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

@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.

@freemo @BenAveling @Elleaster @ErikUden

I suspect I disagree with @freemo on guns and policy, but I support the call for good-faith argument and legitimate discussion. I am not prepared to have that discussion right now, but I really enjoyed seeing the call for it.

@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

@freemo

The funny thing about "they didn't teach us how to do taxes!!!" is the government puts out a 100+ page instruction book every year along with the 1040 form that tells you exactly how to fill every box of that thing out.

But it involves paying attention, reading, and following instructions.

Most people don't want to do that.

@shsbxheb

That is me... very strange to block someone for saying they will make an effort to be kinder to people... but ok.. if that is why you block people sounds like you are doing me a favor blocking me.

@hosford42 @RushGirl

A #mentor who doesn't find time to correct trainees' writings (paper, thesis..) or delegate this kind of duty, is not mentoring you.

⚠️Warning signs: has no time for discussion or reads email when spoken to, unreachable when away, doesn't share info, says "me" instead of "us"

@admin

> When I've landed employment, I will know how much time I'd be able to devote to such a thing.

Since this is open source if its something you want to be a part of you have no obligations. Put the time in you want, and feel free to pull back or lean into it as you feel you wish to.

> A one-stop shop for amateur radio FOSS would be great. ARFOSS? HAMFOSS?

Still brainstorming the name... My thinking is open-source in ham is really lacking, so i want to encourage that. But also the state of software is very archaic with some huge issues that are very dangerous... I dont want to point them out in public as someone might exploit it, but one software related gap I could easily exploit to take down a amateur radio service across the **entire globe** and there would be no way to stop me even if i said what the exploit was... Its stuff like this that tells me there is a huge need for FOSS communities and incubators in HAM to push people to more open standards.

> Are you thinking a separate, but public, github/svn style thing, web driven, or something else?

QOTO itself is a service basically for open-source STEM. So we provide a bunch of free stuff to help faciliatate that... It includes a GitLab instance with full Ultimate licenses for every user. I was going to use QOTO resources to host the software itself, and make this a group on that gitlab server.

That said I wouldnt be opposed to hosting our own dedicated Gitlab server... but that would cost more as it is a hefty service.

> I'm not saying no.. I'm saying yes, but it'd have to be a side-gig that I can work on after normal work hours.

This is open source, thats how it works, you commit whatever time you want day to day, no obligations other than to let the community know your availability at any time when possible if we rely on you for a deliverable thats all.

validation

@hosford42

That's alot of words for saying "You have a nuanced outlook and dont just agree with the masses on one side or another of an issue"...

I am quite impressed with your ability to make a compliment into an insult, impressive.

@RushGirl

@garyackerman

Echo chambers are real.

Echo chambers are real.