Share good ideas and conversation.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
tacocat's comments
tacocat  ·  2 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Colin Kaepernick will not be silenced.

I'm proud of what he's done and I think he's an awesome dude. But he's not an upper echelon quarterback. BUT the Dolphins signed Smokin Jay Cutler out of retirement so Kaepernick is a whole lot better than some starters in the league now. And now I have to politely ignore a bunch of conversations about how much Kaepernick is a spoiled whiner who sucks.

I hate everyone.

katakowsj  ·  2 days ago  ·  link  ·  

My masters of suckitude, the Detroit Lions, have a decent Matthew Stafford, but would greatly benefit from, say a Colin Kaepernick backup QB.

kleinbl00  ·  2 days ago  ·  link  ·  

All I'm gonna say is "Los Angeles Chargers."

katakowsj  ·  2 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Yeah...Chargers. I feel that pain. That’s rough man.

BTW, watching snippets of the U of M - Wisconsin game. Michigan lost another QB today. A Wisconsin LB used Brandon Peters’ head to tamp down a high spot in the turf as he sacked him.

What sign of respect did the Michigan players show to the world as Brandon Peters lay motionless and got carted off the field?

They took a knee.

kleinbl00  ·  2 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Oh, it'd be tough if I didn't hate the shit out of LA. I mean, Seattle's terrible enough this year but I derive active pleasure in watching the suckfest that is the "Los Angeles" Chargers. Like, they play in this tiny shitty stadium in fucking Carson that, prior to their asses, only existed for soccer and they can't even fill it. Their whole ad campaign is #fightforLA and their color commentators will talk about how they spent a quarter million dollars on a limo so their quarterback wouldn't have to move.

The problem is you can't even be a hipster and hate on the Chargers. They're like a heel in wrestling - you're supposed to. What's funny is in LA one of my roommates is from San Diego and the other is from Cleveland so despite knowing hella more about football than I do, they rarely watch it.

tacocat  ·  4 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Questionable da Vinci sells for $450M signaling end of times

Whether or not this is a good investment is sorta irrelevant. This is a priceless, once in a lifetime buy. I don't see anything questionable about it. Every old master employed students to help. Hell. There's a painting that's important because Leonard might have painted part of it as a student. It's like 500 years old. Damn right it will have been restored. The Last Supper might have more restoration work than original at this point and that thing is just going to go away at some point because he painted it stupid.

Honestly I can't even believe there are Leonardos in private collection at this point.

tacocat  ·  4 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Pubski: November 15, 2017

I'd send a digital file but you'd lose the poorly Xeroxed charm

tacocat  ·  5 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Pubski: November 15, 2017

lil the book is in the mail.

If anyone else wants a book of poetry by a guy who doesn't like poetry. Some of them are incredibly acceptable. Most OK book ever!

They cost about two bucks to print. Plus postage. And a cup of coffee or something for me would be cool

weewooweewoo  ·  4 days ago  ·  link  ·  

gimme gimme gimme.

uh, I don't know how postage works yet for the place I'm staying at. I'll message you when I figure it out.

tacocat  ·  4 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I'd send a digital file but you'd lose the poorly Xeroxed charm

tacocat  ·  5 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Pubski: November 15, 2017

I do get the impression pretty often that proponents are too dismissive of the very real problems. Personally I don't think it's fundamentally bad or evil but it's also not a magic bullet. So my opinion is kinda:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

tacocat  ·  5 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Pubski: November 15, 2017

As a person who seems to know what he's talking about on this subject, what do you think about nuclear power in general? The opinions I see are usually one extreme or the other. Either "It's safer than a pot belly stove," or "OMG! Armageddon!"

kleinbl00  ·  5 days ago  ·  link  ·  

We got smarter people on here when it comes to nuclear power. A major issue that nuclear proponents don't like to talk about is what to do with the byproducts. They're radioactive for a long time and we've been playing Hot Potato with high level waste since the Manhattan Project. People who Want To Believe will generally mention thorium reactors about here but the most enthusiastic endorsement I've ever gotten out of any of the nuclear scientists I know has been "...yeah, maybe but there hasn't been a lot of compelling evidence to research it, really."

Bill McKibben dismisses nuclear power because without subsidy it's more expensive than coal or wind. "Subsidy", to my mind, is a great way to negate "externality" . I don't think the issue is that simple.

