Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, March 26, 2018

OTP 2018 March 26: He struck out at baseball, but made it big in politics. Now he’s returned to his first love

In 1937, a group of standouts from the Negro baseball league, as it was known, was lured to the Dominican Republic for a barnstorming tournament against the country’s home-grown talent. Soon enough, the sun-and-fun adventure became a life-and-death proposition; the competition, it turned out, was for the benefit of the homicidal dictator Rafael Trujillo. The instruction given the visiting all-stars was simple: “You better win.”


While baseball is at the heart of the book, “The Pitcher and the Dictator” — the pitcher being the legendary Satchel Paige — the story is about much more, including gunboat diplomacy, the blood-drenched history of the Dominican Republic and, not least, the prevalence of racism and repression in mid-20th century America.


“One of the great ironies,” Smith said in an interview, is the visiting black players were “coming from the land of the free, home of the brave, and they’re going into one of the most repressive dictatorships in the world. Yet in some sense they have more freedom in that repressive dictatorship than they do in the United States.”

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: March 26, 2018 at 08:12 AM | 1703 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: history, negro leagues, off-topic, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 3 of 18 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
   201. OCF Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:49 PM (#5643324)
It's not just nuclear weapons that civilians in the U.S. cannot legally own: there's artillery of all kinds, hand grenades, RPGs, MANPAD antiaircraft rockets, land mines, plastic explosives - the list goes on. And if you make your own explosives at home, BATFE will be very interested in you. (Speaking of which: does anyone know what kind of explosive substance the Austin serial bomber was using? I never heard that - probably because the police have never said.)

As for the intended purpose of firearms: either the intended purpose is to kill some living being, or it is for target shooting. The latter is a sport, but it is a sport at least possibly motivated as training toward the possibility of killing. Yes, killing some living being does include killing game animals and killing pest animals. But note that hunting is seriously declining in popularity in the U.S., and the number of farmers or ranchers who could use a gun to kill pest animals has been declining for a long time. And no, if you live in an urban or suburban area, you can't use that .22 rifle on the raccoons raiding your garbage cans.

Can guns be made safer? Almost certainly yes. In particular, there has to be a place for technology that would prevent anyone other than a specifically authorized user to fire the weapon. Probably wouldn't have stopped Adam Lanza, but it would stop a lot of accidents and a fair number of suicides. The NRA has fought hard against such things even being marketable.
   202. Count Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:52 PM (#5643327)
195- what you're proposing doesn't make sense to me. Gun control laws that don't ban handguns should also explicitly say that handguns will never be banned? Why would that be relevant? And how would that be better than literally nothing? If SCOTUS overturned those decisions and a future congress wanted to ban handguns there would be nothing stopping that future congress from overturning the "don't ban handguns" provision.
   203. Greg K Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:56 PM (#5643329)

So Trump & Spicer are Medieval sheriffs?

I hadn't thought of that connection.

In many ways it was a simpler time back then. Political figures lied about crowd sizes too, but at least they did it for a good reason!
   204. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:56 PM (#5643330)
Such as?

The weapons that people are currently primarily using for these sources seems reasonable.

So you don't care about fighting tyranny?

While I'm mildly sympathetic to the argument, realistically, anyone who's trying to overthrow the government isn't likely to be stopped by a gun control law anyway, so it's a needless complication.

And just to be clear, the only problems I'm seeking to solve with the gun issue are murder related. People have a fundamental civil right to end their lives if they so choose. I'm certainly not pleased that my dad spent 25 years after Vietnam trying to kill himself with alcohol, but I believe that it was his choice. Given his struggles, a bullet to the brain would have been infinitely more merciful, though I'd personally have preferred him to hold off until 1978, as I am a fan of existing.
   205. OCF Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:59 PM (#5643333)
One other thing: the police in the U.S. kill an awful lot of people. There are various reasons for that, but one reason has to be that guns are so prevalent that the police can be overly quick to jump to the conclusion that almost any hand-held object is a gun. There's a hot-button case in Sacramento right now.

A couple of weeks ago, there was a standoff in downtown Long Beach: a man was waving a handgun around and saying he had a bomb in his car. This went on for some time, and greatly disrupted the area. Eventually the police shot and killed him. There was no bomb, and the gun he was waving was a non-functional replica. Which makes it straight-up suicide by cop, and that's a thing, too.
   206. BrianBrianson Posted: March 26, 2018 at 04:01 PM (#5643335)
But note that hunting is seriously declining in popularity in the U.S., and the number of farmers or ranchers who could use a gun to kill pest animals has been declining for a long time.


About 20% of guns are owned by active hunters. Farmers specifically couldn't be more than a few percent, though lots of rural people who aren't explicitly farmers may need guns for animal concerns (for instance, they're probably impossible to live without in most of Alaska, and possibly the mountain west.) So, somewhere between a quarter and a third of people who own guns have them as legitimate tools for dealing with animals.
   207. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 04:01 PM (#5643336)
One other thing: the police in the U.S. kill an awful lot of people. There are various reasons for that, but one reason has to be that guns are so prevalent that the police can be overly quick to jump to the conclusion that almost any hand-held object is a gun. There's a hot-button case in Sacramento right now.

I don't think police incompetence is justification for denial of a civil liberty. There's no freedom of speech problem stemming from cops illegally beating up mouthy people.
   208. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 04:04 PM (#5643338)
) So, somewhere between a quarter and a third of people who own guns have them as legitimate tools for dealing with animals.

Well, somewhere between a quarter and a third of people who own guns own "a" gun that could be used as a legitimate tool. The 45 other guns they own is pushing it a bit.
   209. Count Posted: March 26, 2018 at 04:06 PM (#5643341)
I suppose Congress could ban states and localities from banning handguns (although that may raise other constitutional issues). Is that what you mean?
   210. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: March 26, 2018 at 04:08 PM (#5643343)
they're probably impossible to live without in most of Alaska, and possibly the mountain west


My friend in Alaska (Valdez) without a gun will be very surprised to hear this. He has survived over 20 years there, but I better talk to him quick before he dies.
   211. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 04:08 PM (#5643344)
Well, somewhere between a quarter and a third of people who own guns own "a" gun that is could be used as a legitimate tool. The 45 other guns they own is pushing it a bit.

"Yeah, you can have the right to have an abortion, but having sex 365 days a year is really pushing it. How about you can have abortions if it's just one turn in the sack on Saturday night? Seems fair."

"Yeah, you have the right to have free speech but THREE books in a year? Why do you need to write that much? Just write one really good book, just cutting back doesn't make you George RR Martin."

