Except that it wouldn't actually succeed at that, and we can plainly see through critical examination of numerous other countries that arms ownership has exactly zero relationship with rights actually possessed by the populace.
Most modern liberal democracies that protect individual freedom do so in conjunction with gun control. And many barbaric shitholes with extremely corrupt, poor governance have absolutely massive numbers of guns. One simply does not cause the other.
That's aside from the more practical argument that you couldn't even remotely take down an M1 with any of the weapons officially protected by the 2nd amendment.
And I'd submit that it isn't. At an abstract level, one is a debate worth having, and the other is a clear and direct infringement of rights.
The 2nd amendment gets placed on this unholy altar where not only is the right to keep and bear arms protected, but the right to do so with absolutely no limitation is.
You mean the Militias that literally can trace their existence to today in the form of the National Guard? I'm pretty sure I'm not a member of the national guard.
"which affected" Even your own dumb example uses weasel words that mean nothing. I'm familiar with the "antique international firearm resale" loophole that changed enforcement procedure, and it has as much to do with preventing firearm ownership as sales tax does.
Yes, but what's awful, is that somehow possibly knowing how people used the 2nd amendment rights is worse or more worth stopping than knowing precisely how everyone uses their 1st amendment rights.
The relevant bit is the absolute-fuckton of money they get for being a (according your the jist of your post) grassroots organization. It's pretty unreasonable.
I support following the 2nd amendment while it's in the constitution, but I don't believe it belongs there.
Since you asked me to read the bill of rights again...
Yeah, see, there's this part about well-regulated militias that the word "metadata" might be pertinent to. I'm actually angry at you for giving such a crappy argument in support of an action I support myself. Stop making me look stupid.
Yes, but when they're after you, they aren't after your stupid guns. The reasoning they give still manages to be absurd in the face of obvious abuse of people's rights.
Actually, the ACLU does work outside of the bill of rights, they try to protect anything that could reasonably be called a civil liberty, like voting and running for public office as well.
While I think the logic of "If you look carefully at the massive way the NSA is trodding over US Citizens' rights, you see a possible way they might stop someone from owning a gun, in a very abstract way!" is absurd, there's not anything wrong with opposing excessive wiretapping.
Not, especially. Even if the NRA prop up an industry by manipulating US politics, all 3 organizations share the stated goals of protecting citizens' rights.
You actually get coverage of the entire bill of rights. The ACLU defends most of the bill of rights, and the NRA spends its inexplicably much more massive budget on defending the remaining half of the second amendment.
It's almost like elections in the U.S. are dominated by gerrymandering, personality, and advertisements, in a way that essentially creates a caste-based system of representation.
Because if you're the dying industry responsible for making creative works as uncreative as possible, wouldn't you also be greedy, litigious, and irrational?
No one was really blaming religion. That's a dumb argument and you should know better. People seek scapegoats even when something else isn't seeking protection from criticism.
Well, makerspaces don't charge tuition, and don't cost the city nearly as much to keep open. There's certainly a lot of concrete value in formal training, but informal training can create more abstract value.
No, but I do blame the perverse incentives that create suburbs that will decay into a similar state of social disorder across a few decades, while generating other social costs along the way.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that it wouldn't actually succeed at that, and we can plainly see through critical examination of numerous other countries that arms ownership has exactly zero relationship with rights actually possessed by the populace.
Most modern liberal democracies that protect individual freedom do so in conjunction with gun control. And many barbaric shitholes with extremely corrupt, poor governance have absolutely massive numbers of guns. One simply does not cause the other.
That's aside from the more practical argument that you couldn't even remotely take down an M1 with any of the weapons officially protected by the 2nd amendment.
And I'd submit that it isn't. At an abstract level, one is a debate worth having, and the other is a clear and direct infringement of rights.
The 2nd amendment gets placed on this unholy altar where not only is the right to keep and bear arms protected, but the right to do so with absolutely no limitation is.
You mean the Militias that literally can trace their existence to today in the form of the National Guard? I'm pretty sure I'm not a member of the national guard.
"which affected"
Even your own dumb example uses weasel words that mean nothing. I'm familiar with the "antique international firearm resale" loophole that changed enforcement procedure, and it has as much to do with preventing firearm ownership as sales tax does.
Well, some people have the impressive ability to overblow anything.
Yes, but what's awful, is that somehow possibly knowing how people used the 2nd amendment rights is worse or more worth stopping than knowing precisely how everyone uses their 1st amendment rights.
The relevant bit is the absolute-fuckton of money they get for being a (according your the jist of your post) grassroots organization. It's pretty unreasonable.
I support following the 2nd amendment while it's in the constitution, but I don't believe it belongs there.
Since you asked me to read the bill of rights again...
Yeah, see, there's this part about well-regulated militias that the word "metadata" might be pertinent to. I'm actually angry at you for giving such a crappy argument in support of an action I support myself. Stop making me look stupid.
Yes, but when they're after you, they aren't after your stupid guns. The reasoning they give still manages to be absurd in the face of obvious abuse of people's rights.
I'm pretty sure that the barracks manufacturing industry whole-heartedly supports the third amendment.
Actually, the ACLU does work outside of the bill of rights, they try to protect anything that could reasonably be called a civil liberty, like voting and running for public office as well.
While I think the logic of "If you look carefully at the massive way the NSA is trodding over US Citizens' rights, you see a possible way they might stop someone from owning a gun, in a very abstract way!" is absurd, there's not anything wrong with opposing excessive wiretapping.
Not, especially. Even if the NRA prop up an industry by manipulating US politics, all 3 organizations share the stated goals of protecting citizens' rights.
You actually get coverage of the entire bill of rights. The ACLU defends most of the bill of rights, and the NRA spends its inexplicably much more massive budget on defending the remaining half of the second amendment.
It's almost like elections in the U.S. are dominated by gerrymandering, personality, and advertisements, in a way that essentially creates a caste-based system of representation.
We have enough studies telling you not to do this particular thing where you feel like complete and utter crap if you do.
Can we research how a lack of oxygen makes your brain stop working too? That'd be nice.
I do every item on your list most days(well, board games are weekly), and I still play video games sometimes.
Duh: an absurd retail markup.
Sorry, I hold a patent on the dairy-after-eggs business process.
Because if you're the dying industry responsible for making creative works as uncreative as possible, wouldn't you also be greedy, litigious, and irrational?
No one was really blaming religion. That's a dumb argument and you should know better. People seek scapegoats even when something else isn't seeking protection from criticism.
Well, makerspaces don't charge tuition, and don't cost the city nearly as much to keep open. There's certainly a lot of concrete value in formal training, but informal training can create more abstract value.
No, but I do blame the perverse incentives that create suburbs that will decay into a similar state of social disorder across a few decades, while generating other social costs along the way.
If it's just allowing use of existing buildings, I don't think it's a bad idea. Under the following logic:
if cost(thing)cost(debate(thing)):
Just do it
else:
Debate it
Now if they want city funds, that's a different matter.
Housing and laboratories! What an amazing way to address inner-city poverty and STEM education.