been unable to find it, and there’s some question as to whether it was an actual quote. I find the actual words immaterial, but feel free to look for it yourself.

  139. DJ

    RC: Those who deflect regularly must be afraid of something or other.

    Me: We’re not talking about rules of the road. We’re talking what the law says….and you want to convolute it- make difficult the simple.

    “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”
    – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

    When the 2nd amendment was implemented the idea was 2 fold. (besides being recognized officially in the Bill of Rights, not Bill of grants-(1), the citizens were expected to defend from invasion (foreign or local) to the best of their ability which obviously required “arms” (weapons) with no specifics, (2), to keep a tyrannical gov’t at bay if it came to that, and their study of History led them to believe it was inevitable.

    Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and. by. slow. operations, perverted it into tyranny.<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>> I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law. is. often. but. the. tyrant’s. will, and always so when. it. violate.s the. rights. of. the. individual.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/thomas_jefferson

    A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.
    Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/thomas_jefferson

    Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.
    Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/thomas_jefferson

    History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is.
    Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/thomas_jefferson

    Now, even if he didn't actually say all those things- History will prove them correct.

    RC: Some sensible rules to ban machine guns in prisons or the streets does strike me as a good rules of the road, even though most machine gun owners might not use them in an aggressive manner.

    Me: Unless it's cops I have no idea who's used a machine gun recently. Cops do it frequently though. SWAT uses them frequently- often with reckless abandon- so, why shouldn't citizens be 'allowed' to choose what they want (THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED) to defend themselves against armed invaders? Which armed invaders you ask? SWAT teams who all too often invade the wrong address because of bad info. Once is too often. Then there's the infamous "gun running" by Bush and Obama. Where's the justice? Hiding behind interpretation.

    RC: There is much injustice in this world. There are no doubt people in jail who are in fact innocent. That’s tragic…truly tragic. But does that mean we should not have a criminal justice system to avoid this tragedy?

    Me: Justice in this Country hides behind interpretation and disinformation, especially in a corrupt people whose education is founded in and informed by opinion and not Truth. Our "justice system" isn't about justice- it's about. winning. a. game- gaining political clout- leaving a legacy- exploiting citizens and convincing the dumbed down through our 'gov't approved' public education "system", that "crime" is being fought against. All systems fail. There are too many components for them not to. "Justice" in this Country is supposed to be blind. It's not. It's prejudiced and scoffed at, blatantly. It has failed too often in favor of the tyrant, and so has the education "system".

    Regardless of your beliefs History tells us the outcome. The facts speak for themselves. The life of an empire is short lived. Forcing one's will on another (legal or not) is the root of all conflict. Now, you may, as some are made fun of believing believe, that 'it' just needs tweaked by someone or something- the problems with that are many, the most obvious being- there is nothing new under the sun- only different eyes looking at it. Secondly that's relying on, or deferring to, someone else- and whether you (or anyone else) believes it or not "I" will survive- History proves it. In spite of the will of the people.

  140. robert capozzi

    DJ: The facts speak for themselves.

    Me: We are very much in disagreement, I think it has been so established. Facts are observable, discrete actions…Sally and Billy walked to the store where they bought candy. That’s a fact. We can tell a multiplicity of stories about Sally and Billy’s motives, the candy they chose, the nutritional value of the candy, etc.

    You are correct that machine guns are rarely used by citizens not employed by the State. They are, after all, all but banned. I share your concern about SWAT teams. I simply don’t agree that means that citizens and prisoners should have them, and even MORE lethal weapons, and I certainly don’t believe that prisoners should have any weapons. Their 2A rights SHOULD be suspended.

    Providing TJ and GW quotes is NOT an argument. You are merely appealing to authority, both of whom happened to be flawed in important ways, as are we all.

    It simply does not follow to say: The State is big and bad (I agree), therefore anyone can possess ANY weapon JUST IN CASE the State becomes intolerably tyrannical. This is a logic leap.

    My feedback is that you are stringing together disjointed factoids to fit a narrative that’s within your comfort zone. This, I propose, is why the literalistic “the right to keep and bear arms…shall not be infringed” on its face could easily apply to prisoners, and rather than address the point dispassionately with a counter argument, you recoil and hand-wave, hoping the idea will go away.