My father is decidedly pro nuclear power. But then, he once made a terrified trucker take 4 showers before he realized his geiger counter gave a false positive if he twisted the shield towards the sun. I'm of the opinion that most of the public discomfort with nuclear power comes from fear and distrust and that "dirty bombs" are a psychological weapon that works once at which point everyone figures out that the whole world is kinda radioactive and we deal with it just fine. But I'm also not entirely convinced that the very permanent and expensive drawbacks to nuclear power are negated by their efficiency and environmental friendliness.

In other words, I don't know what to think but I sure do think a lot.

tacocat  ·  5 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I do get the impression pretty often that proponents are too dismissive of the very real problems. Personally I don't think it's fundamentally bad or evil but it's also not a magic bullet. So my opinion is kinda:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

tacocat  ·  5 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Pubski: November 15, 2017

Hello. I'm afraid I don't know you from Adam

AdamTheChespin  ·  5 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Lol ok

FirebrandRoaring  ·  4 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Use the opportunity to tell a bit about yourself, yo.

AdamTheChespin  ·  4 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I’d rather not. Thanks for the suggestion though.

tacocat  ·  6 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Do we really understand the Second Amendment anymore?

I don't go looking for unbiased sources. I understand the bias of my sources. One of yours is accused by his peers of falsifying data.

I don't get the impression that you want to actually have anything like a discussion about this topic because no one who disagrees with you can live up to your self imposed standards. There's no reason to disqualify someone's about guns because they don't know ad much about them as you do. It's this easy: guns kill people. The ultimate denial of freedom is to deny someone their life.

You claim you want a civil conversation about guns but what I've observed is that you want your opinion validated, you don't respect anyone who you feel isn't qualified to comment on the issue and you want to have the conversation on your own terms. Which includes changing the subject and saying we're not in a position to do anything so the status quo is acceptable until the conversation can be had on terms you accept, by people you respect and using research and data you agree with for whatever reason.

Like, what do you even want? I've never seen you pleased by any argument outside the National Review and some NRA funded think tank.

But my sources are biased? OK. Look at their sources. Academics in the field that guy works in say he's not an ethical researcher. They're biased in the reporting they choose but those aren't opinion pieces or poorly and deceptively performed polls. They're facts they're presenting. And they may skew in a direction but calling a spade a spade isn't really that biased.

Didn’t you say jutists are grappling with this issue because it's so complicated? It wasn't until the NRA made it complicated with some fucked up interpretation of the second amendment that never existed in the courts for over 200 years.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856

There you go. Several generations of judges had this shit figured out until Wayne Lapierre and Charlton Heston decided.... I don't even know what they want. They just really like guns or something.

    On June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

    Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!) and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weapon—and courts overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand. Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”

This was all an irrelevant argument until the interpretation of the amendment was reinterpreted by a lobbying group.

I think you need to reevaluate your motivations for what you believe. I get a strong sense of dishonesty from your arguments. They're dismissive. They're pedantic. They're maybe a little elitist. If you really feel that there needs to be reform maybe back down from some of the red lines you've drawn in this debate because I don't feel that they're serving any point except making conversation more difficult and you come across as an ideologue who won't admit to being one.

You like guns. That's it. People are fucking that up for you.

You gotta give up some freedoms sometimes when other people abuse them. It's called living in society

johnnyFive  ·  5 days ago  ·  link  ·  

With the sources thing, I was more pointing out the hypocrisy of you saying "I'm going to counter your biased source with biased sources of my own, since that's better." I then supplied alternate sources for the only thing I was citing Lott to suggest, namely that CCW holders commit crimes at lower rates than the general population, a point that you still have neither addressed or refuted, just as you haven't refuted any of the suggestions I made anywhere in this thread. (And I don't count insulting me personally as a refutation, even if it appears that you do.)

    Like, what do you even want? I've never seen you pleased by any argument outside the National Review and some NRA funded think tank.

You mean except for all the other links I've posted? And all the ways in which I've suggested increased controls and restrictions? In all this, you've yet to establish any kind of position of your own. Are you suggesting doing away with the 2nd Amendment entirely? Some specific set of additional laws? A gulag for anyone who's read the National Review? You accuse me of having red lines (which is inaccurate), but are unwilling to define your position at all. It's awfully easy to defend a moving target, and to criticize another's opinion without actually establishing what those criticisms are. All you've done so far is hand-waive any contrary position without giving the slightest support. When I showed other countries with higher gun-ownership-to-homicide rates, you dismissed those as "third world" countries, which (as I pointed at, and to which you haven't replied) proved the point I was making. But you then repeatedly infer my position on things without any actual support for that inference, but then that's somehow my fault too.

