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.
5d ago
and I'm a very strong 2A advocate
If you claim to be a strong 2A advocate yet your reasoning keeps leading to people not being allowed to keep and bear arms, you are not actually a strong 2A advocate.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
5d ago
I believe a normal person should not have their rights abridged.
And a "normal person" will never have seen a mental health professional, will never have been confused about the names of his medications, will have three friends willing to swear he's moral enough to buy a firearm, etc, etc. In fact, perhaps a "normal person" wouldn't want a gun at all.
No. If you want to be a strong advocate of the Second Amendment, you must think those carveouts must be small and strongly limited. Carving out those convicted of a felony is OK. Carving out those who some psychiatrist once thought wasn't in such great shape is not. Carving out those who aren't socially connected enough to get people to vouch for them is not. Yeah, this is really hard, because it means some people who you probably don't want having a gun will (if you get your way) lawfully be able to get one whether you like it or not, but that's part of the cost of being a strong Second Amendment advocate.
Important to note is that you can sue for inappropriate involuntary commitment and that this is a major cause of malpractice claims. The opportunity to defend yourself from malfeasance is there. Yes psychiatrists have notoriously cheap malpractice insurance.
Sure, who are the courts going to believe, the psychiatrist or the crazy person?
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
5d 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.
4d 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.
4d 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.
4d 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.
4d 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.
4d ago
· Edited 4d 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.
4d 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.
4d 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.
1d ago
That the US has a "Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG)" is a pretty common conspiracy theory. I think SS and the other local dissident right members could tell you all about it.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
13d ago
"Nation destroy" isn't sufficient in Iran. Israel probably could have killed off the regime's civilian/religious leaders by now. But if they did, Iran would just get a new set and they'd get right back to work building nukes. Because the lesson of Libya, North Korea, and Ukraine is if you want to survive and be independent of the world powers, you need nukes. An Iranian regime that is under US hegemony isn't going to come about except by force, and neither Russia nor China is in a position to take Iran within its orbit (not that they'd be likely to accept that either). So you'd need to either totally occupy or install a puppet regime backed by your military, (probably both in that order), and the population matters there.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
13d ago
Why does regular bombing campaigns leaving the country unable to create the necessary infrastructure not a viable path forward?
You don't need the US to be directly involved for that. Israel can handle it all on their own.
I see no particular reason we can't just annihilate them.
"Annihilating" Iran, Carthage (or Circassia) style, isn't on the table.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
18d ago
It's giving information to the enemy (i.e. other drivers who don't want you in front of them). This can sometimes be used tactically, as when the car you are slightly ahead of in the lane you want to be in has a barely-adequate-to-merge gap in front and behind. Signal, they move forward to block, tap brakes (or just let off acceleration) and slide in before the guy behind him can do anything.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
4d 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.
16d ago
Iran has no blood feud with the US.
Iran certainly has a blood feud with the US. The people of Iran as a whole may or may not (depends on just how bad the Shah was, and how much they blame the US for that), but the current leadership (as a class) does. They encourage chants of "Death to America". They refer to the US as the Great Satan. When someone tells you in no uncertain terms that they are your enemy, it makes sense to believe them.
It is true that if Iran were to just do whatever it wants, they likely would mess with the Little Satan (Israel) first. I don't know if the Ayatollahs are even crazier than the Kims, and would nuke Haifa and Tel Aviv as soon as they got the bombs. But it's definitely a possibility.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
4d 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.
13d ago
Your objections are
- Ted Cruz doesn't know the population of Iran
- You don't like Ted Cruz's interpretation of scripture
- You don't like Ted Cruz's SUPPORT of Israel
- Religious people (Huckabee) using religious language.
- An uncorroborated claim that Bush didn't know there was difference between Sunni and Shia
- A similarly uncorroborated claim that Bush used religious language speaking to Chirac
- Various claims, from his enemies, of Trump being unable or unwilling to read
- Biden's senility
- Democratic trans policy.
From this you conclude "There are serious structural problems with how America selects its politicians if this is the calibre of talent that's drawn into positions of great power." But this is mostly a Gish gallop. Cruz certainly fucked up not knowing the population of Iran. But neither Cruz's interpretation of scripture nor Cruz's open support of Israel support that. Nor does the use of religious language; you may find it embarrassing but it doesn't indicate a lack of talent. The various claims mostly from tell-all books published much later (and usually disputed) are pretty much worthless as evidence. As are claims reported in the press about Trump in general. Biden's senility is only weak evidence of a problem with selection; it seems clear his senility got much worse after he was elected. And perhaps I'm being uncharitable, but I'm pretty sure Democratic politicians CAN tell the difference between men and women, but they lie about it for policy reasons; they're evil, not stupid.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
18d ago
Only Americans could design their society around cars and then get mad at each other for having the audacity to... drive cars nearby.
New Jersey. We don't get mad, we get even.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
3d 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.
10d ago
Wishcasting, as has been going on with respect to Iran since the waning days of the Reagan administration. Most likely they're reaching a non-representative set, with religious Iranians being more likely to eschew their survey. Islam tends to the more strict, not less, from the bottom up; any moderating influence comes from a "degenerate" (or Westernized) elite, which Iran lacks (largely because they killed them or drove them out in the Revolution)
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
5d ago
Nerds were the first to have access to online conspiracy content.
Almost tautological because of "online".
Jet Fuel Can't Melt Steel Beams!
The Jet A open air burn temperature is 1,030 °C, considerably less than the melting point of even lower melting point steels. Alas, sneering at the actual TRUE things conspiracy theorists find is pretty typical for deboonkers, and demonstrates they are merely accepting authority rather than thinking.
Muh Magic Bullet!
That's a lot older than online conspiracy theories.
I want the old America back where children were born without marriage, didn't try to change their gender, and got all the vaccines their pediatrician recommended.
There were a lot fewer recommended vaccines.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
7d ago
Unfortunately Republicans have no solution to the problem of marriage. Neither party does, because the Overton Window only contains solutions that don't work.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
18d ago
There is payoff for "defection", and it's not even prisoner's dilemma payoffs. If you're "nice" and let people in front of you who you could have beaten out, they will typically be slow and sluggish drivers who hold you up. If someone aggressively cuts you off, they will typically want to be going fast and won't hold you up (but not always, the asshole who cuts you off and slows down is prevalent, though his natural territory is Pennsylvania)
The common thread between LA and NJ is there's just too damn much traffic.
If you're considering replacing its government by force, the size population you'll end up administering (at best) or fighting seems quite relevant.
More options
Context Copy link