    Try stepping outside your box, ever so briefly. You might gain a fresh perspective!

  141. DJ

    RC: Try stepping outside your box, ever so briefly. You might gain a fresh perspective!

    Me: Look in the mirror.

    RC: Providing TJ and GW quotes is NOT an argument. You are merely appealing to authority, both of whom happened to be flawed in important ways, as are we all.

    Me: No, offering you a perspective by those who were there. History. Yes, we’re all flawed- that doesn’t make the Truth less true.

    RC: You are correct that machine guns are rarely used by citizens not employed by the State.

    Me: Yep. And your “perspective” is to punish the many for the actions of the few, who happen to be cops. Yes it is. Restricting others choices is just that- “actually” punishment for a feared “might” which is thought policing, and arrogant.

    To wit: It simply does not follow to say: The State is big and bad (I agree), therefore anyone can possess ANY weapon JUST IN CASE the State becomes intolerably tyrannical. This is a logic leap.

    Me: But, you will assume citizens are to be held in constraint because- “just in case”. That isn’t even a jump in logic- it’s idiocy, personified. It makes absolutely no sense, common or otherwise. Look at Jeffersons quotes- History! Experience hath shewn<<<<<< RC: "Try stepping outside your box, ever so briefly. You might gain a fresh perspective!" Me: Though I doubt it. You're convinced your the smartest man in the room- there is nothing you don't know everything about about everything there is to know everything about….. but, "Experience hath shewn"- you ain't and your desire to constrain others based on peace and tranquility doesn't make sense when peace and tranquility isn't achieved forcing ones will on another. Period. "Experience hath shewn"-

    RC: My feedback is that you are stringing together disjointed factoids to fit a narrative that’s within your comfort zone. This, I propose, is why the literalistic “the right to keep and bear arms…shall not be infringed” on its face could easily apply to prisoners, and rather than address the point dispassionately with a counter argument, you recoil and hand-wave, hoping the idea will go away.

    Me: That's your opinion. Not mine. My narrative in this instance (and all things political and most personal) is; All men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights-Truth- KISS- nothing disjointed about it- presenting various thoughts in a succinct manner results in incomplete relying on (apparently in vain) for an alleged higher educated reader to get the gist. The "disjointed" happens when convoluted thought insists on non-convoluted response trying for a gotcha moment. I refuse to address my rights with an arrogant usurper "dispassionately"- I don't hope the idea will go away- I hope you'll grow up. I'm not recoiling, I'm meeting you head on- toe to toe- blow for blow- you're attempting to force your will on me- it won't happen while I breathe.

    To the prisoners having weapons- they don't. They gave up their rights when they were convicted of a crime- the crime is questionable since not all felonies are harmful to person or property- the root of the problem has to be addressed before it can be resolved. IF a crime against person or property has occurred then retribution is in order. Their rights are not not in effect, but, held in check while I kick their ass to my satisfaction. Deferring responsibility to the state doesn't cut it. It does create room for convoluted thought and brings up silly questions. The questions are silly because the crime is questionable with deferred to punishment based on false premises= not founded in Truth.

  142. robert capozzi

    Most important stuff first:

    JD: All men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights-Truth-

    Me: Interesting. The Founders said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident….” where “We hold” means “Our opinion is…” It’s not “truth” as in gravity or 1+1=2. I hope we agree here. They were proceeding from an assumption, which I share, btw, as a noble sentiment.

    DJ: you’re attempting to force your will on me- it won’t happen while I breathe.

    Me: Wow! Care to retract?

    DJ: [Prisoners] gave up their rights when they were convicted of a crime….

    Me: Wait, I thought you believe in “unalienable rights”? Are they “unalienable,” or not? And the literal language of 2A is “…the right to keep and bear arms….shall not be infringed.” I thought you are an absolutist on 2A? Reread the language again. There is NO room for any interpretation, according to you, yes? It is YOU, not me, who has said we can’t refine our understanding of “arms” nor “bear,” yes?

    JD: Look in the mirror.

    Me: Thank you. That’s my practice. I radically challenge my premises daily. I don’t always succeed. In fact, if you can make an airtight argument for strict constitutionalism, I might be persuaded.