On to the substance. The Politico article you linked reads like someone who's decided what Heller said without actually reading it. The majority addresses and refutes every single point that they made.

    There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Ok, except this is a misunderstanding of how the Constitution works. The Supreme Court has noted that some parts of the Bill of Rights

    assume[d] the existence of the right [...] and protect[] it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1876). And yes, the Second is one of those rights:

    The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

Ibid.

So why would there be argument over something that was taken for granted?

As for the interpretation of the phrase, this too is not as clear cut as the link you posted makes it seem. He cites a Tennessee court decision, but ignores contradictory interpretations from other states (e.g. Pennsylvania and Ohio). Heller devotes a good amount of time to determining what this phrase means (and I again recommend that you read the majority opinion), but here's one excerpt:

    In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) (slip op. at 13). And lest you think this is some conservative golem, here's Justice Ginsburg:

    Surely a most familiar meaning [of "keep and bear Arms" is] "wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person."

Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, quoting Black's Law Dictionary 6th edition) (emphasis added).

So, that's how I'd address this most current shift in your goal posts. You're welcome to dismiss things like "looking at legal history" as elitist, but if having a cogent, thought-out, and at least minimally-researched position on a specific question is elitist and pedantic, I'll wear those labels proudly.

    You like guns. That's it. People are fucking that up for you.

You don't like guns. That's it. People and the law are fucking that up for you.

johnnyFive  ·  6 days ago  ·  link  ·  

All your sources are biased too, so they must be wrong.

Huh, that was easy, I can see why people do it.

Anyway, none of those links get to what I was talking about, which was solely the idea that crime rates are lower among CCW holders. Meanwhile, looking at the VPC numbers he's refuting, they are pretty crap. Of 904 incidents, 44% are suicides (so have nothing to do with whether CCW holders are or are not more likely to commit a crime), and they also by their own admission count 93 (10% of the total) cases where the person hasn't been convicted. They also conveniently neglect to say how many CCW holders there are, or to make any kind of meaningful comparison. The Crime Prevention Research Center, which is John Lott's project, is the only place I can find a total for the number of CCW permits nationwide, although there is a smattering of articles talking about significant increases in the number of permits sought.

Here is a study that looked at data from Texas from 2001-2009. They found that concealed-carry permit holders had lower conviction rates than those without. This report from the Michigan State Police says that 2,553 permit holders were convicted of a crime. But that's any crime; they revoked 2,054 in the same time period, but I'm not sure what that means. Still, given that they issued over 170,000 permits in the same time period, I can't imagine that's a significant percentage.

Other research has suggested that right-to-carry laws lead to an increase in violent crime overall, but even then I haven't seen anything to suggest CCW holders themselves have higher conviction rates. Clearly something is going on, but that's outside the scope of what I was talking about.

tacocat  ·  6 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I don't go looking for unbiased sources. I understand the bias of my sources. One of yours is accused by his peers of falsifying data.

I don't get the impression that you want to actually have anything like a discussion about this topic because no one who disagrees with you can live up to your self imposed standards. There's no reason to disqualify someone's about guns because they don't know ad much about them as you do. It's this easy: guns kill people. The ultimate denial of freedom is to deny someone their life.

You claim you want a civil conversation about guns but what I've observed is that you want your opinion validated, you don't respect anyone who you feel isn't qualified to comment on the issue and you want to have the conversation on your own terms. Which includes changing the subject and saying we're not in a position to do anything so the status quo is acceptable until the conversation can be had on terms you accept, by people you respect and using research and data you agree with for whatever reason.

Like, what do you even want? I've never seen you pleased by any argument outside the National Review and some NRA funded think tank.

But my sources are biased? OK. Look at their sources. Academics in the field that guy works in say he's not an ethical researcher. They're biased in the reporting they choose but those aren't opinion pieces or poorly and deceptively performed polls. They're facts they're presenting. And they may skew in a direction but calling a spade a spade isn't really that biased.

Didn’t you say jutists are grappling with this issue because it's so complicated? It wasn't until the NRA made it complicated with some fucked up interpretation of the second amendment that never existed in the courts for over 200 years.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856

There you go. Several generations of judges had this shit figured out until Wayne Lapierre and Charlton Heston decided.... I don't even know what they want. They just really like guns or something.