"Look, I'm all for the right to peaceful protest. I can understand doing the ##### hat thing and the gun march, but this is your 17th protest this year. That can't be legal, can it?"

   212. Zonk is a Doorknob Whisperer Posted: March 26, 2018 at 04:10 PM (#5643346)
Interesting that respondents have picked away at parts of my post they don't like but not commented on the clip/magazine limits I've proposed. I guess those have no merit.


I think such limits would be a good thing - but I guess my question would be how effective such would be... i.e., would this simply create/append a new "accessories" line?

I lay no claim to be a gun expert - indeed, the only reason I keep bringing up muzzle velocity (and it's probably more the measurements on kinetic energy, that I also see listed with ammo types that I'm really talking about) is that it's more the 'carnage factor' I'm looking to mitigate.

I.e., tying action types on a firearm to the firearm/ammo's destructive power. Again - not an expert - this all was simply raised as something that should be more considered in terms of specifics by a firearms owning, but not gun control averse family member -- that bans on brands or nameplates or 'scary looking' is dumb, and if gun control advocates wanted something actually effective, it's better to consider the actual energy produced by a round paired with the ability to shoot such rounds in rapid succession.

If that can be accomplished through clip limitations - fine... but since a clip is just an interchangeable part, I'm just not sure how effective that would be.

The idea isn't so much this would impact the number of instances of such mass shootings -- but -- that higher powered weapons with limited capacities/actions would lead to more wounded with better chances of surviving.

If that can be accomplished strictly through clip size limits, fine.... but then, don't you also need some sort of safety mechanism on the firearm itself so that people don't get around it with simple kit modifications?
   213. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 04:11 PM (#5643348)
It's really laughable. The gun controllers are happy to place undue restrictions and bans on the things THEY don't care about. When the right tries to do the same with abortion and same-sex marriage and the like there's hell to pay.

You folks have started from your conclusion. Don't pretend otherwise.
   214. Lassus Posted: March 26, 2018 at 04:12 PM (#5643350)
#211 is less compelling after #183 was ignored.
   215. BrianBrianson Posted: March 26, 2018 at 04:12 PM (#5643351)
Well, somewhere between a quarter and a third of people who own guns own "a" gun that could be used as a legitimate tool. The 45 other guns they own is pushing it a bit.


Probably a rifle and a shotgun is legit for someone dealing with animals. The average gun owner owns 3-4 guns, though there's probably a lot of 1s, and a few 46ers that factor in to that.
   216. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 26, 2018 at 04:15 PM (#5643353)
   217. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 04:15 PM (#5643354)
That's because the NRA paid their flunkies in Congress to make it illegal to *study* the question.


Conspiracy theories are so intelligent.
   218. SteveF Posted: March 26, 2018 at 04:16 PM (#5643355)
Probably a rifle and a shotgun is legit for someone dealing with animals. The average gun owner owns 3-4 guns, though there's probably a lot of 1s, and a few 46ers that factor in to that.

I'd imagine a hunter owns a few different rifles if they hunt different kinds of game.
   219. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 04:21 PM (#5643359)
Such as?

The weapons that people are currently primarily using for these sources seems reasonable.


That's Andyesque in its whimsy and lack of rigor. Why would culling that group down to everything we have now, less the 1994 banned weapons and a couple similar weapons, be any less "reasonable"?

While I'm mildly sympathetic to the argument, realistically, anyone who's trying to overthrow the government isn't likely to be stopped by a gun control law anyway, so it's a needless complication.


That's fine, but a massive number of 2A defenders explicitly cite the "last measure against tyranny" argument in support. The Pedantic Dissembling Dilettante would be in that category. Taken to its logical and necessary conclusion, private possession of nuclear weaponry would have to be allowed.

In a purely philosophical sense, once you say, "No nuclear weaponry, that isn't reasonable," you've gotten out of the realm of civil liberty and into something else. At that point, others of us can plausibly and consistently say, "No AR-15s, that isn't reasonable."
   220. Count Posted: March 26, 2018 at 04:24 PM (#5643360)
Oh the hypocrisy in wanting to restrict things you think are bad and not wanting to restrict things you don't think are bad!
   221. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 04:30 PM (#5643365)
Oh the hypocrisy in wanting to restrict things you think are bad and not wanting to restrict things you don't think are bad!


I didn't say anything about hypocrisy or that there was anything wrong with wanting to restrict things you think are bad and not wanting to restrict things you don't think are bad.

Can you read?

For comprehension?
   222. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 04:31 PM (#5643366)
It's really laughable. The gun controllers are happy to place undue restrictions and bans on the things THEY don't care about. When the right tries to do the same with abortion and same-sex marriage and the like there's hell to pay.

You folks have started from your conclusion. Don't pretend otherwise.


Yes our system of government is really laughable. Though if someone didn't care about something they probably wouldn't be for something. Generally people that care about an issue are for something not the apathetic ones.
   223. The Good Face Posted: March 26, 2018 at 04:31 PM (#5643367)
If that can be accomplished strictly through clip size limits, fine.... but then, don't you also need some sort of safety mechanism on the firearm itself so that people don't get around it with simple kit modifications?


Firearms are relatively simple mechanical devices. Pretty much all the underlying mechanics of modern firearms were figured out over 100 years ago by John Browning. The vast majority of high powered (9mm or bigger) semi-automatic pistols are just modifications and incremental improvements of his 1911 and Browning Hi-Power designs, often just leveraging the better machining and material science technologies of today.

Anyway, the point being if a firearm uses a detachable magazine (clips are not magazines), or even an integrated magazine in some cases, it's not rocket science to simply swap out said magazine for one that is MOAR BIGGERER. For example, the venerable SKS rifle was widely produced in the Soviet Bloc/Communist China immediately after WW II. It has an internal 10 round magazine and fires the 7.62 Russian short round, same as the AK-47. But it's child's play to remove the magazine and swap in an aftermarket banana magazine that can hold 30+ rounds. It makes the gun heavier, more difficult to handle, and less reliable to feed, but hey, 30+ rounds without reloading! More dakka!
   224. Jack Keefe Posted: March 26, 2018 at 04:37 PM (#5643370)
It's entirely feasible for a private group to own and store a nuclear weapon

Yes and this is one thing we used to discus back on the '05 Chi. Sox. One day we was sit around and Carl Everett axed "What measures might we take to solidify our commitment to freedom, constitutionally mind you?" And A.J. Pierogi said "Get us some nukes." I said AJ that is Fine but where would you keep a Fishin Weapon. And Carl agreed. So AJ said he had a double Wide he inherited from his Aunt Katinka that was out in a Uncorroborated part of Lawn Giland. We could stash it there said AJ and I got a double hardened Master Lock that you would have trouble getting thro with ordinary Bolt Cuters. Carl Everett said "Would we endanger our fellow citizens in case of inadvertent detonation?" and AJ said hell no the prevalent winds is out to C in them parts. So it can be done but we never got a Round to it because we could not lay our Hans on any enriched Vibranium only later come to find that Hillary Cliton was giving away samples of Yellow Cake at Garge Sales Al.
   225. SandyRiver Posted: March 26, 2018 at 04:38 PM (#5643372)
Probably a rifle and a shotgun is legit for someone dealing with animals. The average gun owner owns 3-4 guns, though there's probably a lot of 1s, and a few 46ers that factor in to that.


I own 15 or so firearms, most of which I've never fired since inheriting them from my dad. Maybe 5 or 6 would be my need-to-keep list: The .30-06 pump noted above, a bolt-action 6.5 mm Swedish Mauser that weighs 3 lb less than #1 and which may be my go to deer rifle if I get tired of carrying the heavier weapon; an Ithaca model-37 featherweight pump for partridge; a Parker double I've never fired for waterfowl if I ever take that up (much nicer than the featherweight with the heavier loads needed for that hunt); the .45-caliber reproduction muzzleloader for the extended deer season; and a pre-WW2 Mossberg bolt-action .22 for snowshoe hare - also used it on the rabid skunk that was threatening our dog some years back. The heavier weapons would've splattered skunk-juice all over.
   226. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 26, 2018 at 04:39 PM (#5643373)
Where is the line for examples for it not to be a gotcha question?

A remotely feasible scenario for one.


A nuclear weapon is not feasible for home protection. Land mines are. Automatic weapons are. Hand grenades are. Are you for the legality of private ownership and deployment of those types of weapons? If not, then your argument that only McCoy and like minded individuals want to restrict home protection to less effective methods fails.
   227. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 26, 2018 at 04:43 PM (#5643378)
It would be virtually impossible to covertly produce banned arms in the United States


Actually, it's not. All you need is a 3D printer and blueprints readily available online.

The Gun Man
   228. Jay Z Posted: March 26, 2018 at 04:55 PM (#5643382)
And just to be clear, the only problems I'm seeking to solve with the gun issue are murder related. People have a fundamental civil right to end their lives if they so choose.


Most people who kill themselves are mentally ill, short or long term.

Had a cousin who did it. Many of my male cousins are hunters, I am not. This cousin usually kept his gun or guns half a state away, at his dad's, because that's where the land was, and he didn't use the gun otherwise. One year he decided to take the gun home and kill himself.

He was mentally ill. He was functional, had a good job, wife, a kid. Not physically ill and not that old. His act was irrational. You have a decent life, you only get one, go for a walk, experience nature, have an affair, anything. He chose to kill himself. Long term depression, no doubt. It's still a mental illness, not a rational act.

Had this cousin not been a gun owner, would it have been as easy for him to kill himself? Probably not. He obviously could have found ways. But the curb high barrier might have stalled him for years, or he might have gotten treatment.

Most suicides IMO are short term or long term irrational. You don't need a gun to kill the few where it might make some sort of sense. Ironically, the same political wing that is pro gun is anti assisted suicide. So they want you to have your gun, but not use it on yourself.

If we know the person personally, know they are about to kill themselves, know it's irrational, I think we owe it to each other to help people not hurt themselves. Not cheer that they can execute their snap judgment to off themselves quickly.
   229. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 05:08 PM (#5643391)
All you need is a 3D printer and blueprints readily available online.

Well, you need a little bit more than that and the tech and design isn't really where it needs to be yet but yes the future will be a bit troubling with 3D printers.
   230. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 05:09 PM (#5643394)
A nuclear weapon is not feasible for home protection.


Sure it is:

"US Government, if you enter our homes, we will detonate a nuclear bomb over Washington, DC."

I mean, yeah, that's kind of out there -- but then again so is the whole "the 2A allows us to protect ourselves against tyranny" meme.

Presumably in Libertopia, if a bunch of rich people want to band together to buy or build/store a nuclear weapon for their own private defense, they shouldn't be stopped and philosophically shouldn't be stopped.
   231. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 05:11 PM (#5643395)
Been in a deposition all day, so need to catch up. Won't respond to each of FLTB's fake lawyer trolling, but some other people asked more sincere questions:
Are there any objections to gun restraining orders? Or banning bump stocks? Or limiting magazine sizes? Or banning sales of AR-15s and similar weapons? Just throwing out a few ideas, I imagine the AR-15 one would be the most controversial. Gun restraining orders seem promising for mass shootings, domestic violence, and suicides.
There are objections to gun restraining orders, but they could in theory be overcome. Bump stocks are not worth fighting over. Magazine sizes are, and AR-15s are.
   232. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 26, 2018 at 05:25 PM (#5643413)
Sure it is:

"US Government, if you enter our homes, we will detonate a nuclear bomb over Washington, DC."


You don't advance the discussion that way. I know advancing the discussion has never been an interest of yours, but it is for some of us. For you, it's the poo flinging spectacle of "Oh yeah? Nuclear weapons!". "Oh yeah? Time machine Hitler abortion!!"

Most of the rest of us want to have an adult conversation. Bringing nuclear weapons into the discussion invites ridiculous responses like Dan's. I'm interested in if and why he's OK with drawing the line at explosives and automatic weapons and not at high velocity and capacity semi-automatic weapons. And if he does draw the line there, how does that comport with his charge that we want to restrict people from less effective methods of home protection, when he would be doing the exact same thing, just at a different point on the continuum.
   233. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 26, 2018 at 05:27 PM (#5643415)
I'm not saying we should throw up our hands and do nothing. I'm saying we should ask "What solutions to this problem are effective?" rather than spend our time arguing over solutions we already know are ineffective.

Yeah, it's hard to work out (due to the small number of mass shooters, and the smaller number of mass shooters who survive), but that doesn't mean it's impossible. If we're serious, we can give it a try. But neither "camp" seems to have the slightest interest in effectiveness, which is why I'm so irritable.


So which "camp" do you think is more likely to compromise? The one that has controlled the national gun debate for the past 20 years, takes its cues from Wayne Lapierre, and has proposed little more than "Let's have more guns" as a solution? Or the one that accepts the idea of gun ownership, but not to the extent that the NRA does?

The Left will obviously have to compromise, because the Left is never going to have the numbers to repeal the 2nd amendment, even if some of the Left might want to do so. But the Right will never compromise until the Left (in this case the students and their supporters) makes them recalculate their political equations by showing up at the polls.

Which is why you should be supporting the students. Right now they're the driving force behind a movement that might (eventually) get us simple and obvious measures like universal background checks that apply to sales at gun shows, and/or a national registry for firearms, measures that are widely supported by the public but effectively vetoed by the NRA.

For solutions we don't know the effectiveness of? Maybe, especially if they're otherwise worthwhile or whatnot. Maybe social approaches - more money for afterschool programs? Teacher training for early intervention?

When my son was born, the NHS sends around a midwife a week later to do a checkup, answer questions - but also surreptitiously check for signs of child abuse and such (gotta get the boy naked to weigh him). Approaches like that, that can address X but also have clear value of Y and Z make sense on their own.


As I think you're getting at, it doesn't have to be either/or. All of those ideas are worthwhile on their own. But here's the political nature of the problem: The same politicians who generally vote for virtually no limitations on firearms are also the politicians who would put the kibosh on your proposals. Until society decides that the future of all children is (roughly) of equal importance, we're just going to wind up in the same old place: "Everything for my child, and don't raise my taxes."

And what's most hopeful about those kids who were marching on Saturday is that it's evident they don't buy into that sort of "I've got mine, Jack" buck passing. It doesn't take too much reading between the lines to imagine that gun control isn't the only thing they'll be going after when they turn into voters.
   234. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 26, 2018 at 05:30 PM (#5643418)
It's entirely feasible for a private group to own and store a nuclear weapon

Yes and this is one thing we used to discus back on the '05 Chi. Sox. One day we was sit around and Carl Everett axed "What measures might we take to solidify our commitment to freedom, constitutionally mind you?" And A.J. Pierogi said "Get us some nukes." I said AJ that is Fine but where would you keep a Fishin Weapon. And Carl agreed. So AJ said he had a double Wide he inherited from his Aunt Katinka that was out in a Uncorroborated part of Lawn Giland. We could stash it there said AJ and I got a double hardened Master Lock that you would have trouble getting thro with ordinary Bolt Cuters. Carl Everett said "Would we endanger our fellow citizens in case of inadvertent detonation?" and AJ said hell no the prevalent winds is out to C in them parts. So it can be done but we never got a Round to it because we could not lay our Hans on any enriched Vibranium only later come to find that Hillary Cliton was giving away samples of Yellow Cake at Garge Sales Al.

Most interesting comment, Jack. The president wants to subscribe to your newsletter.
   235. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 05:33 PM (#5643419)

One other thing: the police in the U.S. kill an awful lot of people. There are various reasons for that, but one reason has to be that guns are so prevalent that the police can be overly quick to jump to the conclusion that almost any hand-held object is a gun. There's a hot-button case in Sacramento right now.
The problem with that argument is that police are overly quick to kill people who they know for a fact don't have guns. They shoot people who are armed with knives, baseball bats, rocks, cars, etc. The reason is that police are cowards. (Phrase that less pejoratively if you'd like; the point is that most police think -- are trained too think -- that their safety is paramount over anyone else's, and even a risk of harm is too much.) We just had a trial in NY in which a cop killed a 66-year old mentally ill woman who was swinging a baseball bat in her own bedroom. He was acquitted. The trial strangely resolved around whether he ignored his training, whether should've backed off and waited for the trained mental health people to come in, rather than too aggressively confronting the woman. The cop's defense that wasn't really challenged was that he was afraid:
Barry, who opted for a non-jury trial, testified during the two-week proceeding that he fired two bullets into the schizophrenic woman–using his service weapon, not a taser–because he feared for his life.

“I just see the bat swinging, and that’s when I fired,’’ the 32-year-old said from the stand Tuesday. “I’m looking at this bat that can crack me in the head and kill me.”

Quinn argued Wednesday that Barry was imminently threatened when Danner took a step in his direction holding the bat.

“If she hadn’t taken that step, we wouldn’t be having a trial. We wouldn’t be having a funeral,” the defense attorney said.
A 66-year old woman. A 32-year old cop, surrounded by other cops. Could she have hurt him if she had hit him? Sure. Could she have killed him? That's just stupid. I mean, anything is theoretically possible. But it's not like she was sneaking up on him from behind and smashing the bat over his head. He was facing her. First, he obviously could've retreated. Second, he could've, you know, grabbed the bat from her. Third, he could've used his taser. But regardless, it has nothing to do with private gun ownership; he's just a coward.
   236. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 05:34 PM (#5643420)
You don't advance the discussion that way.


It advances the discussion perfectly, particularly when the rationale for the 2A goes beyond home defense to defense against governmental tyranny. Both are proffered as a rationale by strict adherents. Nothing would deter tyranny better than a few private rich people owning a nuclear bomb, or a wide group of the people generally. So naturally the question is quite pertinent.

For you, it's the poo flinging spectacle of "Oh yeah? Nuclear weapons!"


It's nothing of the sort. See above.

Most of the rest of us want to have an adult conversation. Bringing nuclear weapons into the discussion invites ridiculous responses like Dan's.


Dan's response was perfectly fine. A little cryptic, but he made it clear that he really doesn't buy into the "tyranny" rationale, but only the self-defense/liberty rationale.

I'm interested in if and why he's OK with drawing the line at explosives and automatic weapons and not at high velocity and capacity semi-automatic weapons. And if he does draw the line there, how does that comport with his charge that we want to restrict people from less effective methods of home protection, when he would be doing the exact same thing, just at a different point on the continuum.


I asked him that already, only a better way. He said he thinks current practice is "reasonable," I asked him whether he thinks current practice ex-'94 assault ban weapons would also be reasonable. I don't think he's answered yet.
   237. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 05:43 PM (#5643424)
If we know the person personally, know they are about to kill themselves, know it's irrational, I think we owe it to each other to help people not hurt themselves. Not cheer that they can execute their snap judgment to off themselves quickly.

I'm certainly not cheering my dad died when I was 19 from self-inflicted harm. We spent a long-time trying to help him. But until such time he was declared incompetent to make the decision, he had a fundamental right to act as he did. A right doesn't dissipate simply because it makes others sad.

   238. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 05:44 PM (#5643425)
I asked him whether he thinks current practice ex-'94 assault ban weapons would also be reasonable. I don't think he's answered yet.