    JD: Yep. And your “perspective” is to punish the many for the actions of the few, who happen to be cops. Yes it is. Restricting others choices is just that- “actually” punishment for a feared “might” which is thought policing, and arrogant.

    Me: If I and most gun owners who support the ban on machine guns are “punishing” you, I feel badly that you feel that way. I’d say we take that position because we believe that’s the optimal way to maintain domestic tranquility. I’ve gone the step further to propose Nonarchy Pods, where you can secede onto your own country. I suspect that if the walls are high enough, we’d be OK with your keeping your machine gun. We may or may not allow you to keep your own nuke, though, since we’d probably view its very existence as sufficient provocation to intervene.

    JD: But, you will assume citizens are to be held in constraint because- “just in case”.

    Me: Fair. You are correct. Pre-emptive intervention CAN BE justified if the threat presents a clear and present danger, IMO.

    JD: You’re convinced your the smartest man in the room-

    ME: You are mistaken. I know that I am no such thing. I do apologize if I’ve given you that impression.

    JD: ……your desire to constrain others based on peace and tranquility doesn’t make sense when peace and tranquility isn’t achieved forcing ones will on another. Period. “Experience hath shewn”-

    ME: Funny, because I can’t think of sustainable anarchies anywhere. Parts of Somalia are making a run for it, but frankly I don’t like their chances. States are in the constraint business, by definition! Myself, I’d like to see the constraints minimized and personal liberty maximized.

  143. DJ

    RC: Okay, first things first- It’s DJ, not JD.

    RC: ME: Funny, because I can’t think of sustainable anarchies anywhere. Parts of Somalia are making a run for it, but frankly I don’t like their chances. States are in the constraint business, by definition! Myself, I’d like to see the constraints minimized and personal liberty maximized.

    Me: There you go again. We aren’t talking about anarchy or Somalia.

    RC: Me: Fair. You are correct. Pre-emptive intervention CAN BE justified if the threat presents a clear and present danger, IMO.

    Me: Anything can be justified- usually with lame excuses.

    RC: If I and most gun owners who support the ban on machine guns are “punishing” you, I feel badly that you feel that way. I’d say we take that position because we believe that’s the optimal way to maintain domestic tranquility. I’ve gone the step further to propose Nonarchy Pods, where you can secede onto your own country. I suspect that if the walls are high enough, we’d be OK with your keeping your machine gun. We may or may not allow you to keep your own nuke, though, since we’d probably view its very existence as sufficient provocation to intervene.

    Me: Restricting others from choice is punishing those who don’t subscribe to your beliefs. It’s not what I feel, it’s what is, based on your words.

    RC: Thank you. That’s my practice. I radically challenge my premises daily. I don’t always succeed. In fact, if you can make an airtight argument for strict constitutionalism, I might be persuaded.

    Me: No, you don’t want to. As with any sickness to be cured one has to have the desire first. I’ve given you reason(s) you’ve given me excuses- justification(s). “Might”.

    RC: Wait, I thought you believe in “unalienable rights”? Are they “unalienable,” or not? And the literal language of 2A is “…the right to keep and bear arms….shall not be infringed.” I thought you are an absolutist on 2A? Reread the language again. There is NO room for any interpretation, according to you, yes? It is YOU, not me, who has said we can’t refine our understanding of “arms” nor “bear,” yes?

    Me: Criminals know going in what the results can entail- incarceration- loss of rights and privileges while incarcerated. They gave up their rights when they chose to cause harm. They gave up their privileges when incarcerated. KISS. Punishment. That is what you desire when you want to force your beliefs on others- punish. Freedom is never free- the price is high. It calls for personal responsibility- retribution by the offended- not the state which is what happens when you acquiesce to gov’t over reach, then wash, rinse and repeat- History proves I’m correct- your theory is someone “might” and you want to punish them for what you perceive is possible- with anecdotal evidence as proof.

    RC: It is YOU, not me, who has said we can’t refine our understanding of “arms” nor “bear,” yes?

    Me: No, I said the law has a mechanism for change- I said 0 about refining your understanding, which has proven here to be lacking. I said interpretation can’t trump definition. shall not be infringed cannot be misinterpreted, or arms or bear, try as you may.

