🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@VoxDei

> If I go around saying “person X is a rapist” for example, if I can’t prove it I get sued for slander, I can’t say “Oh but the first amendment, I can say what I want whether it’s true or not”.

Oh and this needs a little more because every statement there is wrong.

You are talking about slander, and simply not being able to prove something you say about someone else is **not** slander... because slander deals witht he consequence of certain speech. The speech is protected but you arent protected from its consequences.

Therefore the criteria for slander is:

* It must actually cause harm to the person"
* The harm must be intentional and not accidental
* The person must have soemthing to gain
* The person must have stated a defamatory statement against the person that they **knew** was a lie when they stated it.

Notice these criteria deal with intent, harm, and manipulation. The fact that someone used free speech to carry out something illegal doesnt mean there are limits on free speech, only that you may be responsible for the damages caused by that speech if those damages are intentional and self serving.

@ihavenopeopleskills

@worldsendless

Thanks, disagreement is always most welcome, its how we all grow. And no one is ever obligated to a debate, not in the mood, sit back, no worries. But if someone engages, they should at least try to do so in good-faith or not at all (As you point out more or less).

@BenAveling @Elleaster @ErikUden

@freepeoplesfreepress Agreed, event he potential of having it is enough for me to stay low.

@VoxDei @ihavenopeopleskills

> Yeah, but the argument made was that a license prevents someone who needs a gun immediately from getting one. My point is why would you need a gun immediately? There might be one or two edge cases, but I suspect they’ll be very small numbers of occurrences. I

I dunno, I know you well enough to know your arguing in good faith, but if I didnt know that I would think this was intentionally dishonest.

For starters, no, the only argument against licening is not an immediate need. Generally the argument against it is five fold:

1) the 2A is very clear that all infringement against gun ownership is illegal (thought he supreme court has ruled in ways contrary to this text in the past). If you want to place reasonable infringements on gun ownership, thats fine, but get it added as a constitutional ammendment then as the law would require

2) Licensing means some way is needed to verify the license in real time against a database. This means any licensing would act indirectly as a gun registry and would open up the potential for gun owners to be targeted and abused and ultimately disarmed in unjust ways or make rising up against the government a virtual impossibility as everyone is pre-identified.

3) Licensing can be abused to deny people access to guns unfairly. In an ideal system the training is obtainable by everyone who puts in the time. But in reality licensing can be denied, and the fear is potentially for unjust reasons.

4) It divides access to a right by class... While guns themselves can be very cheap, and even made at home practically for free, licensing may be arbitrary expensive and prohibitive. This will push access to this right further towards the rich and block it from the poor.. Rights should be availible to all.. We could fix this by making all licensing paid for by public programs... but no one would allow that.

5) And of course the point you point out which is also very much a valid point... if your life is in immediate danger you may need a gun now.

Now as to how much of an edge case the immediate need is.. I mean I dont care if its 1%, these people need them to save their lives.. but its likely a lot higher than you think... Most people who buy them recently had someone threaten to kill or rape them, and that happens quite often... I have been pro-gun my whole life, never bothered to buy one till the mob said they would kill me... The two girls I know who carry, the only two, carry specifically because they broke up with an abusive BF who threatened to hurt and rape them... These arent edge cases, they are quite common I am sure (though I couldnt find actual numbers on it).

> Guns are not trivial to obtain out of thin air. 3D-printed guns are not common. I live in the UK, we have strong gun laws, you don’t find that people have a secret 3D-printed gun hidden in a cupboard just in case they need to shoot someone. Yes, fine, hardened criminals might have one, but that’s the case now - if you’re determined to get an illegal weapon, you can, it doesn’t make them widespread and it doesn’t mean that Joe Average needs a gun and needs one right now (but with a long enough delay to nip down to the shops and come back with a gun).

How is it not trivial when any 3d printer off a shelf can print on in a short period of time and then I have a gun... It is trivial. The fact that people dont bother to print them in the UK may be true, but that isnt due to it not being trivial, its still trivial, people just may not choose to.

> I’m not denying you your “right” to bear arms (scare quotes because I don’t understand why anywhere bestows that right in the first place, and the 2a explicitly says that it’s related to the requirement for a “well-regulated militia”, which is never considered in the legal arguments)

No it does nothing of the sort, and this is quite obvious to anyone reading the text in a way that is honest and objective. Furthermore the forefathers who authored the line themselves you are misrepresented have very clearly clarified that it doesnt mean what you are saying it means... Lets look at that.

