*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[boost]

What?
No.
...
What?

We all have to pass various tests and pay a fee to obtain a driver's license.
I don't see that as an infringement of rights. Do you?


For me, the balance is equality and the presumption of innocence. If anyone has the right to own XXX, then everyone has the right to own XXX, provided they meet the same criteria as the first party.
Any public regulatory entity that wants to work out the particulars can have a go at it. I have physics to do.

I'm not at all in favor of one group of people (a governing body) deciding that some people can own all the guns (people literally controlled by said government) while other people cannot own all the guns (the constituents of the governing body).

I.e. it's fucked up that Congress says only the military can have all the guns, but the citizens at large cannot. Congress controls the military, they do not control the citizens.
That's fucked up, and a recipe for slaughter. Sure, we have "good enough" leaders today, but what happens when our leaders are not "good enough?"

Whatever laws and regulations should apply to everyone equally, regardless of their job.

***
The whole point of the 2nd Amendment has been long diluted to nonsense. Citing the 2nd Amendment as anything to do with modern gun laws is misguided, IMO.
The right to a well armed militia was intended to say, "Look, it was right of us to revolt against the King, and we don't trust that the government we're forming wont need to be revolted against in some unseen future." However, as many have aptly pointed out, the notion that anyone owning legal weapons could stand any prayer in hell against the US military is nonsense.
Ergo, the 2nd Amendment is already a sham, and let's not bring it up in a sensible conversation about the current state of gun control, IMO.

Ah, ok, thanks for clarifying.

Presumably you don't think I should be allowed to have a fully functioning (armed) tank, armed fighter jet, nuclear bomb, etc. If so, I agree, but I'm also not sure how we're drawing the line in which military/law enforcement armaments we should be entitled to also have.

[oskar]

Presumably you don't think I should be allowed to have a fully functioning (armed) tank...

I see you're new here!

[Poopadoop]

Oh and btw, neither of them think separating children from parents is ok.

[Poopadoop]

I think growing up in Canada has given me a unique insight into the American pov. There is non-stop messaging (from MSM, from movies, from books) that we got because of our shared culture. It says America is unique, exceptional, and where everyone would live if only they could. The idea that everywhere else is a shithole and you must go to the US to have a good life. It was very weird to us on some level because we lived in another place that was pretty prosperous and didn't have their problems, and so to us seemed just as good if not better. But I don't think Americans ever got any inkling of that message.

I've run into Americans who grew up TEN miles from the Canadian border (a fifteen minute drive) and honestly had no interest in ever even visiting Canada. I got the impression they thought as soon as they crossed the border they would be in some third world country. I've met distant cousins from the US who think Canada is made up of igloos and eskimos. It's so bizarre...

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ah, ok, thanks for clarifying.

Presumably you don't think I should be allowed to have a fully functioning (armed) tank, armed fighter jet, nuclear bomb, etc. If so, I agree, but I'm also not sure how we're drawing the line in which military/law enforcement armaments we should be entitled to also have.

Whatever the reasons we claim that it's OK for the military to own whatever weaponry, apply that logic to everyone.
I.e. if it's because military personnel are highly trained, well... anyone can be trained.
If it's because the military does rigorous background checks and various training and evaluations of an individuals trustworthiness and ability to remain calm under pressure, then OK... make that same standard a requirement for everyone.

Basically, the military doesn't just put anyone in a pilot seat of a fighter jet. Whatever their criteria are to choose whom is suited can be applied to anyone, whether or not they're enlisted.

[boost]

Whatever the reasons we claim that it's OK for the military to own whatever weaponry, apply that logic to everyone.
I.e. if it's because military personnel are highly trained, well... anyone can be trained.
If it's because the military does rigorous background checks and various training and evaluations of an individuals trustworthiness and ability to remain calm under pressure, then OK... make that same standard a requirement for everyone.

Basically, the military doesn't just put anyone in a pilot seat of a fighter jet. Whatever their criteria are to choose whom is suited can be applied to anyone, whether or not they're enlisted.

The military has an ongoing mission that requires certain tools. While a citizen's aims may necessitate an overlap with the military's tool set, there are certain armaments that there is no justifiable reason for a citizen to own, i.e.: nuclear weapons.

Essentially your answering the how, but I'm asking the why.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The military has an ongoing mission that requires certain tools. While a citizen's aims may necessitate an overlap with the military's tool set, there are certain armaments that there is no justifiable reason for a citizen to own, i.e.: nuclear weapons.

If a mission statement is enough for you to trust that someone is not going to misuse WMD's, that's a lower bar than what I envision.

[EDIT] Perhaps a bit of morning snark in there. A mission statement of why someone wants the WMD and some statement of the intent of ownership and intended usage should certainly be a part of the licensing and whatnot.[/EDIT]

Essentially your answering the how, but I'm asking the why.

The answer to "why" is the presumption of innocence coupled with equality in treatment of all humans under human laws.

[boost]

If a mission statement is enough for you to trust that someone is not going to misuse WMD's, that's a lower bar than what I envision.

[EDIT] Perhaps a bit of morning snark in there. A mission statement of why someone wants the WMD and some statement of the intent of ownership and intended usage should certainly be a part of the licensing and whatnot.[/EDIT]


The answer to "why" is the presumption of innocence coupled with equality in treatment of all humans under human laws.

You're letting your silly axioms force you into absurd positions. No one has or will ever have a reason to individually own a nuclear weapon. Even if you want to argue some crazy edge case, I'll simply point out that it'd be such an edge case that the regime necessary to train, evaluate, and regulate individuals' ownership of nuclear weapons would be so wasteful that it simply makes more sense to just not allow it.

I'm afraid that if we can't get passed this, we're stuck at a standstill.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're letting your silly axioms force you into absurd positions. No one has or will ever have a reason to individually own a nuclear weapon. Even if you want to argue some crazy edge case, I'll simply point out that it'd be such an edge case that the regime necessary to train, evaluate, and regulate individuals' ownership of nuclear weapons would be so wasteful that it simply makes more sense to just not allow it.

I envision that expense falling on the owner. I.e. the cost of all the background is billed to the owner.

I'm afraid that if we can't get passed this, we're stuck at a standstill.

If you understand my position, then we're at the goal.
Of course we're at a standstill when we've gotten to the point.

I'm not claiming I'm right; I'm sharing my opinions.
I'm not trying to change your mind; I'm explaining my mind.

[oskar]

I'm not saying this is a coverup, but if you wanted people to believe this was a cover up you'd hire the 85 year old pathologist who is known for investigating the JFK and MLK assassinations.

Is it at all possible that "Michael Baden" is the "Alan Smithee" among pathologists?

[boost]

I envision that expense falling on the owner. I.e. the cost of all the background is billed to the owner.

I'm skeptical rights can exist that are not reasonably attainable-- but nevermind that, I'll walk back my caveat. I don't think there are any edge cases. Certain powers should only be held by committee.

If you understand my position, then we're at the goal.
Of course we're at a standstill when we've gotten to the point.

I'm not claiming I'm right; I'm sharing my opinions.
I'm not trying to change your mind; I'm explaining my mind.

I like this framework. I don't quite agree that we've reached the goal, but certainly a goal. Often times discussions, especially nowadays, seem to be stuck at some lower level where neither person actually understands the position of the other. I believe the next level is to get at how and why the other person has arrived at their conclusions, as well as how and why you've arrived at your own conclusions.

As I've said, I believe you're operating from flawed axioms. We're kinda working from opposite ends. How I see it, you've arrived at your conclusions through deduction, while I see your axioms as flawed by way of induction. I think axioms which give less than satisfactory conclusions are much more suspect than conclusions which aren't clearly traceable to actionable axioms.

So I guess I'd ask you to either say something about the axioms you're working from and why they're so sacrosanct, or give some practical support of your conclusions that aren't just references back to the axioms they're derived from.