No, because "oooo, that looks super scary like in a movie!" is not a component of efficacy. I'm speaking to the general level of armament out there, not specifically endorsing every single aspect of current gun law.
   239. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 26, 2018 at 05:47 PM (#5643426)
I asked him that already, only a better way. He said he thinks current practice is "reasonable,"


In which case, Dan's mocking of McCoy for wanting to restrict people to less effective forms of self protection is hypocritical, as his "reasonable" position does the exact same thing, just at a different point on the spectrum of pocket knife to nuke.

177. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 03:23 PM (#5643286)

Not sure I follow. Owning a machine gun and firing it is not an unalienable right. Owning a nuclear missile and firing it is not an unalienable right. I'm for regulating what arms you can have. I'm not for removing all arms.

Just less effective ones than the ones you choose to protect yourselves from.


   240. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 05:49 PM (#5643427)
In which case, Dan's mocking of McCoy for wanting to restrict people to less effective forms of self protection is hypocritical, as his "reasonable" position does the exact same thing, just at a different point on the spectrum of pocket knife to nuke.


Exactly, which is why I referred to it as Andyesque in its whimsy and lack of rigor. I still can't see why he thinks the status quo is reasonable, but wouldn't be reasonable if we banned a few weapons like the AR-15. He touched on it in 238, but I can't really figure out what he means. Maybe it's me.
   241. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 26, 2018 at 05:52 PM (#5643428)
McCoy's all for free speech! Just so long as it's not too loud and no more than, say, 300 people are able to access it.

McCoy's for fourth amendment protections! Well, unless you did something, like SUPER bad, not just regular bad.

McCoy's for freedom to practice religion. Unless it's like too silly with snakes or something or calling wine blood.



Why is it imperative to mock people who hold the opinion that the line should be drawn somewhat lower on the spectrum of deadliness than you do? Is there a missing commandment somewhere that says banning automatic weapons is fine, but banning semi automatic weapons is against the laws of God and nature?
   242. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 26, 2018 at 06:03 PM (#5643431)
This is just merely my opinion, backed up by nothing more than my gut feeling, but I suspect a good number of 2A advocates who say they are fine with the status quo, really aren't, but they don't want to push it. If automatic weapons were not currently banned, most of those same people would fight tooth and nail against any attempt to do so, using the same histrionics* they use fighting semis.

It is illegal to remove the serial number from a gun, and to possess a gun with the serial number removed. If we did not currently have THAT law, the usually suspects would fight the implementation of that as well.

*Yes, my side uses histrionics as well.
   243. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 06:11 PM (#5643432)
Man, getting old kind of sucks. Been dying to try out my first Magic deck in 23 years but finding time to do it as been really hard. My GF is out of town today and tomorrow but I'm working nights so that's a no go for me. She'll be traveling a lot over the next few months (as will I)
so hopefully I'll be able to carve out sometime to give Magic a try before Dominaria comes out.
   244. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 26, 2018 at 06:11 PM (#5643433)
Explosive devices left at, but not detonated, at several military facilities in and around DC. Probably just some patriot exercising his 2A rights. Or maybe Putin who was morally obligated to do so after we expelled his spies.
   245. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 06:28 PM (#5643434)
Man, getting old kind of sucks. Been dying to try out my first Magic deck in 23 years but finding time to do it as been really hard. My GF is out of town today and tomorrow but I'm working nights so that's a no go for me. She'll be traveling a lot over the next few months (as will I)
so hopefully I'll be able to carve out sometime to give Magic a try before Dominaria comes out.


I haven't played since Fifth Edition. I was in my first year of college and most of my friends had drifted off to other stuff. And I remember being pissed that a card I liked wasn't part of the core set anymore. Swords to plowshares maybe? It's been awhile so I may not be remembering correctly.
   246. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 06:33 PM (#5643435)
In which case, Dan's mocking of McCoy for wanting to restrict people to less effective forms of self protection is hypocritical, as his "reasonable" position does the exact same thing, just at a different point on the spectrum of pocket knife to nuke.

He's restricting people from things that can be actually be used effectively to exercise a right. I'm restricting people from ludicrous things that have come up precisely zero times ever. Unless you want to argue that a semi-automatic handgun cannot effectively exercise self-defense in a practical fashion consistent with deadly force.

"McCoy is restricting people from exercising speech by having signs larger than four feet by four feet. Dan is restricting people from exercising free speech by kidnapping the president and making murals with his blood. Both are restrictions on free speech."
   247. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 06:38 PM (#5643437)
I haven't played since Fifth Edition. I was in my first year of college and most of my friends had drifted off to other stuff. And I remember being pissed that a card I liked wasn't part of the core set anymore. Swords to plowshares maybe? It's been awhile so I may not be remembering correctly.

I'm not happy Thicket Basilisk, regeneration, and lure are no longer part of the core set. I figure to give a go until the next core set comes out.
   248. Greg K Posted: March 26, 2018 at 06:42 PM (#5643438)
I'm surprised by how many of these cards I have (I don't have a huge collection)

I've got Swords to Plowshares and Thicket Basilisk. Regeneration too. Looking at the google images of "Lure"...doesn't look familiar.
   249. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 06:43 PM (#5643439)
If you have both those cards you should have lure.
   250. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 26, 2018 at 06:44 PM (#5643440)
Unless you want to argue that a semi-automatic handgun cannot effectively exercise self-defense in a practical fashion consistent with deadly force.


As can an automatic weapon.

"McCoy is restricting people from exercising speech by having signs larger than four feet by four feet. Dan is restricting people from exercising free speech by kidnapping the president and making murals with his blood. Both are restrictions on free speech."


And this is where you display your foolishness. The difference between your two positions is no where near as wide as your silly analogy implies. It's more like McCoy saying one cannot yell fire in a theater, and you holding the position that one can, as long as the theater is less than 1/3 full.
   251. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 06:45 PM (#5643441)
My GF has been bugging me for a couple of months now to go and pick up all my stuff from my parent's house. A lot of it isn't really mine. A lot of it my mom bought because she likes collecting things but somehow they are mine. Anyway, recently I've been looking forward to going back to Chicago to pick up my stuff because I am really interested in just how many dual lands I have. It's funny how back in the day everybody hated that being the rare they got in a pack but nowadays they are worth hundreds and hundreds of dollars.
   252. Greg K Posted: March 26, 2018 at 06:46 PM (#5643442)
If you have both those cards you should have lure.

Perhaps...it's been a while since I pulled them out.

But I also never played a game, or constructed a deck. So logic plays little role in what cards I have.

   253. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 06:46 PM (#5643443)
And this is where you display your foolishness. The difference between your two positions is no where near as wide as your silly analogy implies. It's more like McCoy saying one cannot yell fire in a theater, and you holding the position that one can, as long as the theater is less than 1/3 full.

Yes. A position I pointed out way back when that DJS ignored.
   254. BDC Posted: March 26, 2018 at 06:57 PM (#5643445)
I’M AT A BASEBALL GAME!! The starting pitchers are supposedly Tyler Male and Doug Fister. Sounds like a couple of Stormy Daniels’ co-stars.
   255. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 26, 2018 at 07:03 PM (#5643447)
have fun. Stay cool.

Going to Cubs/Marlins on Sat/Sun.
   256. Howie Menckel Posted: March 26, 2018 at 07:05 PM (#5643448)

Morocco "went there".....

ok, so FIFA will announce in June that the 2026 World Cup bid winner is US/Mexico/Canada as the insurgent winner over mighty Morocco, the other finalist (final will be at the Meadowlands, by the way - BBTF meetup for those still alive!).

Morocco bid book out today, notes "its limited threat from gun crime."

"Morocco also cites an "exceptionally low murder rates" of 3 in 100,000. The latest equivalent figures in North America are: 18.7 in Mexico, 5.3 in the U.S. and 1.68 in Canada."

[wait, there are murders in Canada? does this include moose shootings?]
   257. Greg K Posted: March 26, 2018 at 07:15 PM (#5643450)
Wow, they're expanding to 48 teams.

I'd say Canada has a chance of finally making it back! But I guess if they win the hosting bid they'll get in anyway.
   258. Greg K Posted: March 26, 2018 at 07:18 PM (#5643451)
CONCACAF qualifiers should be fun too. If I understand this right you'd be taking out the two dominant forces (US and Mexico), but still have 3 spots up for grabs.
   259. greenback slays lewks Posted: March 26, 2018 at 07:22 PM (#5643453)
Flyin' Ted Cruz meets a fan.

Ted is not aging well.
   260. Howie Menckel Posted: March 26, 2018 at 07:27 PM (#5643455)
248. Greg K Posted: March 26, 2018 at 06:42 PM (#5643438)
I'm surprised by how many of these cards I have (I don't have a huge collection)

I've got Swords to Plowshares and Thicket Basilisk. Regeneration too. Looking at the google images of "Lure"...doesn't look familiar.
249. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 06:43 PM (#5643439)
If you have both those cards you should have lure.

...............

wait, guys who play role-playing card games have "lure?"
:)
(c'mon, that IS a funny word choice)
   261. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 07:33 PM (#5643458)
And this is where you display your foolishness. The difference between your two positions is no where near as wide as your silly analogy implies. It's more like McCoy saying one cannot yell fire in a theater, and you holding the position that one can, as long as the theater is less than 1/3 full.


You certainly can yell fire in a crowded theater -- well, any time, but without criminal jeopardy if there actually is a fire or if you're a thespian.
   262. Greg K Posted: March 26, 2018 at 07:36 PM (#5643459)
What if there's a fire in the movie and you're trying to warn the main character?
   263. BrianBrianson Posted: March 26, 2018 at 07:38 PM (#5643460)
Man, getting old kind of sucks.


Yeah, just as soon as my right knee stopped hurting, my left knee starts acting up. Probably that guy who jumped on it repeatedly.
   264. Srul Itza Posted: March 26, 2018 at 07:39 PM (#5643461)
Bump stocks are not worth fighting over. Magazine sizes are


Why?
   265. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 26, 2018 at 07:39 PM (#5643462)
So, the official WH statement re: Stormy Daniels affair: "The President does not believe her account.", which is a pretty ridiculous statement. He either knows it's true or he knows it's false, or that parts are true and parts are false. Believing has nothing to do with it. Her account involves only 2 people, and he is one of them. I suppose the believe part could be referring only to her claims of intimidation, but it's still a stupid and nonsensical response.
   266. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: March 26, 2018 at 07:41 PM (#5643463)
which is a pretty ridiculous statement


You would expect anything other than ridiculousness from these assclowns?
   267. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: March 26, 2018 at 07:44 PM (#5643465)
Why is it imperative to mock people who hold the opinion that the line should be drawn somewhat lower on the spectrum of deadliness than you do? Is there a missing commandment somewhere that says banning automatic weapons is fine, but banning semi automatic weapons is against the laws of God and nature?


It boils down to two issues. First, they haven't actually thought through the question at all. They're just repeating the proper "conservative" talking point. Second, they are categorically incapable of arguing in good faith.
   268. BDC Posted: March 26, 2018 at 07:46 PM (#5643466)
Stay cool

It’s a breezy 81 degrees right now. I will miss nights like these when we move to the BDC Dome, but I have to remind myself that this is the ####ing 26th of March.
   269. Greg K Posted: March 26, 2018 at 07:48 PM (#5643468)
The US gun debate seems like the logical end point of polarization.

Both sides agree there is a line to be drawn somewhere, but getting into specifics is strategic suicide. If you assume the other side is bent on total subjugation than any concession is just setting up the next battle to be that much closer to your home base.
   270. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 07:49 PM (#5643469)
It's more like McCoy saying one cannot yell fire in a theater, and you holding the position that one can, as long as the theater is less than 1/3 full.
The irony - though I'm sure people are not aware of it -- is that the hoary "fire in a crowded theater" trope is actually an argument for censorship, not an argument for supposedly reasonable restrictions. First, you can legitimately yell fire in a crowded theater. Second, the origin of the quote is Holmes' argument that you can't legally criticize the military draft in wartime because you supposedly can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
   271. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 26, 2018 at 07:52 PM (#5643470)
Trump supposedly wants to bring the wife beater back to the White House.
   272. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 07:59 PM (#5643471)
"The theater goer tried to warn the crowd of the fire that was raging outside in the hallway, but as he thought he was not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater, nobody heard him and he was powerless to do anything. Many snooty rich people died that day - most of whom also didn't understand the famous quote from Justice Holmes and would just repeat it mindlessly."
   273. Srul Itza Posted: March 26, 2018 at 07:59 PM (#5643472)
Trump supposedly wants to bring the wife beater back to the White House.



The person or the undergarment?
   274. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 26, 2018 at 08:01 PM (#5643474)
The guy who cannot get a security clearance.
   275. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 26, 2018 at 08:03 PM (#5643475)
Trump supposedly wants to bring the wife beater back to the White House.