    RC: Interesting. The Founders said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident….” where “We hold” means “Our opinion is…” It’s not “truth” as in gravity or 1+1=2. I hope we agree here. They were proceeding from an assumption, which I share, btw, as a noble sentiment.

    Me: Noble or ignoble it is Truth- all men are created equal- rights are inherent by birth which is what happens when one is created unless one is assembled on an assembly line or some mad doctors laboratory. Not only is it Truth it’s a philosophy of life- not everyone agrees- though I’ve never met anyone who openly disagrees. But, now I guess you want to argue about Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness aren’t rights either and shouldn’t be protected by whatever means/tools available- after all it “might” be scary.

    And, since you insist on extreme views don’t forget the poem- they will come for you. Extreme? Maybe, but much more likely than you’re being shot by a crazed gunner with a machine gun.

    I ran across this earlier

    n 2014 Australia, all “registered” guns were outlawed and turned in. In 2015, Ed Chenel, a police chief in that country, confirmed that criminal armed robbery increased by a whopping 40 percent. Homicides in the State of Victoria alone are up 300 percent. You know why.

    Acting on mostly the emotions of blame, history memorialized:

    In 1938, Germany established gun control. By 1945, 13 million Jews and others were exterminated.

    In 1929, the USSR established gun control. By 1953, about 20 million dissidents were terminated.

    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, were neutralized.

    In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political voices of a different opinion, were eliminated.

    In 1970, Uganda established gun control. By 1979, 300,000 Christians, became unaccounted for.

    Punishment? Nah- collateral damage, right?

  144. DJ

    BTW

    un·al·ien·a·ble (?n-?l?y?-n?-b?l, -??l?-?-)
    adj.
    Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable:

    Incarceration doesn’t change that. Constraint of the individual is just that- constraint, which is the word I’ve used as well as restrict- punishment for a crime results in either, or, both, but it doesn’t render them not there. I believe I’ve said they could be taken- I stand corrected.

    As for your comment on the State being a constraint- that could have been a reason this was originally a Country made up of states and having the freedom of moving to an area (State and it’s sovereignty recognized) that was more in line with personal desires- instead we have ‘a’ State comprised of no longer sovereign individuals who are coerced into submission of a central center for command and control- what a war was fought for to get out from under. The contract was to help ensure no legal advantage took place between districts in commerce and trade. “Justice” was part of the guarantee. A symbol to denote blind justice is a part of our heritage- blind justice doesn’t punish for differences of race, creed, religion or action that hasn’t harmed another- “might” does just that. So does a joke of a legal system which refuses Truth as a foundation and relies, entirely, on interpretation to win the game- justice be damned and gun control people are helping perpetrate the lies and ignorance-

  145. robert capozzi

    DJ 1: Anything can be justified- usually with lame excuses.

    DJ 2: Criminals know going in what the results can entail- incarceration- loss of rights and privileges while incarcerated.

    DJ 3: I said interpretation can’t trump definition. shall not be infringed cannot be misinterpreted, or arms or bear, try as you may.

    Me: So many deflections! And now outright contradictions!

    “Unalienable” has a definition, too! You are willing to interpret “unalienable,” but not “arms” or bear.” To quote you, “Anything can be justified- usually with lame excuses.” 😉

    I’ve noted earlier that not all incarcerated prisoners actually did the crime that they are judged guilty of. Based on your pattern, I have come to expect that you will evade THIS point as well. But, then, hope does spring eternal! 😉

    I trust that your recitation of complete gun bans adds absolutely nothing to understanding. Many high-profile gun-rights advocates draw the line at machine guns and up, and they seem quite vociferous in their support for 2A. The “slippery slope” argument is ultimately a weak one. If it were true, taxes would be 100% by now and butter knives would be banned! 😉

    Try to stay on point.

  146. DJ

    You’re being stupid- again- convoluting to make the simple difficult.

    It’s obvious you believe the higher power is gov’t- bless your heart- they will come for you.
    I say I’m glad I’m the age I am so hopefully I won’t live to see the inevitable- but in some cases, people like you make me sorta wish I would be around to watch. Never fear, Robert, you will get your wish, probably served on a butter knife…… hopefully at your throat by your gov’t master.

    But, in the end, “I” will survive- take it to the bank.

