|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States43219 Posts
On July 26 2021 01:15 Gorsameth wrote:
I always wonder where the 2nd Amendment mentions the right to have gun braces.
I mean it’s a part of the gun, I think at a certain point you’d have to bow to common sense. On the one extreme you’re probably fine arguing that an under barrel bolted on grenade launcher isn’t covered but on the other extreme obviously a trigger is. Allowing guns means allowing the parts of the guns.
Full auto, obviously part of the mechanical function of the gun, clearly constitutional. A laser scope, not so much.
|
|
|
United States43219 Posts
On July 26 2021 01:34 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2021 01:30 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2021 01:15 Gorsameth wrote:
I always wonder where the 2nd Amendment mentions the right to have gun braces. I mean it’s a part of the gun, I think at a certain point you’d have to bow to common sense. On the one extreme you’re probably fine arguing that an under barrel bolted on grenade launcher isn’t covered but on the other extreme obviously a trigger is. Allowing guns means allowing the parts of the guns. Full auto, obviously part of the mechanical function of the gun, clearly constitutional. A laser scope, not so much. Technically, it isn't.
Which is why I declared common sense rather than technicalities. The brace is needed to stop the recoil making the gun uncontrollable. It’s not an intrinsic core component of the gun but it’s function serves the purpose of the gun, it is a component. Like shock absorbers for a car. You could argue that you can make a car without one but you couldn’t argue that, when built into a car, it’s a separate mechanism with its own purpose. It’s part of the car.
|
On July 26 2021 01:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2021 01:15 Gorsameth wrote:
I always wonder where the 2nd Amendment mentions the right to have gun braces. I mean it’s a part of the gun, I think at a certain point you’d have to bow to common sense. On the one extreme you’re probably fine arguing that an under barrel bolted on grenade launcher isn’t covered but on the other extreme obviously a trigger is. Allowing guns means allowing the parts of the guns. Full auto, obviously part of the mechanical function of the gun, clearly constitutional. A laser scope, not so much. I assumed a gun brace is not the basic stock of a gun but some extra accessory. A quickly google for 'gun brace' seems to confirm this with picture of special braces around the forearm to presumably extra stabilize the weapon and I wouldn't consider that a basic part of a gun needed for its function.
If I'm wrong in what is meant then sorry, and carry on :p
|
United States43219 Posts
It’s probably my only accelerationist view and accelerationism is obviously morally bankrupt but I often think the better path would have been full 2A compliance, machine guns for everyone and shoot agents of the state abusing their power on sight. No licenses, no background checks, no restrictions on felons, only limit is the conditions other people put on who can go on their property so an airport may have their own policies. Do that for a few years and then have a constitutional convention to better define what the rules should be. As it is I can’t see the constitutional cause for a limit on machine guns nor for background checks. They’re good laws but I don’t see how they’re constitutional ones.
|
United States43219 Posts
On July 26 2021 01:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2021 01:30 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2021 01:15 Gorsameth wrote:
I always wonder where the 2nd Amendment mentions the right to have gun braces. I mean it’s a part of the gun, I think at a certain point you’d have to bow to common sense. On the one extreme you’re probably fine arguing that an under barrel bolted on grenade launcher isn’t covered but on the other extreme obviously a trigger is. Allowing guns means allowing the parts of the guns. Full auto, obviously part of the mechanical function of the gun, clearly constitutional. A laser scope, not so much. I assumed a gun brace is not the basic stock of a gun but some extra accessory. A quickly google for 'gun brace' seems to confirm this with picture of special braces around the forearm to presumably extra stabilize the weapon and I wouldn't consider that a basic part of a gun needed for its function. If I'm wrong in what is meant then sorry, and carry on :p
The function of the brace is not extraneous to the core function of the gun. It’s a component, not a separate device.
|
If you're worried about Biden violating the Constitution against Republican interests, I have good news for you: the Supreme Court is stacked 6-3 Republican. (If you're worried about Constitution violations in general, I have very bad news.)
|
On July 26 2021 02:19 Severedevil wrote:
If you're worried about Biden violating the Constitution against Republican interests, I have good news for you: the Supreme Court is stacked 6-3 Republican. (If you're worried about Constitution violations in general, I have very bad news.)
