[ExI] ccp struggles
johnkclark at gmail.com
Wed Apr 15 12:56:51 UTC 2020
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 6:27 PM spike jones via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> *> You argued against automatics, which are already (functionally)
> illegal. *
I asked this before but maybe this time you'll give me an answer, do you
think the second amendment has limits or do you think making machine guns
illegal is unconstitutional?
> *> Then move on to equating those with semi-autos. As soon as you get
> those under more rigorous control, you move right on to the next step.*
OK let's go there, why isn't a flintlock pistol good enough for home
defense? It was after all the original intent of the framers of the
Constitution. And conservatives are always talking about original intent.
> *> This has been a good month for the NRA.*
And a very bad month for the world.
> >>…A bolt action rifle was good enough for all infantry soldiers in the
>> first world war…
> *> That was a century ago. Now we have more reliable, lighter, more
> ergonomic, more accurate alternatives.*
Bolt action rifles are very reliable, they jam far less often than
automatics and they're more accurate too, Marine snipers use them to this
day. And lightness and ergonomics are not important in defending your home
because you are unlikely to need to lug it around on a 50 mile hike.
> *If you decide at what point the unorganized militia must stop upgrading
> their equipment, let’s set it a century in the future rather than a century
> in the past.*
So we're right back to the retail sale of H-Bombs question which you refuse
> >>…and good enough for the Germans…
> *> …when they became the last western nation to institute slavery and
> murder millions of their own people, ja. I can scarcely see that as a
> powerful argument.*
I see, so the reason the Nazis committed atrocities is that they use bolt
action rifles not semi-automatics as the US did. No I take that back, I
> *> When they murdered 4 million unarmed Chinese civilians, ja. Scarcely a
> powerful argument.*
Spike, you're getting very silly.
*> The Constitution isn’t about what the states can do, it’s about what the
> Federal government can do.*
So you think the Constitution isn’t important, an individual state could
ignore it and abolish freedom of the press, or decree that any sort of
firearm is illegal even flintlocks, or reintroduce slavery, or make their
governor king, or do anything else they wanted.
> >>…Does that mean you think the second amendment has limits, or to
>> maintain consistency do you still feel compelled to defend the retail sale
>> of Nerve Gas and H-Bombs at Walmart?
> *> I don’t think Walmart sells these things.*
Stop being cute and have the guts to answer the question, does the second
amendment demand that retail sales of H-bombs be allowed or does it not?
This only requires a yes or no answer.
>> I need a particular reason to hold someone in contempt, being
>> contemptible would do the trick…
> *> John if you need no particular reason to hold someone in contempt, that
> says a lot about you.*
Spike, what does that have to do with me? I said "*I need a particular
reason to hold someone in contempt*". I certainly hold the current POTUS in
contempt and I have a huge number of particular reasons for doing so. I'd
love to state them in detail but you wouldn't like that.
> *>>> **The Electoral College protects us from all manner of evil.*
> >>…If California was as conservative as Wyoming and Wyoming as liberal as
> California I don't believe you'd be saying that…
> *> On the contrary. *
I'm not buying it. There is no rational reason a Wyoming voter should have
66.7 times as much power to determine who the president will be than a
California voter and 68.3 times as much influence over what happens in the
US Senate. Therefore I conclude someone must have other reasons for
Electoral College protects us from all manner of evil*".
> *> We are discussing the US Constitution, which I have always believed in,
> and still do. *
Bible Thumpers believe that every word in their book is perfect in every
way, do you feel the same about the US Constitution?
> >…And the Electoral College sure as hell didn't protect us from the evil
>> that resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue right now…
*> On the contrary. *
The Electoral College gave us the 2 worst presidents in my lifetime, in
both cases the people voted for somebody else but thanks to the
Constitution their votes weren't relevant, only the votes of 538
individuals in that elite organization are important, they are the votes
that counted, and they voted for a fool in the first case and a fool who
was also a fascist in the second.
*> The Constitution gives you the right to vote against whoever you wish*
And on a whim the Constitution gives some votes 66.7 times as much power as
other votes. Some people get to cast real votes but others must make do
with the pretend version, like an infant in a car seat turning a toy
steering wheel while he makes vroom vroom noises.
> >>There are a infinite number of things you can do with freedom of the
>> press and freedom of assembly, what makes talking to an invisible man in
>> the sky fundamentally different from all the others?
> Don’t know,
I don't know either. I don't know why putting a building on top of a
mountain to talk to an invisible man in the sky is constitutional but
putting a telescope on a mountain is not. Well actually I do know why, it's
because the Constitution specifically mentions that you're free to engage
in religion but it does NOT specifically mention that you're free to engage
John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat