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.
5mo ago
Where was all this complaining about the forms of the Republic when Obama was using his phone and pen, or everyone from Johnson to Biden was implementing DEI by executive order?
No, the Democrats have knocked every check and balance in the nation flat in their attempt to purge Republicans from power, and now the Republicans have turned tail on them. It's too late to call upon institutional integrity now.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
11mo ago
In more good news for Donald Trump (besides NOT being killed by that bullet), the classified documents case has been dismissed based on an Appointments Clause violation -- basically, the argument (also made by Clarence Thomas in Trump v. US) accepted by the court is that there is no statute authorizing the appointment of a Special Prosecutor (with the powers exercised by Jack Smith) by the Attorney General, and therefore Smith cannot lawfully prosecute Trump (or anyone else). In other words "Mr. Smith, you don't even work here."
No doubt this will be appealed, but the chance of any significant action before the election is nil.
(sorry for the repost, I belatedly realized I was still on last week's thread).
I presume Trump will move to have the other Federal case dismissed on the same grounds, so if that one wasn't stalled already by immunity claims, it would be stalled now. The Georgia case isn't affected but is stalled based on corruption claims agains the prosecutor. That leaves Trump 3-1 at the moment, and I would say the sentencing in the New York conviction (currently set for September) is likely to get delayed until after the election (when, let's face it, it ain't going to matter)
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
25d ago
What utility does knowing Iran's population matter? What relevance is the specific number of Iranians to any American interests?
If you're considering replacing its government by force, the size population you'll end up administering (at best) or fighting seems quite relevant.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
17d 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.
2mo ago
Too late for that. If we're going to switch back to "states rights", it has to be for a Red issue or it doesn't look like "state's rights" but rather "who/whom".
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
3mo ago
Many people hate the "stroads" of America for example
Nobody uses that term but fans of Strongtowns. Hating "stroads" for their appearance, though, is like complaining about the interior architecture of a factory. Their priority isn't visual appeal, it's function. Quaint medieval (or in the US, imitations of same) town centers with narrow twisting alleys and hipster shops are very picturesque, but if you want to get some serious shopping done, not very practical. Bringing your SUV to your nearest commercial area, bisected by a "stroad", and hitting the Home Depot, Target, and then the grocery store... now that's more like it.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
17d 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.
17d 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.
7mo ago
That is a very uncharitable way to say "The rules of war that you say we have to follow, you have to follow them too."
Hamas does not follow the rules of war. Furthermore, the rules of war do not say half the things Israel's opponents claim they say.
How many people who were complaining about the "kids in cages" at the southern border are ardent Zionists and don't see any inconsistency in their beliefs about the morality of border enforcement?
Does it matter? Anyway, how many Mexicans were launching rockets at El Paso and San Diego? Was there some operation where an organized group directed by the Mexican government (or whatever group controlled the territory) came in and killed and kidnapped a bunch of random Americans? The situations aren't all that similar.
How many people would tolerate what's happening in Gaza if Gaza were located in South Africa?
Depends on who was doing it and who was getting it done to, naturally.
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
-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.
1mo ago
So if you say “well, women shouldn’t have to do all the housework, the cooking, the cleaning, the child care, because she is equal to the man,” you immediately have a problem because somebody has to do that stuff. So now you’re putting this on the other adult in the relationship— the man. But then he claps back with his own rights claims “why should I have to do all this? Why is it my job to do the laundry?”
This no longer works, and has not for generations. A man making such a complaint -- or worse, pointing out that as the main (or sole) source of external income, he's doing a lot for the household already -- by doing so proves himself a boor and probably a wifebeater. That has been part of the influence of feminism on culture; a man is obligated to do his share of everything, and his share is whatever the woman says it is.
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
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
· Edited 16d 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.
