Flowersignup
No bio...
User ID: 3556
Flowersignup
1yr ago
Nevertheless, I still cannot lawfully get a gun in my home state of New Jersey or any other state,
So you are a violent felon or something? I hope you understand why even most gun advocates, including in Republican states are fine with limiting you having access to firearms.
Flowersignup
1yr ago
-
"Hatching eggs" is a trans thing, not a sexuality thing as the original comment is about and what my reply is for.
-
I've not seen that much but even if there are a few teachers who do so, as there are apparently 3.8 million public school teachers in the US a few examples would not be much proof of a common issue by itself. Likewise you can find examples of teachers dating students or heck, things like this case of a superintendent trying to mandate a prayer video. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oklahoma-officials-religious-department-schools-classroom-lawsuit/. It's not that they aren't problems of teachers pushing LGBT identification or dating kids or mandating prayer videos (they seem to exist given the articles on it) but if it's a few hundred/thousand people out of 3.8 million it's not much at all. I don't know the exact amounts so I'm open for evidence that suggests it's a decently large percentage.
The Supreme Court has ruled. Several times. In favor of my side. I still don't get my gun, because there has been resistance all down the line, including lower Federal courts, state courts, state legislators, and governors.
You either misunderstand the specifics of the rulings (like Heller and Bruen do allow for some restrictions or "Shall-issue permitting" for instance) and fail to pass those lawful restrictions, or you have a great court case in your hands and there are plenty of gun groups and lawyers who would be willing to fund and help your case if they believe it's likely to win.
New Jersey while more restrictive than other states still has 20% of homes with a gun in it so I have to wonder why you don't have a gun if you're wanting one so bad.
Do you have a felony? A conviction for domestic violence? What is it that's restricting you but not 20% of homes?
Many of those things have already been answered by the courts or are in the process of being answered.
I'm sure your position will get stronger if you try to avoid it for another last word.
Do you not understand how the legal system works? It's not "I think it should work like X" or "I believe it'd be better if it was Y". The courts do not have jurisdiction over El Salvador, the courts are not claiming to have that. They claim to have jurisdiction over the US, which they do. And as for their rulings in the US, there is no answer you or I could give because it's not our calls as individuals, that is the role of the judicial branch. If Americans don't like it we have official mechanisms to change things like writing new laws, impeaching judges or even making a new amendment in the constitution. It might be rarely changed but it is a living document and Americans when they agree have been able to change it 27 different times.
It is possible, go out and convince your fellow voters to push locally and federally for a new amendment that takes power away from the court system.
Flowersignup
1yr ago
Do you think the science of treating autists with Lupron just needed reform, or is it better that it was axed?
Was there a bunch of consenting autistic people begging to be given lupron? I think there are different standards between "studies of medicine forced on someone without their permission" and "studies of medicine done with the consent of both child and parent"
Funny you say that, because this is exactly what trans medicine has been so far.
Ah I wasn't aware two wrongs made a right. I guess the Whataboutists had the best idea after all.
And look, I get it. I and others pointing out your isolated demands for rigor
Interesting how you and "others" know me well enough to know that I've apparently never pushed back on left wing activists or government officials ignoring the courts.
I wonder what other things you must totally know about me, have I been doxxed by this site??? But serious note, I see no need to engage in a conversation with someone who ignores my stated words in favor of their imagined beliefs about who I am.
Instead, you've thrown allegations of a felony or domestic violence condition, and pointed to a survey run by an explicitly antigun policy outfit, which gets numbers that are wildly out of line with every other analysis and the state's own estimates.
No, I asked you why you are unable to access a gun when 20% of households can and a common answer in the population is being a criminal so it's a pretty likely possible reason for it.
New Jersey's "shall issue" purchase permit requires anyone who wants to buy a gun to submit the names of two adults, who have known the applicant for three years, and will vouch for that person.
Do you not know two adults who will vouch for you? That seems a red flag on its own.
If you've ever seen a mental health professional, you're required to provide their contact information. Don't know it, or a shrink you saw twenty years ago happen to be antigun? Gfl. This includes not just involuntary commitment -- the recent A4769 explicitly prohibits purchase permits for anyone who's ever had a "voluntary commitment", and the permit form itself now asks if applicants have ever "attended, treated or observed by any doctor or psychiatrist or at any hospital or mental institution".
