Well, it isn't really an argument... more of a conversation...

Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 9, 2024, 20:57:

Prez wrote on Sep 9, 2024, 13:51:
Don't argue with BoP - he is just exercising his rights, and he can do fuck all about making legislation. Argue with your legislators and president. Let me know how far you get.

He certainly is, he certainly can't, and I'd much rather argue with BoP than most legislators.

I'll concede that concept for sure. I don't like arguing with anyone but given a choice I'd rather argue with someone who is at least genuine. When I see a politician speak on TV I usually feel the need to take a shower immediately after. It's becoming just as nauseating with the sycophants on YouTube. In some ways even moreso.

Prez wrote on Sep 9, 2024, 13:51:
Don't argue with BoP - he is just exercising his rights, and he can do fuck all about making legislation. Argue with your legislators and president. Let me know how far you get.

He certainly is, he certainly can't, and I'd much rather argue with BoP than most legislators.

MeanJim wrote on Sep 9, 2024, 14:14:

Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 9, 2024, 11:48:
It is an amendment written for a time which no longer exists.

That's a slippery slope you're going down. The Internet didn't exist when the first amendment was written, so should its protections only apply to what existed when it was written?

Yeah.... that feels like a clunky argument to me. I think the first amendment has held up against time pretty well. There are no references to things which no longer exist. The regulated militia the states need is now called the National Guard and it isn't citizens who maintain their own weapons.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Sep 9, 2024, 13:49:
What does need to happen is reasonable, sane regulation and interpretation of that Amendment. We both agree on that, I believe. We also both agree that the likelihood of seeing it in our lifetimes is as close to probable as either of us winning a billion dollar lottery.

I'm not sure which is less likely -- a modification of the 2nd amendment or a reasonable and sane interpretation of the amendment as it is. We certainly agree that neither you or I will live to see the problem solved.

Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 9, 2024, 11:48:
It is an amendment written for a time which no longer exists.

That's a slippery slope you're going down. The Internet didn't exist when the first amendment was written, so should its protections only apply to what existed when it was written?

Don't argue with BoP - he is just exercising his rights, and he can do fuck all about making legislation. Argue with your legislators and president. Let me know how far you get.

I disagree that the Amendment, itself, needs to be modified. It's a good basis.

What does need to happen is reasonable, sane regulation and interpretation of that Amendment. We both agree on that, I believe. We also both agree that the likelihood of seeing it in our lifetimes is as close to probable as either of us winning a billion dollar lottery.

Fine, 125 years. The point stands. As for the "neutering" of the 2nd amendment -- don't care for that word. What I know is when it was written someone couldn't take legally purchased firearms to the 32nd floor of a hotel, fire more than 1,000 rounds, killing 60 people, wound another 400+ in 10 minutes. It is an amendment written for a time which no longer exists.

At the very least it needs to be modified. And I'll be the first in line to admit doing so will be nearly if not completely impossible given the extreme positions on each side of the arguments. But all you need to do is compare gun deaths in the US with any country in the world and it is pretty clear we need to do something.

Mars by 2028? Crack dreams.

They haven't even yet tested in-space refueling, which will be necessary for Starship to reach the moon, much less Mars.

Add to that the thousand or so life threatening minor issues that need to be resolved.

BTW: Fun read is "A City on Mars: Can We Settle Space, Should We Settle Space, and Have We Really Thought This Through?" written by Kelly & Zack Weinersmith of SMBC comics fame, where they pretty clearly spell out all the little details that need to be solved before we can get people to Mars safely, much less setup a self sustaining city.
https://www.amazon.com/City-Mars-Settle-Thought-Through/dp/B0BXFM29DW/

This comment was edited on Sep 9, 2024, 15:57.

Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 9, 2024, 07:26:
Well said as usual BoP. However, all moot at this point in our history -- as there has been a standing military for more than 200 years.

Technically yes but also not really. While the Regular Army was formed in 1791, it's hard to call it a standing military when it comprised only 700 men. Even the Civil War was largely fought with volunteer regiments created by States based on the idea of militias. Which is why you had units like 1st Massachusetts and 3rd New York. The concept of a professional, national level standing army, as one would compare to the armies of those of Europe, didn't really get going in the US until after the Civil War. Experience learned from that war, on both sides, showed that a single, coherent command structure, logistics planning, and training infrastructure would be needed and that was when the US saw the true beginnings of its nationalized, standing military force. What we think of as a modern, professional army didn't get off the ground until the really early part of the 20th century, about a decade before the start of World War I. It was tiny, relatively speaking, at that which is why the US' involvement in World War I was labeled "The American Expeditionary Force". That, too, was based on regimental organization from experience learned post-Civil War in the American West. An actual, standing, in-defense-of-the-whole-nation army wouldn't arrive until World War II when war became a national interest on a global stage instead of limited interior conflicts. So I would say the US has only had unified, standing military for the last 125-130 years or so.

Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 9, 2024, 07:26:
Listen, I don't think all guns should be outlawed. And I agree especially in rural areas having a gun for home defense is a very reasonable thing. But the extent to which the 2nd amendment is used to stop reasonable regulation of the gun industry is very problematic.

You will not find that I disagree with you. What I stand firmly against is reactionary, emotionally driven efforts to abrogate or significantly neuter the 2nd Amendment or any Amendment. I will also submit that it is not the place of States to attempt to do so on their own. The Amendments, all of them, are enacted on a Federal level and any reasonable regulation must come from the Federal level. While I do not agree with SCOTUS much these days, I do agree with them swatting down State laws that attempt to encroach upon Federal regulation.

There is no good, easy answer. There never is because any answer that purports itself to be good or easy is neither. The US has a rather complicated and byzantine political structure, one born out of fear and trauma, and any effort must navigate that structure which will inevitably be protracted, difficult, and result in an uneasy compromise. We should remember that we have already had compromises that pissed everyone involved off. Like Federal legislation in 1968 and 1986.

If I am brutally pragmatic, I know there won't be any meaningful, reasonable regulation occurring within my lifetime. There is a significant voting population that do not agree with any regulation at all. No matter how sane or reasonable that regulation may be. There is also monied interests that hold sway over the Legislative branch of the government. Those are facts that I cannot ignore. The best that I can do is to continue to vote my conscience. Which I do, to the best of my ability.

Hey Elon, I bet you my entire net worth vs. 2% of your net worth no human safely lands on Mars prior to 2030.

This comment was edited on Sep 9, 2024, 09:54.

Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 9, 2024, 07:26:
Well said as usual BoP. However, all moot at this point in our history -- as there has been a standing military for more than 200 years. Listen, I don't think all guns should be outlawed. And I agree especially in rural areas having a gun for home defense is a very reasonable thing. But the extent to which the 2nd amendment is used to stop reasonable regulation of the gun industry is very problematic.

^This^
The NRA and similar blood money lobbyists should be banned from Capitol Hill.

After the most recent school shooting the Governor said now is not the time to discuss policy and a candidate for VP called them a 'fact of life'.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Sep 9, 2024, 00:26:
He knew, based upon experience, that ensuring that ordinary citizens being armed meant that militias, provided by the newly created States, could be called upon to defend the Republic. In this context, "well regulated" was more in line with "These guys are bringing their own arms and accoutrements and therefore we do not have to arm them" and militias were not standing forces. They were constituted of members of the body public who assembled to act as a paramilitary force. Without an armed civilian population, you could not have a militia at all.

Well said as usual BoP. However, all moot at this point in our history -- as there has been a standing military for more than 200 years. Listen, I don't think all guns should be outlawed. And I agree especially in rural areas having a gun for home defense is a very reasonable thing. But the extent to which the 2nd amendment is used to stop reasonable regulation of the gun industry is very problematic.

Cutter wrote on Sep 8, 2024, 18:03:
What qualifies as "2nd Amendment advocacy" from this guy?

Watch his videos and find out for yourself. You are, I assume, capable of digesting and processing provided information without having it spoon-fed to you like a toddler.

Cutter wrote on Sep 8, 2024, 18:03:
Because the gun nuts always seem to conveniently forget about the words "well regulated" in that amendment, or that a machine gun should be the equivalent of a musket.

Oh that tired, well-rebutted chestnut of "Hurrrrrrr....'well regulated militia'" nonsense. Since you're a Canadian, I expect you to have little to no understanding of the language used during the drafting of the Bill of Rights. This is obvious when you think "well regulated" means "Regulated by local, state, and Federal laws". None of which really existed during the drafting of the Bill of Rights. What you need is a history lesson that puts that phrase in context. See, back when the Bill of Rights was drafted in 1789, the US had just finished (barely and with a lot of French assistance) kicking Britain's pasty ass back to Old Blighty barely five years prior. Knowing the difficulty that the Continental Army had in equipping, feeding, training, and even organizing itself and Britain's previous efforts to disarm ordinary citizens within the colonies, James Madison relentlessly pushed the first twelve Amendments through Congress and the Senate as a means to vouchsafe the continued sovereignty and stability of the newly formed Republic and to vouchsafe the liberties of the citizens of that Republic. He knew, based upon experience, that ensuring that ordinary citizens being armed meant that militias, provided by the newly created States, could be called upon to defend the Republic. In this context, "well regulated" was more in line with "These guys are bringing their own arms and accoutrements and therefore we do not have to arm them" and militias were not standing forces. They were constituted of members of the body public who assembled to act as a paramilitary force. Without an armed civilian population, you could not have a militia at all. In fact, not that I expect you will, you can absolutely read his thoughts on why he wrote the Amendments the way he did as his diary is publicly available to read at your leisure. Hope you know how to read English script and cursive.

Moreover, no reasonable person equates modern firearms with muskets. Note "reasonable person". You can always find outliers. Further, the moniker "machine gun" is absolutely pointless since the original definition of machine gun was literally a machined gun. Not handcrafted muskets or arquebuses. Something that could fire quickly and be self-loading. So pretty much every firearm in existence today is a "machine gun" by that definition. Barring, of course, bolt action firearms. Hell, technically, a BB rifle is a "machine gun" since it fires as fast as you can squeeze the trigger and it has compressed air that will continue to propel BBs until it is exhausted. Now you can argue "You know what I mean! I'm talking about fully automatic weapons!" But colloquialisms don't cut it when it comes to the law and they absolutely hold zero water when discussing making changes to the Constitution. That's why we have so many court cases that hinge on specific definitions. But, to address your colloquialism, with rare exception, you can't legally own a fully automatic weapon. Not without going through a mountain of paperwork, intensive Federal scrutiny, and spending an absolutely fortune ($50K+ is the starting point and that's for absolute pieces of junk that predate the legal ruling on what qualifies for protection under the Second Amendment). The mechanics of how a bolt and trigger operates is at the heart of every case you read about that involves what is, and is not, protected. Can you modify a semi-automatic weapon to be fully automatic? Absolutely. Will you go to federal prison for a very long time when you are caught? Absolutely.

But, I don't think you're really wanting to discuss this in good faith nor do I think you can have a discussion on this topic in a calm, objective manner. If you think I am defending the Second Amendment, you are absolutely correct. I am...as a Constitutionalist. I would equally and vigorously defend every other Amendment because I think any emotionally driven, reactionary decision that significantly alters any of them is an absolutely terrible idea. So, too, did the Founding Fathers which is why making changes to the Constitution is such a long, laborious, and difficult task. It is not something that should be undertaken lightly, when in the heat of passion (not that kind), or without long, careful deliberation.

Musk just needs to STFU. He's not Tony Stark, never has been. He's a one hit wonder (Paypal) and then used that to finance hiring actual engineers and taking credit for their work (spacex) out or taking over other actual innovative companies (Tesla). As been well documented getting people to mars is very possible with today's tech, getting them back alive is the problem. NASA and various science experts have been very clear and vocal about the problems for the past decade+ There is NO way we are 12 months away from solving all the issues. Because we will need ALL the problems solved to start building the ships and aux systems by late 2025 to make a 2028 launch.

The universe isn’t exactly friendly to humans once we leave Earth’s atmosphere. Come to think of it, many places on Earth aren’t very hospitable to humans, either.

Well of course, Elon. I mean after all, this is the man who gave us the Hyperloop where driving in it only costs between $60-$120 million dollars per mile to build. Tell me again how this asshole is the world's richest man?!

Burrito of Peace wrote on Sep 8, 2024, 11:59:
Losing Paul Harrell sucks. I learned so much from his videos over the years and, in turn, became better at shooting because of them. He was always consistently liked and praised by many people. Even his approach to the subject was amazing since it was "just the facts", no color commentary, political or religious nuttery, or anything else. It was always "Here's how to do X" or "Here's how and why X works". His stories were always amazing and he told them exceptionally well. He's the kind of teacher you always hope for as even when he was showing other, experienced people and presenters things new to them, he was unfailingly patient. In fact, in the videos of others, he was always praised for his patience and his calm, steady approach to everything.

Fuck cancer and, in particular, fuck pancreatic cancer.

What qualifies as "2nd Amendment advocacy" from this guy? That everyone should be able to walk around as a living arsenal bristling with guns, or actual sensible gun control? Because the gun nuts always seem to conveniently forget about the words "well regulated" in that amendment, or that a machine gun should be the equivalent of a musket.

Given the narcisissist's incredibly bad track record... Yeah, fat chance of that.

Odds are the first to Mars under his watch are on a one way ticket to an early death.