The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
No bio...
User ID: 174
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
14d ago
I have repeated this over and over.
If you take gun rights seriously you can
-
Leave him his guns or
-
Subject him to trial by jury of his peers.
That doing the first may result in more danger to other people does not rule it out.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
14d ago
His whole schtick is sneering at right-wingers for being low-class. Maybe he's really an honest person on the right concerned with the right's failure to uphold elite standards, but that ain't the way to bet.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
14d ago
Other common things young girls said they feel the need to do during sex include having no pubic hair, making pleasurable noises, doing what the man says, and orgasm or pretend to. Mr Cleary said students admit that these expectations are coming from porn.
This sort of undermines the rest.
You won't believe he shocking things men expect from women as a result of porn!
- Choking
- Pleasurable noises
- Her to orgasm (or pretend to)
When late GenX was coming of age, those last two were not only part of a major motion picture, they were in the trailer.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
14d ago
The fact that the claims are symmetric does not mean the situation on the ground is.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
14d ago
The other headline is that they progress 2.6 times faster on the state mandated curriculum, so they'll probably finish it all by junior high or so.
This bar is not quite as low as the Dead Sea, but it's at least as low as Amsterdam. The state mandated curriculum is supposed to be set up so that every kid gets through it in 12 years. It doesn't do that well, but the numbers are consistent with it working for kids down to more than 1SD below the mean. If you have a program that's almost certainly only going to attract kids 1SD ABOVE the mean and higher, going much faster should be easy.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
15d ago
So inauthentic; if you're doing that you should be singing in Nahuatl.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
15d ago
I haven't seen good faith engagement from you in ages in this conversation. You clearly imply that some infringements on the right to bear arms is reasonable but you don't want to admit what that is then you later try and imply that you don't. Those are incompatible and you must pick.
Yes, I've said that an infringement is reasonable if it's a process similar to a felony conviction. And I've said that involuntary commitment is nothing like that. You keep telling me that then I have to solve the problem of people who were involuntarily committed and released buying guns and killing people, or accept that involuntary commitment loses gun rights. And I keep telling you that no, I do not have to solve that problem; that some bad people will get guns is an unavoidable consequence of having a right to keep and bear arms.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
15d ago
That's the proposal. The answer to "I know this guy is going to do something bad but I can't prove it in court, so I want to take away his rights anyway" is "no". That's true whether it's liberty, speech, or guns.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
15d ago
That the right to keep and bear arms not be infringed.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
15d ago
This does not meet commitment criteria. He should be committed if he attempted to kill himself, or if he is likely to kill himself if sent home.
The latter is entirely within the discretion of the pshrink.
So you would rather lock people up indefinitely than allow them to go free and not have guns?
I want them to go free and have guns. Both liberty (i.e. not being in jail) and the right to bear arms are rights and should not be permanently taken away based on the word of a psychiatrist, or a police officer, or even a police officer AND a psychiatrist.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
15d ago
Guy threatens to kill you for raping him. He gets admitted to the hospital. He gets discharged and still wants to kill you after he stops his meds, so he strangles you with his bare hands. How do you prevent this?. Well, obviously, you just keep him locked up, indefinitely. You might think this is a major infringement on his right to liberty, and you'd be right. Just as taking away his gun rights is.
Guy is feeling kinda depressed. He goes to a pshrink and mentions that he's feeling suicidal thoughts. Pshrink commits him. He gets out 3 days later. Now he's lost his gun rights, but that doesn't bother you. You're not a strong advocate of the Second Amendment.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
15d ago
My right to be alive supersedes your right to have a gun.
My right to have a gun does not interfere with your right to be alive (which isn't a right, anyway; at best you may have a right for others not to kill you). The right to keep and bear arms may increase the danger to you, but if that's sufficient to strip it, you are not a strong advocate of the Second Amendment.
Involuntarily committed people have usually committed a crime
No, this is not the case -- especially not if you restrict "crime" to felonies. And "usually" isn't the correct standard for depriving someone of a right anyway.
It is not assessed through a jury of peers, but this is why I'm asking what you want instead, because if you want that shit gets worse - do you want to be held until the legal system gets its shit together instead of just discharged from the hospital? Do you want your taxes to balloon?
These are not in fact the options. Another option is to not deprive those who have been involuntary committed of their right to keep and bear arms once they are released.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
15d ago
As I said, you are not a strong 2A advocate. You are not willing to, shall we say, "bite the bullet" and accept that there may be bad consequences to that right that cannot be fully ameliorated.
This is in bad faith.
No, postulating Jihadis with nukes was bad faith, because it conflated the subject we were discussing -- people who should be denied Second Amendment rights -- with the extent of the Second Amendment for everyone, in a way attempting to make limits on the latter justify limits on the former. Anyway, Jihadis have so far killed more people with guns than they have with nukes.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
15d ago
· Edited 15d ago
The constitution is not a suicide pact, case law establishes restrictions to constitutional rights
So we've reached the "There are limitations, therefore this limitation is OK" stage of vitiating the Second Amendment.
The same for 2A. Jihadis can't have a right to nukes just because they are American citizens. That is not sensible. You can still be pro-2A and think that murders have lost their right to guns.
American citizen Jihadis absolutely have the right to guns if they haven't been convicted of crimes. We can't just have a member of the priesthood point to them and say "Man, those are some BAD muzzies" and no guns for them.
Ultimately your right to live supersedes my example crazy guys right to own a gun. If you believe otherwise you are in a gross minority.
You're not asking for a right to live; it's illegal to shoot you. You're asking for a right to safety, by taking away the guns of those who you think might shoot you based on some very lightweight procedure amounting to the word of a doctor. There's no such right.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
15d ago
You have not proposed an alternative.
Nor do I need to. If you're actually a 2A advocate, it's not somehow the "default" that if a psychiatrist thinks a person deserves to be committed that they lose their gun rights forever. If you think that for gun rights to apply, the proponents of gun rights must come up with a solution to all crimes which could be prevented by taking away someone's gun rights, you're not a 2A advocate.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
16d ago
This is not about NJ gun laws this is about the more general involuntary commitment process.
It's not about the more general involuntary commitment process. It's about whether entering into that process should carry the same stigma as a felony conviction with respect to gun rights.
For other rights we prohibit people from abusing them (see: restrictions on free speech such as harassment).
We don't, however, take away their typewriters, computers, or pen and paper.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
16d ago
"There was an analogous restriction at the Founding" is not a talisman you can wave around to justify any gun restriction, using precedent that is considerably later than the founding. Bruen is a dead letter, but if it were actually followed it would protect a hell of a lot more gun rights than NJ -- or even the Federal Government -- allows.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
16d ago
-Involuntary commitments are always correct.
I'm already off the train.
-The type of people who are involuntary committed are not safe to own guns.
Certainly many of the type of people who are involuntarily committed are not safe to own guns. However, I know one person who was involuntarily committed as a result of a drug reaction (to prescription drugs); while the commitment may have been correct at the time, they certainly shouldn't have their gun rights taken away forever.
-Even if both of those true, you need a trial to take the guns away.
Yes. Taking someone's constitutional rights away, especially on a lasting or even permanent basis, is a Big Deal. It shouldn't be done without a trial.
If the problem is the third option, how much are you willing to pay to facilitate that? Are you willing to have people temporarily held in custody in some form until after the hearing, because they've been tentatively described as someone who can't have guns for safety reasons but they can't be taken yet?
We already have this; the problem is that just being held means they lose their gun rights forever.
Your frustration with overall NJ gun laws (which are braindead) make it easy to miss Chesterton's fence, the alternatives are force.
The relevant fence is Schelling's, not Chesterton's. There isn't one on this slope, as the NJ gun laws demonstrate. And when I bring up NJ gun laws, the first argument from many "2A advocates" I get is "they aren't the way you say". If I demonstrate they are, the answer is "good". That's not being a 2A advocate.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
16d ago
The NIST-accepted theory is that the fire caused the floor trusses (not beams) to lose stiffness, sag, and pull the outer columns inward, which initiated the collapse. Loss of stiffness and strength due to the fire was a cause, but not the proximate cause, of the collapse -- the buckling of the columns was.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
16d ago
And Kansas ca 1860 would be appropriate for finding 19th century tradition.
The United States was founded in the late 18th century.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
16d ago
For the rest of this, well you have a trained professional (in the case of NJ I believe it's two physicians spread out over multiple days)
A "trained professional" is not the same as an adversarial process. A police officer is a trained professional, for instance.
NJ allows for at least a 3-day involuntary commitment with no court order, just on the word of a health facility, and 6 days in many circumstances. Then they can be held up to 20 days on an ex parte court order. Only then does the patient get an actual hearing. Any of this disqualifies you from gun ownership in NJ.
And though some of this can be sued over, the burden of proof is then on the patient to prove the commitment was unreasonable. And even that doesn't restore gun rights.
Importantly the alternative is ass - does every temporary psychiatric hold involve the legal system?
If you want it to take away legal rights, especially permanently, it sure as hell ought to.
And if you want to claim to be a strong 2A advocate, you need to accept that this sometimes means accepting that people that you'd look at and say "Naa, that guy shouldn't have a gun" have gun rights too. Otherwise you end up rationalizing yourself (as many "conservatives" do) into finding even NJs gun laws to be perfectly OK.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
16d ago
For example, PA prohibited firearm ownership to "Any person going about from place to place begging, asking or subsisting upon charity, and for the purpose of acquiring money or living, and who shall have no fixed place of residence, or lawful occupation in the county or city".
This isn't a permanent restriction.
Or more aptly, Kansas
Entered the union in 1861.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
16d ago
This means default to no for gun acquisition for people in those categories. People deserve rights including the right not to be limited in their behavior when possible, however other individuals deserve the right to be free of molestation and incidents of bad behavior skyrocket once you look at the pot of the population that are felons or involuntarily committed.
Once you start doing balancing tests like this -- "What's the potential of harm if we let the applicant have a gun" -- you're not really talking about a right.
Felony and involuntary committment are quite different. Felony conviction is a judicial and adversarial process, and pretty damned heavyweight. Involuntary commitment can happen on the word of a cop and a doctor, or sometimes a family member and a doctor. No hearing, no advocate against commitment for the patient. Taking away someone's rights for involuntary commitment isn't anything like taking them away for felony conviction; it's like taking them away for any arrest.
(and of course NJ makes voluntary commitment, by which they mean any treatment in a psychiatric facility, and also involuntary outpatient treatment, a permanent bar to gun ownership)
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
16d ago
These committment laws are all much later than the founding; there was not an analogous restriction at the founding. There were restrictions for crime, but no one has demonstrated crime.
It is a fair response to the complete ineptitude of our political class to put our political class in more complete charge of what is now in the private sphere? This seems utterly quixotic.
You cannot build or keep a culture that promotes and encourages personal virtue with a political system that does that opposite, like socialism does.
More options
Context Copy link