I'm neither on the Dem side nor in the Rep side which I clearly mentioned at the very start of the conversation.
Anyhow, they can try but the consequences will be on their tab too. Looking at the 2A community, most of them have already made it obvious they will NOT comply whatsoever when it violates the amendment in any way possible.
For those mentioning braces not being a gun in itself, that's obvious, but it's still a part of it when you want it to be, and the 2A community is really anything but ready to give up anything, including accessories.
Anyhow, it's the only issue I have. Remains to be seen how bad he wants to test his limits as potus in that regard.
|
On July 26 2021 01:52 KwarK wrote:
It’s probably my only accelerationist view and accelerationism is obviously morally bankrupt but I often think the better path would have been full 2A compliance, machine guns for everyone and shoot agents of the state abusing their power on sight. No licenses, no background checks, no restrictions on felons, only limit is the conditions other people put on who can go on their property so an airport may have their own policies. Do that for a few years and then have a constitutional convention to better define what the rules should be. As it is I can’t see the constitutional cause for a limit on machine guns nor for background checks. They’re good laws but I don’t see how they’re constitutional ones.
Yup, pretty much. To me, the clear intent of the amendment is for private citizens to have access to the same weapons as the state, expressly in order to resist the state in the event that it became tyrannical. Obviously this develops problems in a world where the state has weapons capable of levelling cities, but it seems like something that needs to be dealt with directly rather than handwaved away.
At a certain point you need to sit down and say "hey guys the constitution kinda maybe says bezos can own nukes, and probably definitely says a convicted terrorist can own a machinegun, maybe we should look at this again".
Right now the approach seems to be to pretend you're cool with citizens taking up arms to resist the state so long as they do it with semi-automatic weapons with mags containing ten bullets or less and no suppressors, which... idk eventually it becomes so farcical that the whole thing falls over.
|
|
|
Regardless of the intent, it's been interpreted by many to allow citizens to arm themselves and not allow that guarantee to be infringed (which is the way I personally see it) There are certainly some barriers such as background checks and bans on certain weapons, but I honestly agree with Kwark's accelerationist stance on this issue, maybe aside from icing state agents. It's hard to hold a constitutional convention with only like 7 representatives still breathing, after all.
Give full 2a compliance a shot for a while, then work from the beginning again on what should actually be allowed in a modern society. I'm sure the founding fathers weren't so worried about a lone schizo lighting up the town with a musket. Downside of all of this is that changing the foundation and banning all of these weapons after the general populace already has them might get tricky, a problem that many have brought up in the "come and take them" realm of removing firearms from some of our citizens. That being said, it's already not that difficult to acquire all of the pieces needed for fully automatic rifles, it's just generally illegal to assemble them as such (which really isn't hard, modifying a lot of platforms just takes a couple pieces of metal and a drill.) I already legally have a suppressor for my .308 (that also fits several of my others) so I don't really desire much more, myself.
I agree with Jimmi with the big unanswered question being: what defines a [well organized] militia? Being in a gun club? Running drills in the mountains and planning on what could happen? Preparing for uprisings or invasions with friends from the bar? Just having a beard and a lot of bullets?