So will he be wearing The Official White House Wife Beater shirt?
   276. Srul Itza Posted: March 26, 2018 at 08:13 PM (#5643477)
The guy who cannot get a security clearance.


That does not narrow it down much. Could be Jared.
   277. PreservedFish Posted: March 26, 2018 at 08:15 PM (#5643478)
I'm actually impressed by the pigheadedness that the doctrinaire libertarians are displaying here. These fellows are usually pretty sharp and I'm wondering if there's an opportunity for self-reflection here. Am I similarly myopic and deluded regarding some of the issues that I care about?
   278. Morty Causa Posted: March 26, 2018 at 08:19 PM (#5643480)
The doctrinaire can't afford to reflect.
   279. BDC Posted: March 26, 2018 at 08:27 PM (#5643485)
Ha, ha, they *are* showing Mound Visits Remaining on the scoreboard this year. Six per side. For the doctrinaire among us :)
   280. PreservedFish Posted: March 26, 2018 at 08:35 PM (#5643489)
Ha, ha, they *are* showing Mound Visits Remaining on the scoreboard this year.


Hmmm. On the one hand, I think that's a stupid thing to keep track of. On the other, it's probably the only way that teams will actually comply.
   281. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 09:12 PM (#5643498)
Trump supposedly wants to bring the wife beater back to the White House.

The person or the undergarment?


Trump thinks he’s Tony, but he’s really Artie Bucco.
   282. spycake Posted: March 26, 2018 at 09:24 PM (#5643499)
What if there's a fire in the movie and you're trying to warn the main character?


Sounds like Firestorm, maybe?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mxUThfEiamQ
   283. Shredder Posted: March 26, 2018 at 09:39 PM (#5643502)
I'm actually impressed by the pigheadedness that the doctrinaire libertarians are displaying here.
Why? It's the same pigheadedness that doctrinaire libertarians display everywhere.
   284. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: March 26, 2018 at 09:57 PM (#5643507)
Many snooty rich people died that day

Says the guy who lives in a literal Trump tower and thinks he’s better than everyone in the world.
   285. PreservedFish Posted: March 26, 2018 at 09:59 PM (#5643508)
Why? It's the same pigheadedness that doctrinaire libertarians display everywhere.


I think I was just fooled by how often Nieps and I have been on the same page since the rise of Trump.
   286. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 26, 2018 at 10:02 PM (#5643509)
I'm actually impressed by the pigheadedness that the doctrinaire libertarians are displaying here.


Why? It's the same pigheadedness that doctrinaire libertarians display everywhere.

In fairness, not all of them are quite as pigheaded on all subjects as the ones here are on guns. Nick Gillespie of Reason is about the most eloquent pro-immigration writer** I've seen, which may be why David doesn't want to address his writings on the subject.

** Hell, he goes even further than most of the pro-immigration liberals I know, myself included, but his views on the subject are utterly consistent with his libertarian beliefs.
   287. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 26, 2018 at 10:08 PM (#5643510)
I think I was just fooled by how often Nieps and I have been on the same page since the rise of Trump.

You have to take the bad with the good. At least on the subject of Trump he doesn't make excuses for him or play whataboutism like Ray, or just dip his tippy-toes into occasional tut-tutting like JE. He knows the difference between mere political differences and an utter lack of even a trace of character, but unfortunately he's the only libertarian around here who seems to get the distinction.
   288. Morty Causa Posted: March 26, 2018 at 10:10 PM (#5643511)
286 reminds me:

Reason has an nice interview with Pinker on Engligtenment Now

"Pinker: Right. Or the progress that we've experienced so far is illusory, since we're breathing in carcinogens as we speak and since species are dropping like flies, so actually our situation is getting worse and worse and worse. This movement tends to be opposed to the technology-driven increase in living standards over the last couple of years. It tends to see humanity as a scourge on the planet. In the book, I acknowledge that concern with the environment certainly is a good thing, and we have the Green movement to thank for reminding us that there can be harms from pollution.

However, there is an alternative approach to protecting the environment, sometimes called ecomodernism or ecopragmatism, that acknowledges that pollution has been a price that we have paid for enormous benefits to humanity—more than doubling lifespans, emancipating slaves, emancipating women from domestic drudgery, emancipating children from farm labor and getting them into schools. Some degree of pollution is worth paying just as some amount of dirt in your house is worth it, because the effort to keep it perfectly clean would mean sacrificing everything else good in life.

Gillespie: It's not that the world exists merely for us to blow it up if we want to, but rather that a lot of the Romantic Greens don't seem to put any value on human flourishing."
   289. Lassus Posted: March 26, 2018 at 10:17 PM (#5643512)
There's nothing like a surprise showing of West Side Story on one of HBO's bazillion channels to remind me that the world isn't entirely awful.
   290. BDC Posted: March 26, 2018 at 10:39 PM (#5643513)
Aha, they count the catcher meeting the pitcher halfway between plate and mound to pat him on the butt as a “mound visit.”
   291. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:22 PM (#5643516)
As for the ol' unprompted retirement tote board, this one might count double.

Nevada lawmaker: 'Rumor mill' says Ryan headed for exit
Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.) told a local news station that there is a “rumor” that Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) will resign soon, stepping up speculation about the Speaker’s political future.

“The rumor mill is that Paul Ryan is getting ready to resign in the next 30 to 60 days and that Steve Scalise will be the new Speaker,” Amodei told Nevada Newsmakers, referring to the Majority Whip from Louisiana.

...Ryan has said he and his wife will decide in the spring about whether he will run for reelection.

...Amodei, who is not a close ally of Ryan's, emphasized that he was just repeating a rumor. But the on-the-record comments from a Republican lawmaker — and the suggestion that Ryan could resign before the midterms — made waves on Monday, briefly crashing the Nevada Newsmakers website.
   292. Shredder Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:43 PM (#5643517)
You have to take the bad with the good. At least on the subject of Trump he doesn't make excuses for him or play whataboutism like Ray, or just dip his tippy-toes into occasional tut-tutting like JE. He knows the difference between mere political differences and an utter lack of even a trace of character, but unfortunately he's the only libertarian around here who seems to get the distinction.
Yeah, I spar with David a lot, but he's done a pretty good job of calling Jason out on his conspiracy bullshit whenever Jason creams himself over the latest bombshell from the Daily Caller or the Free Beacon. I think the hardcore libertarian thing is essentially just arrested development. It's easy to espouse a political philosophy that you know has no chance of ever coming to fruition. It's the political equivalent of the guy in a bar who really wants to fight, but his friends are holding him back.
   293. zenbitz Posted: March 27, 2018 at 02:05 AM (#5643528)

If the 2A is broadly interpreted to include a right of self-defense,


The whole point of the argument is that it doesn't mention self defense, only cryptic references to a well regulated militia. So -- basically everyone (including the courts) throws out the "well-regulated militia". Leaving the very clear and succinct - the right to bear arms must not be infringed.

So, banning military hardware from personal usage is obviously unconstitutional. I don't see how one can call themselves a Libertarian and follow this lead.

But everyone ignores THAT because of course, "the Constitution is not a suicide pact".

So it's all crock. There are 100s of free societies that have no "Right to Bear Arms". But also, restricting firearms -- without actually full on Obama style seizure -- isn't going to stop nutballs from shooting public places up.
   294. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 27, 2018 at 02:19 AM (#5643530)
Speaking of violent attacks and the 18th century, 101-year-old GWTW actress Olivia De Havilland's defamation lawsuit has been dismissed by a panel of three judges. De Havilland sued after she was depicted in a catty FX miniseries calling her real-life estranged sister Joan Fontaine a bitch. She said she would never use that word, having merely called her sister a dragon lady. The panel ruled that creators are legally allowed to embellish history for dramatic purposes. After all, Hollywood just gave Gary Oldman the Oscar for calling Adolf Hitler "slapnuts," an act of courage that is disputed by many historians.
   295. bookbook Posted: March 27, 2018 at 02:36 AM (#5643532)
"Either way, I'm just going by the Supremes current broad interpretation of the 2A as suggested by current case law. I'm not that interested in going down the rabbit hole of what the 2A really means/meant."

Just as the Magna Carta was an assertion of the aristocracy's rights against the King, and only through distortion did it become a protection for the common man, the second Amendment was about the state maintaining rights of defense, not about individual gun rights. In the case of these militias, it was mostly about using armed forces to prevent slave revolts. That this can be twisted into a statement of protection of individual liberty...? By originalists, no less? It's kooky.

Universal background checks, bans of semi-automatic rifles and large magazines, required passing of a mental health evaluation every three years for gun owners. These are obvious, easy solutions that will save many thousands of lives. They aren't an undue burden. Absolutely, I hope these kids and their parents and neighbors are willing to vote against anyone who opposes such measures.
   296. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: March 27, 2018 at 03:22 AM (#5643533)
You have to take the bad with the good. At least on the subject of Trump he doesn't make excuses for him or play whataboutism like Ray

Drink!
   297. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: March 27, 2018 at 03:24 AM (#5643534)

So it's all crock. There are 100s of free societies that have no "Right to Bear Arms".


Well, no. If you don't have enough individual sovereignty to be allowed to defend yourself in an effective manner, you're a quasi-free or mostly-free society at best. And given how many of those nations have gone soggy about free speech, I have zero problem not using the full "free society" label.


The whole point of the argument is that it doesn't mention self defense, only cryptic references to a well regulated militia. So -- basically everyone (including the courts) throws out the "well-regulated militia". Leaving the very clear and succinct - the right to bear arms must not be infringed.


Libertarians are only constitutionalists to the extent that the constitution protects civil liberties. It's a good, but not a perfect, document.

And as I said, I would accept, for pragmatic reasons, required training as suggested by well-regulated, so long as it came with better protections for the civil liberty. There's nothing about libertarianism that forces us only to accept the perfect solution. Are progressives that accept anything less than full government-run health care fake progressives?
   298. -- Posted: March 27, 2018 at 06:31 AM (#5643540)
I think I was just fooled by how often Nieps and I have been on the same page since the rise of Trump.


While there's no argument to be had with subjective political preferences or aesthetics, which we're all entitled to, most of his factual stuff about Trump is every bit as much BS as you're seeing here with guns. The template and the routine are precisely the same with both.
   299. -- Posted: March 27, 2018 at 07:47 AM (#5643544)
He knows the difference between mere political differences and an utter lack of even a trace of character,


No, he doesn't. He's doctrinaire and unalloyed anti-Trump for precisely the same reasons he's doctrinaire and unalloyed libertarian -- and that's because being doctrinaire and purist is something he wants to be and wants to come off as being. The common pattern is clear and obvious.
   300. PreservedFish Posted: March 27, 2018 at 08:02 AM (#5643545)
Well, no. If you don't have enough individual sovereignty to be allowed to defend yourself in an effective manner, you're a quasi-free or mostly-free society at best.

Really? Do you carry a gun with you at all times? When you don't, do you feel only quasi-free?

It strikes me as a trick of the language that one can describe different capacities towards self-defense as "freedom" in any sense. One might just as easily say that I am only quasi-free as long as I fear that other private citizens might be carrying highly effective concealed murder tools.
Page 3 of 18 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
HowardMegdal
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 2018 September 17: How Brett Kavanaugh explains his baseball ticket debt
(1559 - 12:39am, Sep 21)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogIs Red Sox' slump temporary, or did they come back to earth?
(12 - 12:23am, Sep 21)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

NewsblogWho needs Justice when you have OMNICHATTER! for Sept. 20, 2018
(158 - 12:20am, Sep 21)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Thread (Pre-Season Edition)
(445 - 11:49pm, Sep 20)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogWillians Astudillo Should Be Your New Favorite Player
(19 - 11:41pm, Sep 20)
Last: QLE

NewsblogDodgers bash their way to MLB history with record-tying seven 20-homer hitters
(26 - 11:20pm, Sep 20)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

NewsblogSnell wins 20th, ties Rays record in 4-0 victory over Texas
(45 - 11:10pm, Sep 20)
Last: Buck Coats

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (September 2018)
(371 - 10:55pm, Sep 20)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogIt's not a tantrum, it's a cry for OMNICHATTER! for Sept. 19, 2018
(91 - 10:35pm, Sep 20)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogThe Orioles became the first professional sports team to wear Braille jerseys
(52 - 9:50pm, Sep 20)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(817 - 9:32pm, Sep 20)
Last: Richard

NewsblogOrioles match club record with 107th loss, 5-0 to Blue Jays before tiny home crowd
(59 - 5:50pm, Sep 20)
Last: escabeche

Sox Therapy11 Days Later
(76 - 5:15pm, Sep 20)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

Sox Therapy6,036 Days
(15 - 2:49pm, Sep 20)
Last: Nasty Nate

Gonfalon CubsThe Final Push
(134 - 1:55pm, Sep 20)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

Page rendered in 0.7182 seconds
46 querie(s) executed