    On June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

    Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!) and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weapon—and courts overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand. Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”

This was all an irrelevant argument until the interpretation of the amendment was reinterpreted by a lobbying group.

I think you need to reevaluate your motivations for what you believe. I get a strong sense of dishonesty from your arguments. They're dismissive. They're pedantic. They're maybe a little elitist. If you really feel that there needs to be reform maybe back down from some of the red lines you've drawn in this debate because I don't feel that they're serving any point except making conversation more difficult and you come across as an ideologue who won't admit to being one.

You like guns. That's it. People are fucking that up for you.

You gotta give up some freedoms sometimes when other people abuse them. It's called living in society

johnnyFive  ·  5 days ago  ·  link  ·  

With the sources thing, I was more pointing out the hypocrisy of you saying "I'm going to counter your biased source with biased sources of my own, since that's better." I then supplied alternate sources for the only thing I was citing Lott to suggest, namely that CCW holders commit crimes at lower rates than the general population, a point that you still have neither addressed or refuted, just as you haven't refuted any of the suggestions I made anywhere in this thread. (And I don't count insulting me personally as a refutation, even if it appears that you do.)

    Like, what do you even want? I've never seen you pleased by any argument outside the National Review and some NRA funded think tank.

You mean except for all the other links I've posted? And all the ways in which I've suggested increased controls and restrictions? In all this, you've yet to establish any kind of position of your own. Are you suggesting doing away with the 2nd Amendment entirely? Some specific set of additional laws? A gulag for anyone who's read the National Review? You accuse me of having red lines (which is inaccurate), but are unwilling to define your position at all. It's awfully easy to defend a moving target, and to criticize another's opinion without actually establishing what those criticisms are. All you've done so far is hand-waive any contrary position without giving the slightest support. When I showed other countries with higher gun-ownership-to-homicide rates, you dismissed those as "third world" countries, which (as I pointed at, and to which you haven't replied) proved the point I was making. But you then repeatedly infer my position on things without any actual support for that inference, but then that's somehow my fault too.

On to the substance. The Politico article you linked reads like someone who's decided what Heller said without actually reading it. The majority addresses and refutes every single point that they made.

    There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Ok, except this is a misunderstanding of how the Constitution works. The Supreme Court has noted that some parts of the Bill of Rights

    assume[d] the existence of the right [...] and protect[] it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1876). And yes, the Second is one of those rights:

    The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

Ibid.

So why would there be argument over something that was taken for granted?

As for the interpretation of the phrase, this too is not as clear cut as the link you posted makes it seem. He cites a Tennessee court decision, but ignores contradictory interpretations from other states (e.g. Pennsylvania and Ohio). Heller devotes a good amount of time to determining what this phrase means (and I again recommend that you read the majority opinion), but here's one excerpt:

    In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) (slip op. at 13). And lest you think this is some conservative golem, here's Justice Ginsburg:

    Surely a most familiar meaning [of "keep and bear Arms" is] "wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person."

Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, quoting Black's Law Dictionary 6th edition) (emphasis added).

So, that's how I'd address this most current shift in your goal posts. You're welcome to dismiss things like "looking at legal history" as elitist, but if having a cogent, thought-out, and at least minimally-researched position on a specific question is elitist and pedantic, I'll wear those labels proudly.

    You like guns. That's it. People are fucking that up for you.

You don't like guns. That's it. People and the law are fucking that up for you.

tacocat  ·  6 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Do we really understand the Second Amendment anymore?

I just did. He makes shit up

johnnyFive  ·  6 days ago  ·  link  ·  

That is not a refutation. You saying "he's a liar" proves nothing, and is a worthless ad hominem.

johnnyFive  ·  6 days ago  ·  link  ·  

All your sources are biased too, so they must be wrong.

Huh, that was easy, I can see why people do it.

Anyway, none of those links get to what I was talking about, which was solely the idea that crime rates are lower among CCW holders. Meanwhile, looking at the VPC numbers he's refuting, they are pretty crap. Of 904 incidents, 44% are suicides (so have nothing to do with whether CCW holders are or are not more likely to commit a crime), and they also by their own admission count 93 (10% of the total) cases where the person hasn't been convicted. They also conveniently neglect to say how many CCW holders there are, or to make any kind of meaningful comparison. The Crime Prevention Research Center, which is John Lott's project, is the only place I can find a total for the number of CCW permits nationwide, although there is a smattering of articles talking about significant increases in the number of permits sought.