  147. DJ

    Their command is your wish- Punish the many for the actions of the few.

    Democrat Running for Governor Takes Aim At Smith & Wesson, Wants Manufacturing Ban in Massachusetts

    http://newbostonpost.com/2018/03/14/democratic-governor-candidate-takes-aim-at-smith-wesson-calls-for-manufacturing-ban-in-massachusetts/

    Federal Judge Denies AG Healey’s Attempt To Toss ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Lawsuit

    http://newbostonpost.com/2018/03/14/federal-judge-denies-ag-healeys-attempt-to-toss-assault-weapons-ban-lawsuit/

    Experience hath shewn

    In 1938, Germany established gun control. By 1945, 13 million Jews and others were exterminated.

    In 1929, the USSR established gun control. By 1953, about 20 million dissidents were terminated.

    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, were neutralized.

    In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political voices of a different opinion, were eliminated.

    In 1970, Uganda established gun control. By 1979, 300,000 Christians, became unaccounted for.

    Punishment? Nah- collateral damage, right?

  148. DJ

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    Quotation from Martin Niemöller on display in the Permanent Exhibition of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Niemöller was a Lutheran minister and early. Nazi. supporter. who was later imprisoned for opposing Hitler’s regime.

  149. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    I’ve seen your cut-and-paste on the cautionary tale about pogroms and round ups a few times now. No need to repeat it.

    DJ: You’re being stupid- again- convoluting to make the simple difficult.

    Me: Could be, but this is not an argument. It’s an ad hominem deflection.

    DJ: It’s obvious you believe the higher power is gov’t- bless your heart- they will come for you.

    Me: Actually, incorrect. I believe anyone can opt out of civil society in what I call Nonarchy Pods. Therefore, that makes the individual sovereign. In or out.

    When we enter into civil society, however, we (mostly implicitly) recognize that we must abide by the rule of law. I advocate maximal individual liberty and minimal state power. It’s a kind of social contract.

    How those laws are crafted and enforced is quite important as well. The legal system as practiced today is highly corrupt and complicated. I’d like to see a LOT more fairness and certainty in jurisprudence, as well as a LOT fewer laws generally.

  150. robert capozzi

    Hmm, DJ, I’m now going to meditate on the similarities and differences between tennis-ball launchers and nuclear weapons…. 😉

    Ok, done.

    There are virtually no similarities that I can discern. Is it possible that you are catastrophizing?

  151. DJ

    Hey, Robert, I have a new book title for you.
    Force Peace and Tranquility

    It’ll be a hit. Cheap to publish too. 1 page, 1 sentence.

    Punish the many for the actions of the few.

    All the like minded will love you.

  152. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    The Constitution involves force. All governments do.

    I thought you are not an anarchist.

    Which is it?

  153. DJ

    I’m me. I don’t fit in a box or wear a label for political purposes.

    Go work on your new book cover. Needs to have pretty pictures of slaves serving your masters.

  154. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    Cool, me too.

    Anarchist is a pretty precise description, though. Only anarchists can claim that NO initiation of force is acceptable. Any and all states involve some force. There are, of course, degrees of acceptable force by a state.

  155. DJ

    Labels group. I don’t do political (and rarely social, and professional only if it’s an employment requirement that doesn’t box me in) groups. I don’t let others label me politically either. A description of me, is, well, me. “I” will survive in spite of and to spite, even if the groups determine Individual is now spelled Ndividual.

    Define acceptable. One mans trash is another mans treasure.

  156. robert capozzi

    dL, yes, everything’s ultimately subjective, true, as far as one’s experience goes. “Acceptable” has a standard definition. In this case, I’d elaborate to say that IF there was data that suggested that super-majorities didn’t want to seat Trump and instead wanted Obama to be Emperor, that would be evidence that Trump’s inauguration was UNacceptable.

    Or if, say, 70% of people consistently over time were advocating for un-banning machine guns, I’d say the ban is UNacceptable. Or, as is the case now, probably 90+% of the population thought the machine gun ban was a good idea, that would be deemed “acceptable.”