If the purpose of a militia is for ordinary citizens to be ready to be called upon to act if the time were to arise, it seems to me like regular, everyday gun people should be armed and trained.
|
Canada11369 Posts
Yeah, but back that one up a bit more. Why a well regulated militia and not a professional army like the British at the same time period? Distrust of the tyranny of the state. Therefore there is no army except by the people coming together as a volunteer force. The state doesn't have a professional army to crush its citizens. So I don't think that's just a NRA talking point. Since then the US does have a professional army, but the thinking behind the 2a seems very much in line with potentially resisting the state amongst other things.
|
|
|
On July 19 2021 10:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2021 16:42 RKC wrote:
Partially or even fully vaccinated people can still be carriers and spread infection (90%+ effectiveness rate of vaccines against Delta variant is only against hospitalisation, not infection). UK Health Minister Sajid Javid just tested positive despite receiving double dose of Pfizer.
That's why it is rather unwise, if not irresponsible, for authorities to dangle 'vaccination' as a carrot for people to be exempted from SOPs on mask and social-distancing. Some small exemptions may be given (eg counted as 0 or 0.5 person in indoor crowd maximum limits), but not from all or major preventive measures.
Some people get vaccinated simply so that they can 'get their lives back to normal'. That's incredibly selfish and short-sighted, because they are likely to exert political pressure on governments to loosen restrictions (or go round without mask and not social distance). Vaccinated or not, just follow the rules and weather the storm. Vaccination shouldn't be seen as a 'privilege' or 'passport' to be above public health guidelines when the pandemic is still ongoing. Show nested quote +On July 18 2021 23:01 WombaT wrote:On July 18 2021 22:34 HolydaKing wrote:
Wouldn't it typically take more than 2 weeks for people to die? Especially if they get hospitalized. But yeah, no doubt that due to the vaccines there won't be that many people dying. How many people will get long covid though? And generally people getting ill isn't good so I'm not a fan of what the UK is doing, opening up when the numbers are skyrocketing. Who could have possibly predicted this would happen? It’s quite frustrating, yeah Covid times haven’t been fun for many but we couldn’t hold on a few months longer? It’s like running 25 miles of a marathon and then going ‘fuck it, I’m going home’ at the last stretch. When Biden announced the 4th of July goal and indicated things would open whether we hit it or not it was clear to me that the economic/political motivations outweighed the science/public health considerations for the Biden administration (as well as many governors and mayors). I suppose it's less bad/stupid than what Trump would do, but I imagine that's of little consolation to the people who will suffer/die as a result of it.
CDC is finally at least recommending that people go back to wearing masks indoors anywhere the map is orange/red (should probably be the more populated/borderline yellow areas too).
Seemed obvious the US should not have stopped requiring masking or opened things up so much. Going to make it a lot harder to get people/businesses to go back. Particularly as they aren't requiring it, but recommending it.
There was never any serious plan to effectuate a "only unvaccinated people are required/need to wear masks" policy that was necessary to make the "vaccinated people don't need to wear masks anymore" dream a reality. Didn't stop the Biden administration/CDC as well as governors/mayors around the country in both parties from pushing forward with such piss poor planning/policy though.
|
|
|
August recess coming right on up, moratorium on evictions is about to expire, prepare for the oncoming wave of evictions and homelessness. Really should have sent out monthly stimulus checks, their weird specific renters assistance pipeline was just not good enough at getting money to people, requiring forms, and local infrastructure, just a dumb mess that could have been avoided by just sending people money during the crisis. 3600 dollars for like a years worth of bills was never in a million years going to cut it.
An estimated 11 million adult renters are considered seriously delinquent on their rent payment, according to a survey by the Census Bureau, but no one knows how many renters are in danger of being evicted in the near future.
Adding to the urgency, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh warned last month, when the Supreme Court allowed a one-month extension of the eviction moratorium to stand, that any further extensions would have to go through Congress. But there was little chance that Republicans on Capitol Hill would agree, and by the time White House officials asked, only two days remained before the freeze expired, angering Democratic leaders who said they had no time to build support for the move.
“Really, we only learned about this yesterday,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who had publicly and privately urged senior Biden administration officials to deal with the problem themselves.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/31/us/politics/eviction-moratorium-biden-housing-aid.html
|
One of these days, the pandemic-era freezes on evictions, student loans, and other similar debts do have to end. With rent in particular, you can't just have this be at the expense of the landlords forever; maybe it's better than people on the streets during a pandemic, but it also sets up a really ugly market failure that will exacerbate the housing problem. That's probably a big part of why it's hard for Democrats to get consensus to do that even in the House.