Here is a study that looked at data from Texas from 2001-2009. They found that concealed-carry permit holders had lower conviction rates than those without. This report from the Michigan State Police says that 2,553 permit holders were convicted of a crime. But that's any crime; they revoked 2,054 in the same time period, but I'm not sure what that means. Still, given that they issued over 170,000 permits in the same time period, I can't imagine that's a significant percentage.

Other research has suggested that right-to-carry laws lead to an increase in violent crime overall, but even then I haven't seen anything to suggest CCW holders themselves have higher conviction rates. Clearly something is going on, but that's outside the scope of what I was talking about.

tacocat  ·  6 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I don't go looking for unbiased sources. I understand the bias of my sources. One of yours is accused by his peers of falsifying data.

I don't get the impression that you want to actually have anything like a discussion about this topic because no one who disagrees with you can live up to your self imposed standards. There's no reason to disqualify someone's about guns because they don't know ad much about them as you do. It's this easy: guns kill people. The ultimate denial of freedom is to deny someone their life.

You claim you want a civil conversation about guns but what I've observed is that you want your opinion validated, you don't respect anyone who you feel isn't qualified to comment on the issue and you want to have the conversation on your own terms. Which includes changing the subject and saying we're not in a position to do anything so the status quo is acceptable until the conversation can be had on terms you accept, by people you respect and using research and data you agree with for whatever reason.

Like, what do you even want? I've never seen you pleased by any argument outside the National Review and some NRA funded think tank.

But my sources are biased? OK. Look at their sources. Academics in the field that guy works in say he's not an ethical researcher. They're biased in the reporting they choose but those aren't opinion pieces or poorly and deceptively performed polls. They're facts they're presenting. And they may skew in a direction but calling a spade a spade isn't really that biased.

Didn’t you say jutists are grappling with this issue because it's so complicated? It wasn't until the NRA made it complicated with some fucked up interpretation of the second amendment that never existed in the courts for over 200 years.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856

There you go. Several generations of judges had this shit figured out until Wayne Lapierre and Charlton Heston decided.... I don't even know what they want. They just really like guns or something.

    On June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

    Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!) and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weapon—and courts overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand. Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”

This was all an irrelevant argument until the interpretation of the amendment was reinterpreted by a lobbying group.

I think you need to reevaluate your motivations for what you believe. I get a strong sense of dishonesty from your arguments. They're dismissive. They're pedantic. They're maybe a little elitist. If you really feel that there needs to be reform maybe back down from some of the red lines you've drawn in this debate because I don't feel that they're serving any point except making conversation more difficult and you come across as an ideologue who won't admit to being one.

You like guns. That's it. People are fucking that up for you.

You gotta give up some freedoms sometimes when other people abuse them. It's called living in society

johnnyFive  ·  5 days ago  ·  link  ·  

With the sources thing, I was more pointing out the hypocrisy of you saying "I'm going to counter your biased source with biased sources of my own, since that's better." I then supplied alternate sources for the only thing I was citing Lott to suggest, namely that CCW holders commit crimes at lower rates than the general population, a point that you still have neither addressed or refuted, just as you haven't refuted any of the suggestions I made anywhere in this thread. (And I don't count insulting me personally as a refutation, even if it appears that you do.)

    Like, what do you even want? I've never seen you pleased by any argument outside the National Review and some NRA funded think tank.

You mean except for all the other links I've posted? And all the ways in which I've suggested increased controls and restrictions? In all this, you've yet to establish any kind of position of your own. Are you suggesting doing away with the 2nd Amendment entirely? Some specific set of additional laws? A gulag for anyone who's read the National Review? You accuse me of having red lines (which is inaccurate), but are unwilling to define your position at all. It's awfully easy to defend a moving target, and to criticize another's opinion without actually establishing what those criticisms are. All you've done so far is hand-waive any contrary position without giving the slightest support. When I showed other countries with higher gun-ownership-to-homicide rates, you dismissed those as "third world" countries, which (as I pointed at, and to which you haven't replied) proved the point I was making. But you then repeatedly infer my position on things without any actual support for that inference, but then that's somehow my fault too.

On to the substance. The Politico article you linked reads like someone who's decided what Heller said without actually reading it. The majority addresses and refutes every single point that they made.

