SINCE I'M NOT A LAW PROFESSOR, I WONDER….

[UnseenParticipant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Nevertheless, the mere existence of ubiquitous firearms in Israeli society does refute the Progressive saw that the mere presence of guns equals more violence.

It also doesn’t mean anything. You apparently didn’t do any research. Here is how an actual Israeli described the gun situation in Israel:

https://www.quora.com/Can-an-Arab-citizen-of-Israel-legally-buy-a-gun-in-Israel

Israel vs. The U.S. is a classic “apples and oranges” comparison.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Reg,

I read the article and Au contraire The places in the U.S. that have the most shootings and rack up the most bodies, cities like New York, Chicago, D.C., L.A. Baltimore, are places with the strictest laws on firearms, that require things like that and more, such as an arbitrary requirement of “good character,” (whatever that means to police who set quotas on tickets, take bribes, and abuse their spouse more than many professions.)

By contrast, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire have the least crime of all the States, yet have the fewest gun laws. Vermont was actually the most free, allowing anyone to carry anything, openly or concealed, without requiring a license and it did so way before other States started loosening gun laws.

Gun control freaks are engaging in reductionism by discounting every other factor involved in crime except guns. Things like poverty, family structures, population density, gender, culture, oh, and will.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Robert,

Project your own baby temper-tantrums on everyone else if you wish, but as I call out to the double-stacked drive-thrus at Chik-Fil-A, it’s better to air-fry at home. 😎

[jakelafortParticipant]

Easier to deconvert? Fundamentalist Muslim, fundamentalist Christian, Fundamentalist Enco?

[UnseenParticipant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Gun control freaks are engaging in reductionism by discounting every other factor involved in crime except guns. Things like poverty, family structures, population density, gender, culture, oh, and will.

Who’s engaging in reductionism? Suppose you had all of those social factors but there were no guns. Chicago is often brought up, illogically, as proof that strict gun laws don’t prevent gun crimes. Well, it’s important to remember that Chicago is close to Wisconsin and Indiana, whose gun laws are very weak.
What may prove quite interesting is that if the Supreme Court lets stand the vigilante anti-abortion laws stand, then perhaps Chicago could call on its citizens to out people who buy guns out of state, sue them, and obtain large judgments, eh, Enco?

[AutumnParticipant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Gun control freaks are engaging in reductionism by discounting every other factor involved in crime except guns. Things like poverty, family structures, population density, gender, culture, oh, and will.

That’s like saying that people who advocate for having speed limits discount every other factor involved in traffic accidents. It’s not really true, but it sounds nice if you’re against speed limits.

[UnseenParticipant]

Question for Jake, our resident attorney:

Several states are trying to set up a vigilante system allowing private citizens to narc on friends and neighbors who get get abortions, even out of state.

Now, let’s assume The Supreme Court allows such laws to stand.

Chicago has a sky-high gun crime rate despite having fairly restrictive gun laws.

Chicago’s problem is that it is situated close to two states, Indiana and Wisconsin, which have very loose gun laws.

Do you see where I’m going? Why not set up a vigilante system like the ones envisioned for abortion to have concerned citizens turn in gun law evaders and collect substantial judgments?

[jakelafortParticipant]

Yeah Unseen it is a horrible idea. I am drawing on history in my thinking.

“Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party?” “I saw her stroking a black cat. Then she genuflected to Satan. Witch! Witch! Hang the bitch! No burn her! In Spain in the 14th and 15th century during the reconquista a sense of nationhood was fostered by having Christians turn Jews over to the inquisition. There was a financial incentive of 10 percent of the wealth of the Jew that was confiscated. And then there were so called Conversos who professed a conversion to Christianity but some of whom practiced their own superstition surreptitiously. It is a horrible environment when you have people turning on each other. There are many other examples of why it ought not be allowed.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen,

One, an anonymous narc line is not a vigilante program if a government sponsors it and encourages it.

