re: SCOTUS (9-0): You can now own firearms and weed without reprecussions...

Most felonies involving a firearm for starters. If you rob someone at gunpoint you shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun after getting out of prison.

quote:

---

Right. I’m saying that isn’t natural or a natural right. Rights can’t be natural because they are agreements imposed on societies through threat of force. Social constructs.

---

Social constructs - yes. Society is better now that we realize we do in fact own ourselves and cannot be bought or sold.

The idea, stemming from owning ourselves branches into owning everything our body produces (ie capital). If I produce a garden, the produce is mine(the capital is mine), because I produced it with my body, my labor, my time, my energy. It can be taken, but I have the right to defend it from being taken.

Nowadays, in modern society, I still have the right to keep the capital I produce and then have the right to exchange that capital for goods or services of an equal, agreed value. Since I traded my capital for the capital of someone else, that new capital is transferred to my ownership. Capital being anything of value. I traded corn for a goat, money for a house, etc.

Edit - the idea of natural right is just terminology used to say "I own myself and everything myself produces". Is it really, truly natural? Well, that thought didn't exist for much of history, so it probably doesn't come naturally. It had to be fought for until society agreed that it is true.

quote:

---

Even the person who has infinitely more money than you do depends on thousands of strangers for their survival.

---

That's an incredibly stupid take and likely a subconscious effort to justify your own reliance on government handouts. A free exchange of goods and services is not "dependence". And again, I am horrified that people cared so little about their children that they once allowed to poison them with your envy and bitterness.

quote:

---

That's an incredibly stupid take and likely a subconscious effort to justify your own reliance on government handouts. A free exchange of goods and services is not "dependence". And again, I am horrified that people cared so little about their children that they once allowed to poison them with your envy and bitterness

---

It actually isn't a stupid take at all. You seem to be blinded by some unhinged hatred.

Elon Musk is now a trillionaire. This is true
Elon Musk relies on an uncounted amount of people to survive. This is also true.
Why?
Elon Musk does not grow his food, build his housing, make his clothes or anything else he needs to survive. Sure, he can pay for it easily, but he is still dependent upon others to provide it to him at a cost.

quote:

---

Elon Musk is now a trillionaire. This is true
Elon Musk relies on an uncounted amount of people to survive. This is also true.
Why?
Elon Musk does not grow his food, build his housing, make his clothes or anything else he needs to survive. Sure, he can pay for it easily, but he is still dependent upon others to provide it to him at a cost.

---

A freely entered exchange is not dependency and it ìs only possible to see it that way in an effort to excuse your own parasitic uselessness.

Remove money from the equation. Who can survive complexly independent of other people in our modern world?

We're in such a weird spot with the 2A. There are basically two camps of people on this topic. The first camp, which includes most Democrats, purports to believe the 2A is a collective right, applied only to "the people" in the context of militia service (vs. "the people" individually in the 4A and 1A). Following that, they largely believe the primary purpose of the 2A is defunct, and thus the text functionally provides zero protection against either state or federal restrictions on any type of bearable arm.

The second camp, which includes a decent chunk of Republicans, purports to believe the 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected with militia service. Following that, they believe that federal and state restrictions on arms are either completely unconsitutional or, at the most, should be viewed in the strictest possible light.

My issue with the former view is that it doesn't seem to be supported by any type of historical laws or legal analysis up through the late part of the 19th century (when this "collective right" view appears to have surfaced). Moreover, if the original intent of the 2A was to prevent the federal government from disarming states (and state militias), it should follow that any federal restriction (such as a federal "assault weapons ban") that is at odds with state interests clearly violates the 2A, which even in the "collective right" context grant the state power over governing how its militia/people are armed. Yet this camp almost never opposes federal restrictions.

The issue SCOTUS has is that half the country wants guns banned and half the country doesn't. However, the vast majority tend to agree that some set of restrictions should exist (as for violent criminals, mentally insane, ICBMs, etc.). So they're effectively tasked with threading the needle by creating a legal standard that's both crystal clear when applied to 2A cases (else the lower courts will simply ignore it or fail to apply it correctly in order to uphold bans), but also allows for some level of infringement (the kind that even the anti-federalists agreed should exist).

Seems impossible.

quote:

---

You, wacka (until he gets overcome with frustration)

---

You WISH you could make me overcome with frustration. That is your goal, but you fail every time.

Name one time I have quit the conversation before you.

quote:

---

A freely entered exchange is not dependency and it ìs only possible to see it that way in an effort to excuse your own parasitic uselessness

---

So, even if someone depends on food, shelter and clothing to survive, it is not dependence if traded for freely.

Got it.

quote:

---

So, even if someone depends on food, shelter and clothing to survive, it is not dependence if traded for freely.

---

What's the larger point?

Yeah, Elon Musk has to eat. Sure, like any other biological organism in the universe. So you get to say he's dependent on food. Sure, true statement.

So what?

What larger point do you that makes?