    There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Ok, except this is a misunderstanding of how the Constitution works. The Supreme Court has noted that some parts of the Bill of Rights

    assume[d] the existence of the right [...] and protect[] it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1876). And yes, the Second is one of those rights:

    The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

Ibid.

So why would there be argument over something that was taken for granted?

As for the interpretation of the phrase, this too is not as clear cut as the link you posted makes it seem. He cites a Tennessee court decision, but ignores contradictory interpretations from other states (e.g. Pennsylvania and Ohio). Heller devotes a good amount of time to determining what this phrase means (and I again recommend that you read the majority opinion), but here's one excerpt:

    In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) (slip op. at 13). And lest you think this is some conservative golem, here's Justice Ginsburg:

    Surely a most familiar meaning [of "keep and bear Arms" is] "wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person."

Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, quoting Black's Law Dictionary 6th edition) (emphasis added).

So, that's how I'd address this most current shift in your goal posts. You're welcome to dismiss things like "looking at legal history" as elitist, but if having a cogent, thought-out, and at least minimally-researched position on a specific question is elitist and pedantic, I'll wear those labels proudly.

    You like guns. That's it. People are fucking that up for you.

You don't like guns. That's it. People and the law are fucking that up for you.

tacocat  ·  6 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Behind the lucrative assembly line of student loan default lawsuits

That's not a bad idea but I'd tell kids to just go get a job and go to college if they find a career that requires a degree or one where a degree would increase their earnings. In fact I do tell kids that because I hang out with a bunch of lowlifes who are trying to turn shit around.

It is ridiculous that we tell a bunch of naive people who just got pubes to pick a career and spend like $100k or whatever. When I was 17 I didn't even know what jobs there were, let alone what I'd enjoy enough to do full time. I'm kinda in between generations though so this may not be the case anymore. I think a lot more kids now know that they need to research their careers instead of assuming any degree is valuable like my parents told me.

Sorry, this comment is private.

I've had high blood pressure since I was seventeen apparently

kleinbl00  ·  7 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Right?

tacocat  ·  7 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Do we really understand the Second Amendment anymore?

You know the second citation is of questionable trustworthiness? John Lott has a host of dishonest behaviors

johnnyFive  ·  6 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Well, should be easy to refute then.

tacocat  ·  6 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I just did. He makes shit up

johnnyFive  ·  6 days ago  ·  link  ·  

That is not a refutation. You saying "he's a liar" proves nothing, and is a worthless ad hominem.

johnnyFive  ·  6 days ago  ·  link  ·  

All your sources are biased too, so they must be wrong.

Huh, that was easy, I can see why people do it.

Anyway, none of those links get to what I was talking about, which was solely the idea that crime rates are lower among CCW holders. Meanwhile, looking at the VPC numbers he's refuting, they are pretty crap. Of 904 incidents, 44% are suicides (so have nothing to do with whether CCW holders are or are not more likely to commit a crime), and they also by their own admission count 93 (10% of the total) cases where the person hasn't been convicted. They also conveniently neglect to say how many CCW holders there are, or to make any kind of meaningful comparison. The Crime Prevention Research Center, which is John Lott's project, is the only place I can find a total for the number of CCW permits nationwide, although there is a smattering of articles talking about significant increases in the number of permits sought.

Here is a study that looked at data from Texas from 2001-2009. They found that concealed-carry permit holders had lower conviction rates than those without. This report from the Michigan State Police says that 2,553 permit holders were convicted of a crime. But that's any crime; they revoked 2,054 in the same time period, but I'm not sure what that means. Still, given that they issued over 170,000 permits in the same time period, I can't imagine that's a significant percentage.

Other research has suggested that right-to-carry laws lead to an increase in violent crime overall, but even then I haven't seen anything to suggest CCW holders themselves have higher conviction rates. Clearly something is going on, but that's outside the scope of what I was talking about.

tacocat  ·  6 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I don't go looking for unbiased sources. I understand the bias of my sources. One of yours is accused by his peers of falsifying data.

I don't get the impression that you want to actually have anything like a discussion about this topic because no one who disagrees with you can live up to your self imposed standards. There's no reason to disqualify someone's about guns because they don't know ad much about them as you do. It's this easy: guns kill people. The ultimate denial of freedom is to deny someone their life.