Two, something exceeding 90 percent of guns used in the commission of crimes are stolen, so Chi-Town gangbangers wouldn’t need to cross State line to get guns.

Three, all it would take is to drop a bullet, a shell case, or a gun part in somebody’s pocket, one-ringie-dingie-two-ringie-dingie, and you’ve shared an innocent person. Asked anyone in The Innocence Project about how easy it is. And for that reason…

Four, nobody likes a Goddamn narc. Even decent law enforcement officers don’t like narcs because they know how often the above scenarios can and do happen.

Five, chimp pic and Jake’s Fundie fetish are cheap shots considering you think the Second Amendment only applies to rifled muskets (the “assault rifle” of the day) and men organized as militia.

Does the 1st Amendment only apply to soapboxes and Guttenberg-style printing presses and only to King-approved Jesters or licensed press corps and not podcasters and vodcasters with smartphones?

Does the 4th Amendment only apply to doors with skeleton keys and parchment documents and not digital locks and encrypted files?

And since abortion is now up for grabs, does the right to procure abortion only apply to wire hangers and concoctions of granny herbs like cat-tails, cotton root, parsley, and eye-of-newt instead of techniques of modern medicine?

Just who’s the moss-backed reactionary here?

[AutumnParticipant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

One, an anonymous narc line is not a vigilante program if a government sponsors it and encourages it.

Depends. Texas law allows private citizens to file civil suits against doctors or individuals involved in abortions, even if those private citizens have no connection to those involved. Strictly speaking, it’s not vigilanteism, but it it does transfer a quasi-policing authority to the general public.

Two, something exceeding 90 percent of guns used in the commission of crimes are stolen, so Chi-Town gangbangers wouldn’t need to cross State line to get guns.

That’s a bit of a dubious statistic. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29675608/). Regardless, in order for firearms to be stolen, they had to exist, likely in the hands of private owners, or possibly retailers. With supply more readily available to lawful owners, that’s potentially more supply to thieves. Wile that, in and of itself is not justification to restrict who can legally own firearms, there are questions of liability in the event a weapon is stolen having been irresponsibly stored.

 Five, chimp pic and Jake’s Fundie fetish are cheap shots considering you think the Second Amendment only applies to rifled muskets (the “assault rifle” of the day) and men organized as militia. Does the 1st Amendment only apply to soapboxes and Guttenberg-style printing presses and only to King-approved Jesters or licensed press corps and not podcasters and vodcasters with smartphones?

I don’t know that anyone is suggesting the amendment only applies to 18th century firearms; however, the second amendment was drafted at a time where modern weaponry couldn’t have been readily predicted. There are limitations on what type of arms citizens can bear. A threshold has to be set. This is a question of what the 2nd Amendment is meant to safeguard and how that translates to a contemporary context. What is the actual principle of the amendment? (I’m not asking you; I am explaining why it’s relevant that weapons today are far more effective than those available in the 1790s).

Just who’s the moss-backed reactionary here?

You.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Madam, please hand over your phone.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Would it be better to be a Satanist?

[UnseenParticipant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Unseen, One, an anonymous narc line is not a vigilante program if a government sponsors it and encourages it. Two, something exceeding 90 percent of guns used in the commission of crimes are stolen, so Chi-Town gangbangers wouldn’t need to cross State line to get guns. Three, all it would take is to drop a bullet, a shell case, or a gun part in somebody’s pocket, one-ringie-dingie-two-ringie-dingie, and you’ve shared an innocent person.

I don’t think the proposed abortion vigilante laws are anonymous at all. Elsewise, how could one collect the bounty?

I’ve been aware of the gun ownership problem. To be in a possession of a gun,  you must be able to show that you own the gun, either through a bill of sale or a document showing how/from whom it was obtained. I would see confiscation and a relatively small fine at first, followed by a substantial fine for the next offense followed by potential prison time with a reward for the narcer.

As for your third example, I don’t see that as a problem any more than it is for other crimes one could report.

 

[Author]

Posts