First here is the exact text:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The part about a well regulated militia is called a exemplary clause, it is not a qualifying clause.. in other words its meant to give an example of one reason why the right is so important, not intended as a limitation.

First this is just obvious on the surface.. You can test this and get it past your biases by using a less controversial topic but of the same format. Take the following phhase

"An effective congress, being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right to democratic vote shall not be infringed"

Would this imply only congress gets to vote? Or that voting is only protected when voting from congress members? Of course not. Anyone reading that (or the original) can clearly see that they are explaining one reason the right is needed, and not saying the right is only exercised in that scope.

Now even if you do argue, as I said the authors of the 2A themselves have very clearly stated that it applied to **all** people and not just an organized militia, so all doubt is completely removed regarding the argument your making:

I have made posts on this where I listed like a dozen quotes from the founding fathers proving this.. I will leave the most direct here, there are more if you need it:

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” — Founding Father, George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment.

> The first amendment, for instance, does not allow you to say anything to anyone at any time. If I go around saying “person X is a rapist” for example, if I can’t prove it I get sued for slander, I can’t say “Oh but the first amendment, I can say what I want whether it’s true or not”.

No you can say or do anything.. it is just if what you say or do causes harm then you have to pay for it.

Your analogy applied to guns would only work if gun owners were claiming the #2A gave them a right to go around killing people because if they cant kill people it would infringe ont heir right to own a gun... no, killing people can be illegal even if ownign a gun is legal...

Similarly I can say whatever I want... Simply speaking is never illegal in and of itself.. However if that speech harms someone then yes, that harm can potentially be illegal. Just as no one can stop me from owning a gun, but how I use that gun, if it causes harm, can be illegal.

@BenAveling

No I dont... You argued spoons sometimes serve a legitimate purpose, and strongly implied guns never serve a legitimate purpose.

To disprove you completely only a single example of it serving a legitimate purpose disproves you, and that has been done.

The problem isnt that you dont have a valid argument that would require a more "serious" response, its that you frame your arguments using bad faith to sound more "slick" by being hyperbolic thinkingi t helps when in fact it just makes you trivial to disprove...

Now your stepping back from your illegitimate hyperbolic stance of there being no legitimate use, moving the goal post, and trying to say we need to argue that the majority of times a gun is used it must be a legitiate use... very different argument, and may have been valid if you bothered to argue in good faith, but you didnt, and I wont really waste time arguing a point you never made..

Argue in good faith next time. That said, you can apologize, state your case in a good-faith way and I will be happy to address that in a more serious way.

@Elleaster @ErikUden

@BenAveling

Dont worry I am not ignoring you. I havent answered you yet because you are arguing in bad faith and therefore less effective to discuss with you... Its mild though so I am still willing to engage for the moment..

@ErikUden @aschatermees @Elleaster

@pwinn you do t have to loose everythi g. You can migrate to a new server. But if you have any problems you should report them so the mod team can address it. But either way happy to help you get migrated if need be.

@aschatermees

Nope, anytime the agvressor is stronger. A woman vs a man will almost never be fair or equal well the man is trying to kill the woman. The gun is an equalizer.

Policies that restrict gun use are highly sexist all the time.

@BenAveling @ErikUden @Elleaster

@kilroy_was_here

In fact there are two versions, the EZ version is like a page or two.. its the full version that is large with many optional pages...

@timorl

@timorl

You dont need to read the whole thing... its not complicated really... most of the pages are optional stuff... Like filling out the basics is just a few pages.

The reason its 100 pages is all the options stuff it covers. Basically so you can do all the fancy stuff the rich people do :)

@kilroy_was_here

@nosmaharba

You think that was mean? My apologies. I took your friendly jjab and banter at joking and was trying to return it in like kind. Sorry it hurt your feelings, that wasnt the intent.

Also never supported Trump a day in my life.

@RushGirl

@nosmaharba

Thank you Admiral Dumbass

@RushGirl

What I think every time someone tells me they wont use school math in the real world....

#Teaching #Education #Math #Maths #Mathematics