20% of household have guns, I doubt 20% of households have never seen a doctor ever so it seems like there's a misunderstanding on your side. Either that or it is violating rights and there is really just a large portion of people who have never seen a doctor before.
Somehow they've been able to do it and while I don't know the specific of state law if they're specifically violating court rulings there are processes to punish them for it in court. Either they're "skirting' the rulings by doing something not yet ruled against, you misunderstand the rulings in question, SCOTUS is compromised by gun haters (despite as you say ruling in favor of the 2nd amendment multiple times), or you're in the middle of a legal correction and are just frustrated that procedures can take time.
Flowersignup
1yr ago
"until the courts rule the exact way I want, I shouldn't have to respect them" is to be quite frank, anti-American. Not just in disrespecting our legal system as a whole, but in disrespecting one of the fundamental values America and western democracy is built on, the rule of law and proper legal process.
Yes, Eisenhower executed on rulings he didn't like. He turned out to be a chump to do so,
Eisenhower despite his different views on racial segregation still agreed in this fundamental principle of the American system and faithfully executed on the rulings because of that, not because he was a chump.
There are very few things I can think of that would make it illegal to own a gun in every state beyond the status of being a violent felon.
Like I literally just double checked with Chatgpt and the groups it gave me
-
Felony Convicts
-
People Convicted of Domestic Violence Misdemeanors
-
People Subject to Domestic Violence Protective Orders
-
Fugitives from Justice
-
Drug Addicts and Users
-
People with Certain Mental Health Conditions
-
Illegal Immigrants
-
People Dishonorably Discharged from the Military
-
People Who Renounce U.S. Citizenship
-
People Under Age 18 (for certain firearms)
-
People Who Are Under Criminal Investigation
Nevertheless, I still cannot lawfully get a gun in my home state of New Jersey or any other state,
And that's what he said. So they're presumably a felon (particularly a violent felon since state laws tend to be less forgiving of that for gun ownership), done domestic violence, a fugitive of justice, under 18 or one of those other groups. Either that, or there's a category I'm not aware of/he's lying about not being able to get a gun in any other state.
Whichever one of these categories he is in, I think it's a fair thing to hope he can understand why society even in the pro gun states isn't particularly wanting felons, domestic abusers, the insane, etc to be owning firearms.
Flowersignup
1yr ago
The funniest part, though, is that you don't recognize that we are in fact following your advice. We have not rioted nation-wide. We are not actively fomenting assassins. We are not burning down the homes and offices of people we don't like. We organized and won an election, and now we are playing the game according to the existing rules.
That doesn't make any sense given the rest of your argument is "it's ok to ignore the rules".
It's also an interesting question in general, if one is so willing to abandon a principle simply because they believe others don't follow it, then was it really a principle of theirs to begin with? Perhaps those people are simply against the classic American values to begin with and they are seeking an excuse to abandon it.
Flowersignup
1yr ago
The CDC says a quarter of high schoolers are LGBT, a dramatic increase from what it used to be. Acceptance (and celebration) of LGBT students has resulted in more of them. That is what happens when things are accepted and celebrated in societies. Why would it not? Why do you think LGBT is a special case? In what sense have those students not been converted?
How is that "conversion"? A student being more open about their feelings is not the same as a student having previously been fully straight and having turned into bi or gay.
And as you yourself say "Why would it not?". Of course they are not a special case, we would expect at least some amount of an increase in behavior when it becomes destigmatized. But I would never refer to that as conversion, rather that's just more openness. Maybe this is just a disagreement about the wording, I take "conversion" to be more along the lines of "trying to change their actual feelings" rather than "changing their willingness to be open".
Now conversion could be happening alongside it, boosting the numbers up. But that's not evidence for it occuring.
Flowersignup
1yr ago
Next time if you want something, I recommend you ask for it directly instead of vaguely accusing a stranger you do not know, of things you would have no idea about them, and demanding vague and unspecific "evidence" to prove your unfounded accusations wrong.
Flowersignup
1yr ago
Well if you think you're right, you're welcome to volunteer your service as legal counsel to the Trump admin. Maybe you'll be the one to convince the judges on the Supreme Court and Fourth District that they don't understand the process of law.
You goto your local school board meeting, but inexplicably, the school board is like 70% fucking machines
You vote as hard as you can, and bless your heart, you even win!
Sounds like you voted in the wrong election, if your anti fucking machine constituent turned out across the relevant districts for the school board and won then those board members would be replaced.
The dude you voted for specifically tells the schools to tell the fucking machines to stop fucking. They simply can't stop.
Did the voters turn out for the school board election or state level representatives? Or did they just turn out for a single position and then got confused out of ignorance that there's more positions to vote for with their own different appointed powers, many of which are local? It sounds like the latter. An idiot with a great goal is still an idiot and it's not shocking when their plan comes undone. Likewise an idiot voter with a great goal is still an idiot.
When you think about it, it is rather silly to imagine you can vote or law your way out of having a single purpose machine fulfill it's singular purpose. You might as well vote or sue to make a mouse into a lion.
Well yeah, if your side doesn't turn out for your local school board elections then it shouldn't be a shocker that you lost them. And if you're simply outnumbered then that's local democracy. A fucking machine school board for the fucking machine city constituency, just like a Japanese National Diet for the Japanese citizens.
Flowersignup
1yr ago
I'm a fairly big fan of Lincoln. In the actual civil war, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. That was a very explicit violation of rule of law, and by no means the only one Lincoln committed, and the courts simply let him do as he pleased. How do events like that fit into your conception of the rule of law?
Article 1 section 9 Clause 2. The legal controversy over Lincoln was whether or not the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act was sufficient enough for such a declaration, the ability for them to choose to delegate the specifics was unclear.
How does "Justice Marshal has made his decision, now let him enforce it"?
Most likely an apocryphal quote and you believing it's real shows a pop history understanding of government. Andrew Jackson never actually defied the courts.
This is a very common myth, I understand why you might have thought it was true. But he never actually defied any Supreme Court ruling, nor it is likely he said the famous quote associated with him.
How does "the switch in time that saved Nine"?
John Roberts changing his view is not unconstitutional.
Flowersignup
1yr ago
Hence also why, when repeatedly challenged to this, you conduct an appeal to authority whose limitations are the subject of question. And whose argument already failed by past actions of previous administrations.
If you fundamentally don't like how the US legal system makes the courts the decider, then that's fine. You can have that view. But it doesn't change how the system works.
Nothing changes because you keep saying "bad faith, bad faith!" to someone explaining that your feelings don't make facts.
When a Tribe systematically breaks the rules, they don't get to appeal to those rules any more.
"America" is dead, and has been for some time. The current situation is not America dying, but the rotting of the national corpse.
Yeah if you just make up stuff about all the evils the "enemy" is doing where they're just straight up ignoring court orders over and over then I guess it would look like the country is dead.
People have been pointing out for a long time that the principles you appeal to were not sustainable without significant reform. Reforms were rejected, and now those principles are no longer being sustained.
None of this is new; we've been debating this for about a decade at this point, and the point of view you're arguing against is supported by quite a bit of solid evidence.
Hey if Americans agree with you on this specific point, start pushing for politicians to write a new amendment! We have a process established since the founding fathers for this and it's been done 27 times already. Start a movement to electorally challenge politicians that won't cooperate with it. We're in a democracy, use your voice and convince your fellow citizens. If they don't agree, then tough shit.
Flowersignup
1yr ago
Are you implying that you a stranger, not knowing everything I talk about by the nature of being a complete stranger have any means whatsoever to accuse me of hypocrisy here?
If you're gonna argue with the made up vision of other people you don't know that you have imagined in your head, then enjoy yourself.
around minors that have gone through the unethical transgender science grinder.
It's not a wonder you don't care about reforming the science to have evidence based results on if trans healthcare for minors has positive or negative results for patients if you've already made up your mind that it's unethical off other grounds.
Science should not be
Step 1: Have a view established off something else Step 2: Only accept evidence, research, and experts that agrees with the pre-established view and not the ones that disagree. Step 3: Declare the issue done with and stop further research.
In particular, you're responding to a claim that even the Republican-appointed judges are shaped in their judicial philosophy by the social mileu and ideological influence of Democrats in positions of cultural authority, like the mainstream media, by simply restating that they're Republican-appointed. You're not even engaging with his point!
If someone truly believes that every conservative justice on the Supreme Court has been compromised simply because they rule for Trump to respect judicial authority, then I'm going to go in the opposite direction and say it is them who is likely compromised. Anyone whose idealogy appears to be based around "Trump can not be criticized or pushed back on, even by fellow conservatives lest they are effectively traitors" is a person who lacks a meaningful idealogy.
You're making an argument from authority, and FCfromSSC is saying that the authorities themselves are compromised, or driven by social and ideological incentives and beliefs he disagrees with. He's saying the Pope is the antichrist, and you're quoting him from the first council of the Vatican.
Ok but even if we accept that all the conservative justices who have been conservative for longer than Trump has even been a republican for and some longer than many of us have been alive, it is still a truth of the US that the Supreme Court is granted judicial power to "all Cases, in Law and Equity".
Their authority remains enshrined in the Constitution, and if the argument extends so far to claim that their authority is invalid because they are in one man's opinion "compromised", then it seems to simply be more evidence that it is them who has shifted radically away from classic American values.
He doesn't need a refresher on the constitution any more than a Catholic who doesn't believe in God needs a refresher on ecumenical councils. You're quoting the Bible to an atheist.
You don't need to speak for him, I can look at how words and see what he said. " I do disagree that you or the media or the democratic party get to decide which actions are "clever" and which are illegal, and further I disagree that something is required to happen even if we agree that the action is in fact illegal."
Court rulings are de facto not "the media" or the "the Democratic party", they are the judicial branch. And again it does not matter whether or not one man dislikes their decisions, the Supreme Court is granted their authority under the supreme Law of the Land.
That's still incredibly flawed to assume reading through my limited postings on a single website make you meaningfully less of a stranger who does not know me or what I believe/have previously done.
This is no excuse to conjure up an imaginary strawman of a conversation partner and make unfounded allegations against them because of the mismatch between reality and strawman.
I am not claiming that you've never pushed back on left-wing activists or government officials ignoring the courts. I am observing that the material outcome of that pushback was zero accountability in any significant form for the left-wing activists or government officials in question, across a very large number of issues and specific cases. I am entirely willing to accept as much pushback as you and others wish to provide against my side, provided that this pushback is similarly ineffectual. As I said above, frown away.
I can not control the actions of others, especially not in regards to vague and nonspecific events.
But your position seems to be that this time is different, and that this time, something must be done
If there is any particular case where a court ruling was flagrantly ignored by a left leaning administration in modern history, then I shall condemn it to.
To clarify though, an admin changing a process or plan in response to the court to no longer fall under what was ruled against would not count as it would be a different plan and this is standard course of politics. For example when Biden's main student loan forgiveness policies were struck down, he used different existing laws that were not yet ruled on. This worked because the SC did not rule on loan forgiveness in general but on the specific method the Biden admin had tried to use.
This is rather normal in politics, and if the Trump administration wishes to proceed with their goals they are free to find all sorts of clever ways to do it so long as they don't defy the judicial branch.
Take it up with the courts, there will be plenty of gun rights organizations who like to fight for gun ownership freedom.
Neither of the cases you cited cover such a restriction, and while I said courts are generally not blind they are also not all encompassing. I never said it was right for such a restriction to exist, I'm just curious as to why it's an obstacle for you in particular given you're saying you can not get a gun.
If you want my personal opinion, it shouldn't be a restriction. But until this is taken up in courts and properly ruled on, the analogy does not work because they are not disobeying court orders. And I can not say whether or not it is, only if I personally think it should or should not be, it is the courts who will rule on the actual constitutionality of it.
As for any particular individual (regardless of whether or not such a restriction is allowed under the constitution), I still do find it a red flag if someone doesn't have two other adult humans willing to say they trust them.
They specifically said
Nevertheless, I still cannot lawfully get a gun in my home state of New Jersey or any other state,
He might run afoul of New Jersey's other requirements but per his own words, he also seems to run afoul of all other states as well. Thus he likely falls into one of those categories such as an illegal immigrant, minor under 12, felon, etc.
Edit: And while it is possible he misspoke, there is no magical way I can know this. Those groups make up a sizable portion of the US's population when put together, there's a decent chance any random on the internet falls into one of them, it's not like it would be a rare event to be immediately suspicious of.
This is both a single instance and presents little evidence that the child was "converted" rather than a teacher trying to be accepting of a student who said they were trans. You don't have to believe that children or teenagers could be transgender to understand how those would differ in intent.
Also this is about trans people, the original comment is about homosexuality.
More options
Context Copy link