Rent assistance was clearly a big failure of a program, which could have done a lot to ease these troubles. Don't know if it's too late to fix it. But I don't think that extending any of these pandemic emergency measures is a wise option. Yes, there's a debt crisis waiting on the other side of it, but it's better to handle it than to continue to push it off (and exacerbate it) by government mandate.
|
On August 01 2021 12:14 LegalLord wrote:
One of these days, the pandemic-era freezes on evictions, student loans, and other similar debts do have to end. With rent in particular, you can't just have this be at the expense of the landlords forever; maybe it's better than people on the streets during a pandemic, but it also sets up a really ugly market failure that will exacerbate the housing problem. That's probably a big part of why it's hard for Democrats to get consensus to do that even in the House.
Rent assistance was clearly a big failure of a program, which could have done a lot to ease these troubles. Don't know if it's too late to fix it. But I don't think that extending any of these pandemic emergency measures is a wise option. Yes, there's a debt crisis waiting on the other side of it, but it's better to handle it than to continue to push it off (and exacerbate it) by government mandate.
I've never understood what the long term plan was. If the renter owes the balance of the rent that was due over an extended period of time its more than likely theyll never be able to pay that back if they were unemployed. I'm not familiar with the details but is the payback required? I feel like straight cash or a freeze on mortgages/rent would have been a better solution (including no accrued interest for the mortgage payments).
|
On August 01 2021 12:56 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2021 12:14 LegalLord wrote:
One of these days, the pandemic-era freezes on evictions, student loans, and other similar debts do have to end. With rent in particular, you can't just have this be at the expense of the landlords forever; maybe it's better than people on the streets during a pandemic, but it also sets up a really ugly market failure that will exacerbate the housing problem. That's probably a big part of why it's hard for Democrats to get consensus to do that even in the House.
Rent assistance was clearly a big failure of a program, which could have done a lot to ease these troubles. Don't know if it's too late to fix it. But I don't think that extending any of these pandemic emergency measures is a wise option. Yes, there's a debt crisis waiting on the other side of it, but it's better to handle it than to continue to push it off (and exacerbate it) by government mandate. I've never understood what the long term plan was. If the renter owes the balance of the rent that was due over an extended period of time its more than likely theyll never be able to pay that back if they were unemployed. I'm not familiar with the details but is the payback required? I feel like straight cash or a freeze on mortgages/rent would have been a better solution (including no accrued interest for the mortgage payments).
Legally, yes, tenants would be on the hook for all unpaid rent over the time they're not paying. Practically, let's just say that collecting debts from people who don't have money doesn't really work, so landlords will be forced to eat the cost of up to 1.5 years of nonpayment more often than not. The tenant will probably have to deal with having a record of being evicted, if that's any consolation.
A better solution would involve some sort of government-provided rent assistance throughout the pandemic rather than causing an adverse market condition via mandate, but it's too late for that. There clearly wasn't much of a long-term plan, only the short-term plan of "stop people from being evicted during the pandemic, deal with it afterward." Now it's time to deal with it, and turns out that those things are difficult to unwind and the "extend the moratorium" approach just has the visceral appeal of looking really easy to turn to.
|
Theres also basically 0% chance it actually gets dealt with, if they couldnt even get an extension on the moratorium then they have absolutely no hope of actually dealing with the impending eviction and homelessness crisis.
They should've taken strong consistent action as soon as Biden was in office and Congress was owned by Democrats, instead its been inaction and its going to be a really hard to sympathize look going into the midterms, and thats leaving out the failure to protect voting rights, so the flurry of localized Republican legislation designed to suppress voters is going to eat them alive going into 2022.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