You claim you want a civil conversation about guns but what I've observed is that you want your opinion validated, you don't respect anyone who you feel isn't qualified to comment on the issue and you want to have the conversation on your own terms. Which includes changing the subject and saying we're not in a position to do anything so the status quo is acceptable until the conversation can be had on terms you accept, by people you respect and using research and data you agree with for whatever reason.

Like, what do you even want? I've never seen you pleased by any argument outside the National Review and some NRA funded think tank.

But my sources are biased? OK. Look at their sources. Academics in the field that guy works in say he's not an ethical researcher. They're biased in the reporting they choose but those aren't opinion pieces or poorly and deceptively performed polls. They're facts they're presenting. And they may skew in a direction but calling a spade a spade isn't really that biased.

Didn’t you say jutists are grappling with this issue because it's so complicated? It wasn't until the NRA made it complicated with some fucked up interpretation of the second amendment that never existed in the courts for over 200 years.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856

There you go. Several generations of judges had this shit figured out until Wayne Lapierre and Charlton Heston decided.... I don't even know what they want. They just really like guns or something.

    On June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

    Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!) and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weapon—and courts overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand. Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”

This was all an irrelevant argument until the interpretation of the amendment was reinterpreted by a lobbying group.

I think you need to reevaluate your motivations for what you believe. I get a strong sense of dishonesty from your arguments. They're dismissive. They're pedantic. They're maybe a little elitist. If you really feel that there needs to be reform maybe back down from some of the red lines you've drawn in this debate because I don't feel that they're serving any point except making conversation more difficult and you come across as an ideologue who won't admit to being one.

You like guns. That's it. People are fucking that up for you.

You gotta give up some freedoms sometimes when other people abuse them. It's called living in society

johnnyFive  ·  5 days ago  ·  link  ·  

With the sources thing, I was more pointing out the hypocrisy of you saying "I'm going to counter your biased source with biased sources of my own, since that's better." I then supplied alternate sources for the only thing I was citing Lott to suggest, namely that CCW holders commit crimes at lower rates than the general population, a point that you still have neither addressed or refuted, just as you haven't refuted any of the suggestions I made anywhere in this thread. (And I don't count insulting me personally as a refutation, even if it appears that you do.)

    Like, what do you even want? I've never seen you pleased by any argument outside the National Review and some NRA funded think tank.

You mean except for all the other links I've posted? And all the ways in which I've suggested increased controls and restrictions? In all this, you've yet to establish any kind of position of your own. Are you suggesting doing away with the 2nd Amendment entirely? Some specific set of additional laws? A gulag for anyone who's read the National Review? You accuse me of having red lines (which is inaccurate), but are unwilling to define your position at all. It's awfully easy to defend a moving target, and to criticize another's opinion without actually establishing what those criticisms are. All you've done so far is hand-waive any contrary position without giving the slightest support. When I showed other countries with higher gun-ownership-to-homicide rates, you dismissed those as "third world" countries, which (as I pointed at, and to which you haven't replied) proved the point I was making. But you then repeatedly infer my position on things without any actual support for that inference, but then that's somehow my fault too.

On to the substance. The Politico article you linked reads like someone who's decided what Heller said without actually reading it. The majority addresses and refutes every single point that they made.

    There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Ok, except this is a misunderstanding of how the Constitution works. The Supreme Court has noted that some parts of the Bill of Rights

    assume[d] the existence of the right [...] and protect[] it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1876). And yes, the Second is one of those rights:

    The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

Ibid.

So why would there be argument over something that was taken for granted?

As for the interpretation of the phrase, this too is not as clear cut as the link you posted makes it seem. He cites a Tennessee court decision, but ignores contradictory interpretations from other states (e.g. Pennsylvania and Ohio). Heller devotes a good amount of time to determining what this phrase means (and I again recommend that you read the majority opinion), but here's one excerpt:

    In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) (slip op. at 13). And lest you think this is some conservative golem, here's Justice Ginsburg:

    Surely a most familiar meaning [of "keep and bear Arms" is] "wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person."

Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, quoting Black's Law Dictionary 6th edition) (emphasis added).

So, that's how I'd address this most current shift in your goal posts. You're welcome to dismiss things like "looking at legal history" as elitist, but if having a cogent, thought-out, and at least minimally-researched position on a specific question is elitist and pedantic, I'll wear those labels proudly.

    You like guns. That's it. People are fucking that up for you.

You don't like guns. That's it. People and the law are fucking that up for you.

tacocat  ·  6 days ago  ·  link  ·  
This comment has been deleted.