2mo ago
We've talked a few times about New York's congestion pricing program. On February 19, Secretary of Transportation Duffy revoked authorization for this program based on two defects. One, that cordon pricing where a toll-free route exists is allowed for Interstates, but no other roads -- and in any case no toll-free route exists under New York's program. Second, that the program in fact exists to fund the MTA (state run public transportation, including the subway), not to reduce congestion. By statute any congestion pricing program requires authorization from the Department of Transportation, so this is the end of the program, right?
Wrong. Governor Hochul refused to shut it down by a March 21 deadline, calling instead for "orderly resistance". The US DOT extended the deadline until tomorrow. Hochul still refuses to shut down the program.
Unsurprisingly, there has been nothing said about the flagrant disregard for rule of law by the executive of New York.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
10mo ago
Reducing taxes on blue collar work doesn't increase it's value, though it does reduce its price. The working of the market should result in wages falling as a result, though various distortions like minimum wage and required time-and-a-half may change that. Sans gaming, the undesirable consequence I'd be most sure of is that hiring fewer employees and working them longer would become even more popular than it already is, both among employees (the ones still working) and employers.
If this proposal were to pass (and I give it a big fat zero chance), gaming would of course be extreme. Give me a contract that guarantees me 41 hours a week and pays me almost all the money in the 41st hour please.
Both Harris's proposals and Trump's are absolutely terrible this time around. Tariffs are bad, tax-free tips are stupid, and this tax-free overtime idea would be be a horror show of distortion and revenue loss if passed, which it won't be. On the other side, Harris's increased tax proposals and unrealized gains tax are terrible and have a better chance of being passed. Price controls are even worse and perhaps like Nixon she could do them by executive order. So Harris is still worse but Trump is closing that gap.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
16d 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.
6mo ago
If you want to treat women as having agency, you have to assign blame for the consequences of their decisions to them. There was no power imbalance tantamount to force here; Gaiman was rich, famous, and (apparently) charming but he had no authority over them. Writing books read by the public is not "grooming"; calling it such casts doubt on the concept of grooming. A woman's later regret does not make a man's actions any sort of offense against her. If you don't think women have agency, you may as well join the "Fight for 25".
Certainly there are conservative-morality reasons that it's wrong for an old celebrity to have sex with starstruck young women. But either such moral systems treat women as being lacking in agency, or the offenses aren't against the woman (or both).
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
9mo ago
And Trump's guilt when it comes to classified documents is so cut and dried
Is it? You know that picture with all the classified cover sheets was essentially fabricated by the FBI -- they put those cover sheets there.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
9mo ago
Nevermind that there are alternative interpretations of the US's experience with alcohol prohibition in the 1920s.
Yes, there are revisionist interpretations pushed by those who want to do it again despite the clearly destructive results from the last time.
And the US drug prohibition has not, regardless of your protestations, covered itself in glory.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
13d 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.
16d 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.
2mo ago
Obvious sophistry. It's a way to get people from outside the city to pay for NYC transit unions.
In Newton, Massachusetts, a pro-Palestinian man got into a shouting match with a group of pro-Israeli demonstrators across a busy street. For some reason, though he was mostly exchanging words with a woman, he ran across the street and tackled a man named Scott Hayes, who was also part of the demonstration. While he had Hayes on the ground, Hayes -- who had a legal gun -- shot him in the stomach. Two other pro-Israeli demonstrators pulled the man off Hayes, and he was later brought to a hospital.
Hayes was arrested and charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and Violation of a Constitutional Right Causing Injury. The only justification I can come up with for the latter is that it is the constitutional right of pro-Palestinian people to attack people supporting Israel.
Hayes will certainly plead self defense, but self-defense expert Andrew Branca at Legal Insurrection says it won't work. Basically the government's view is if someone has tackled you and is beating on you, it's not sporting to fight back with a weapon (i.e. deadly force). Think of government as the two guys who hold you while their buddy punches you.
This was all captured on video (linked in the Legal Insurrection article); there's really no doubt as to the course of events.
To add insult to injury, the pro-Palestinian man has not been charged.
(Hayes, BTW, is reportedly not Jewish)
More options
Context Copy link