    Notably, the right track/wrong track polling indicates that more believe the country’s on the wrong track for some time now. However, there is no evidence that most of THEM believe in a common prescription for what ails us. In fact, it’s probably all over the map in terms of public sentiment. I’ve certainly seen NO evidence that more than single digits of the country would be prescribing either strict constitutionalism or applied NAPsterism. Even a general lessarchist prescription only gets maybe 20% of the population to coalesce around preferred direction.

    I suspect you don’t care about prevailing sentiments and that an adoption of strict constitutionalism is the ONLY right answer. And it’s possible that God might agree with you. 😉 Sadly, without widespread support, odds are low that your agenda will gain traction.

  157. DJ

    RC: Sadly, without widespread support, odds are low that your agenda will gain traction.

    Me previously from mar 15-: Never fear, Robert, you will get your wish, probably served on a butter knife…… hopefully at your throat by your gov’t master.

    But, in the end, “I” will survive- take it to the bank.

    RC: However, there is no evidence that most of THEM believe in a common prescription for what ails us.

    Me: There is plenty evidence “most” have been educated in gov’t approved entities. They, like you, have been told by their superiors an opinion is truth- even though History proves differently. They justify with excuses, which, are like asses, everybody has at least one- most stink sometime during the day- sometimes for a lifetime.

    RC: Or if, say, 70% of people consistently over time were advocating for un-banning machine guns, I’d say the ban is UNacceptable. Or, as is the case now, probably 90+% of the population thought the machine gun ban was a good idea, that would be deemed “acceptable.”

    Me: Group think. Maybe you don’t read well. I don’t care about groups. How’s that? for the umpteenth time.

    One man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Force doesn’t ensure peace and tranquility. Punishing the many for the actions of the few is forcing a belief (this time based on “might” using emotions vs reason to sell). “might” which is thought policing by a group (in most instances= a law against)- both actions are immoral. Punishing the many for the actions of the few is equally immoral.

    The suggestion that banning works is absurd and that is the Truth. History proves it. Placating groups is weak. Deferring to another for decisions means the one doing the deferring is afraid of his own decisions. It also, inadvertently gives an out for absolvency….

    RC: And it’s possible that God might agree with you.

    Me: I’m agnostic. I have the right to choose for myself. Period. I accept the consequences. Period. I refuse to put that authority or decision on a group.

    “I” will survive. History proves it.

  158. DJ

    They will come for you- sooner it seems rather than later

    You wouldn’t think your kids could get suspended from school just because you exercised your constitutionally guaranteed rights off campus, but this is apparently what happened to one New Jersey family. It’s not that the school district jumped the gun, either — rather, the punitive action was prescribed by official policy. As Fox News reported Sunday:

    A New Jersey high school came under fire Friday after it allegedly suspended two students over a gun photo taken during a family visit to a shooting range.

    News of the unnamed students’ suspension circulated through a Lacey Township Facebook group, according to NJ.com.

    Amanda Buron, a Lacey resident and family friend of one of the suspended students said one of the photos shared on SnapChat featured four rifles, magazines, and a gun duffel with the caption “fun day at the range,” NJ.com reported.

    Buron said the two students received a five-day in-school suspension after the picture drew the attention of Lacey Township High School officials, who argued that it violated the school’s policy on weapons possession.

    The school district shortly faced community backlash for the alleged suspension, with many calling for people to appear at the school board’s next meeting on Monday to protest the decision.

    https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/28537-family-visits-gun-range-their-kids-get-suspended-from-school

  159. DJ

    Teacher Punished for Questioning Anti-gun Walkout

    A California teacher questioned Wednesday’s national anti-gun school walkout — then found herself in the cross hairs, being told not to come to work that day at all.

    The story began last week when Julianne Benzel, a history teacher at Rocklin High School in Rocklin, California, questioned the double standard reflected in the protest. She stated that it was wrong for the school to support one walkout if they weren’t willing to support those associated with other causes, such as one against prenatal infanticide (she used the common term “abortion”).

    Benzel’s young charges didn’t disagree. “I didn’t get any backlash from my students,” she said. “All my students totally understood that there could not be a double standard,” related CBS Sacramento. But her school was a different story. As CBS also reported, “Benzel received a letter from her human resources department, informing her she’s being placed on paid administrative leave.”

    https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/28521-teacher-punished-for-questioning-anti-gun-walkout

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *