Opt-out
2d ago
Ok then how would you fix black violence? It’s easy to throw shade but what’s your solution?
Do you really think the 2nd Amendment though is assuming they have the support of a state-level army? And it’s not a need to do it themselves?
I believe the words are fairly clear in the amendment. Though current jurisprudence does not give them access to even machine guns. I think the amendment is fairly clear that preserving liberty necessitates the civilian population can do state level violence.
But to be honest I think the enemy the 2a has in mind is DC. The only argument I see for excluding that part of 2A is an argument that the Civil War was some kind of common law precedence refuting that right. But they never codified it.
Opt-out
3d ago
They were literally slaves under the constitution. Of course they couldn’t own property or guns in this case. I don’t need to state things you already know.
Opt-out
3d ago
Words can clearly have more than one meaning. There is a chestertons fence conservatism where you don’t exactly know why the fence was there but maybe you shouldn’t tear it down because that fence is doing something important that you don’t understand.
Opt-out
3d ago
IMO some people treat the Civil War as if it was an Amendment to the Constitution. The Federal Government crushing a rebellion ended the part of the 2nd Amendment giving a right to insurrection. Especially people on the left seem to imply that the Civil War settled that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Though they also did not take the time to write out an amendment banning the right to have arms for insurrection. It would have made so many of these gun questions easier today.
Opt-out
3d ago
Ok so you’re just picking and choosing what is “ok” to conservative. Kind of like how a progressive changes the meaning of the world. You like things one way and want to call that “conservative”.
But the ideals in the constitution included a ban on black people from owning guns. I think the founding fathers made a mistake on the whole slave thing. But you can make a solid common good argument that they were in fact correct banning gun ownership for blacks. 50% of founding fathers plus or minus supported slavery. Well north of 90% were likely against gun ownership.
I think it’s fine if you think your limiting rights to black people is a bad thing and mostly agree with that, but it 100% fits with a conservative philosophy.
Opt-out
3d ago
How does “infantry arms” maintain the security of a free state today? If Russia invades some guy with a machine gun (which is illegal) isn’t repelling Russia.
Opt-out
3d ago
Conservative means to keep things how they were.
Clarence Thomas wasn’t allowed to own a gun when this country was founded. And my gut says forgetting slavery (which many wanted rid of) the northerners would have laughed at the idea of army the negro population.
The inclusion of “necessity to preserve a free state”, the founders be rebels, an early act in the war was securing cannons. I think all these point in the direction that the amendment wasn’t just to protect yourself from your neighbor but to wage war against the sovereign or an invasionary force. All of that would include full military capability. There is no better weapon at preventing occupation than nukes.
Opt-out
4d ago
Honestly I just wanted to have fun with courts making up law on (1) but it does seem from a common good perspective that could make America a lot safer.
(2) In my opinion the 2nd Amendment passed by slippery slope arguments a long time ago. I think it guarantees tanks. They’ve banned hand guns. I don’t even like guns. Just my autism seems evident to me the amendment guaranteed a right to do nation-state level violence. I think the words are already being ignored. (3) we can prosecute illegal transfers and not safely taking care of guns.
Words on paper have no power of law if the government just ignores them which is what I believe has happened with the 2nd. Perhap for good reasons they ignore them.
I agree. Personally I think the 2nd Amendment is perhaps the most specific of all rights in the constitution. Its true meaning as written and understood by the crafters is as expansive as the commerce clause has become in practice.
To me the only way you could limit its power would be to argue the bill of rights as a whole does not apply to states. That’s a better argument for limiting its scope. But that would change a lot of other jurisprudence.
If the 2nd Amendment was interpreted correctly I think it would be the only amendment we could actually get a bipartisan amendment passed right now to limit its scope.
As written America has a right to wage war on Iran to prevent them from getting nukes but no right to stop an Iranian dual citizen from buying a nuke in the US.
Am I rare conservative that just doesn’t care much about gun rights?
The big issue to me with gun rights is the 2nd Amendment seems very clear to me.
“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The words seem very clear to me “shall not be infringed”. This isn’t Roe where you’re finding some abortion right in a right to privacy. And the right to privacy isn’t even explicit in the constitution.
If you do not only textual meaning but look at context at the time then it seems clear to me it’s not just personal weapons, but the right to have the arms to challenge Washington DC and fight the US military. If the Koch brothers wanted nukes I think the Constitution is very clear that they are allowed to have nuclear weapons. But context of the time the writers were a bunch of rebels who became patriots when they won. That would seem to strongly imply that the rebels would support full arsenal of weapons to fight their own government.
This is just another sign to me that the SC is just a Senate. Koch Bros (or Soros or other rich guy) wanting Nukes would be obviously unpopular. And we on nukes we would be able to pass a Constitutional Amendment. And we should. It would be interesting if we could get an amendment passed banning tanks etc.
Now to actual throw a little heat. I’ve considered just accepting the SC is a Senate and adopting a common good philosophy for law. Nobody enforces the text of the constitution and I think this would largely eliminate most issues with guns:
-
Blacks can not own guns. Straight to jail if you have one. The 54% of murders coming from this group would seem to indicate this is good. I can probably drop their murder rate by 75% with this. We can do DNA testing here with like <20% African DNA as a cutoff. Might give them a carve-out for true hunting rifles. I feel fine saying that as a community they’ve proven guns are very bad for them.
-
Under 25 can not own guns. This takes away most of the school shootings. Rittenhouse seems like he can properly own a gun but whatever blanket age works better. Most mass shootings would be eliminated except the very rare case where someone super competent does it like the Vegas shooting.
-
Koch types can’t own nukes. I would likely also ban tanks and real military hardware. This kills the 98% of the ability of citizens to preserve a free state thru insurrection, but feels practical.
-
Everyone else gets to own for the most part whatever they want. Some severe criminal penalties for not properly storing your guns if your kid goes off and shoots up a school.
You would be left with a bunch of suicides by mostly 60 year old white men, but that doesn’t have huge externalities.
Some kind of mental health rule would be a nice to have, but I’ve got no idea how to implement it that would be abused. Age/race restrictions are easy to enforce. Complexity allows the beauracracy to play games.
I think from a common good philosophy my rules would eliminate 80% of Americas gun problems while maintaining a general right for the public to own guns.
I agree that the Constitution is dead and America being a creedal nation is largely false. Part of the creed and by Constitutional design is that one of the checks on the power of DC is an explicitly designed right to tell DC to fuck off because everyone has guns and your not coming to “City/Wilderness” to enforce this law because we got 100k men with guns. That is what is meant by “security of a free state”. A right to rebellion was in the Constitution.
Opt-out
4d ago
Wages haven’t mean reverted and we are years past the pandemic which means behavior and government policy changed (mainly we have UBI now so that killed low wage labor).
But how does this relate to not having enough workers for schools? You cited Florida. Florida schools were open. If anything they did operational mitigation. I never once made a claim that schools need operate identically to how they operated when not in pandemic. Substitute teachers are just babysitters. They might plug in a movie. Florida realized it wasn’t worth paying up for them.
Opt-out
4d ago
And what does this have to do with the original point about labor shortages being the issue with school closures? Florida was open. Florida can’t hire bachelor degree substitute teachers for $14 an hour
Opt-out
4d ago
I did that one time for a HVAC issue for a truck that was already at my building. They still tried charging me $170 for spending 20 min looking at the unit when they were already there and direct calling avoided any google fees.
But a lot of places do need to charge very high fees because google is the advertising toll collector and for a lot of the people it’s the default way to find a lot of services quickly. Most people don’t realize that businesses using google ads need to have very high prices due to google fees. I think a lot of people would avoid using google if they knew the fees that were getting passed on to them.
Opt-out
4d ago
Wages going up were not a result of the pandemic. They are still up. It’s government handouts. Military disability. Food stamps. Etc. but $13 an hour for someone with a bachelor degree was never a serious attempt to get workers.
Same story in everything run by Dems. Why can’t we build housing? Regulations. But nuclear is too expensive. Why is that? It’s creating a problem and then complaining we can not doing that thing after you created the problem.
We spend 225 billion a year now on military disability. Honestly I was stupid not joining the military. Spend 4 years and get $5k for life. 15% of the working age population is now on food stamps.
Opt-out
5d ago
I probably would. Haven’t had a big plumbing issue. But a lot of contractors do use google. FB probably has their own gatekeeper fee on marketplace but cheaper than ads.
Opt-out
5d ago
50% agree. It’s primary mission is still education at a minimum it’s what drives the economy getting the top 20% educated and into the professional class.
But yes it does all that other stuff. And in certain areas the education part is the least important. Assimilation use to be important but we seem to have given that up.
As far as Covid goes staff shortages were not important for educating. A reduced schedule with off-day homework accomplishes that.
This was about pandemic caused shortages of labor. Not states refusing to hire workers.
Your articles come closer to proving my point by Bayesian logic. You went google searching for “teacher shortage” and the best articles you could find were school districts offering wages 50% of no-skill wages which is essentially no different than just deciding not to hire.
It’s like saying I want a Ferrari and my bid is $15k. I don’t actually want a Ferrari.
Opt-out
5d ago
It does feel like this could be a little like the death of mail then the death of e-mail and now everyone wants to do text message for important communications. Each prior one got too spammy. LLM do seem like they could be used for evil this way. But hopefully better uses emerge.
One observation of mine on why home service business exploded is the google tax. $70 a click. People got accustomed to using google. Now plumbers have to charge a lot because the click costs them a lot. In the old days the go to choice would be the phone book and you just paid for one ad a year in the plumbers section. Smaller gate-keeper tax.
Opt-out
5d ago
Honestly yes you can take large losses and be profitable. That’s something they lie to you about in the trading books. Many strategies do just fine with it.
But I think this conversation was more about investing than trading. The market often does do mini crashes (sometimes big %) then end up fully mean reverting and then going up. Someone investing their savings and not trading would be very poorly served with stop losses. We’ve had many crashes that then V-shape back up. The correct thing for them to do to manage risks is diversifying, maybe risks-parity, and keeping beta down to their risks tolerance.
Opt-out
5d ago
-
Honestly the school week probably should be 3-4 days a week like college. It’s more efficient.
-
Those areas did open
-
Do you even read your own links? Florida is quoted as paying $10-13 an hour for substitutes. Or just google a bunch of links for staff shortages? If this was important they could hike pay. You can make double walking into a Chipotle.
Florida schools perform fine so it’s probably not a real issue. Though the demographic adjusted stats don’t account for Flordia Hispanics being white Europeans while California is filled with Amerindians.
So why haven’t we fixed that?
More options
Context Copy link