It's HIGH TIME the 2nd Amendment was REPEALED. Sorry Gunforge ,your guns must be TAKEN AWAY from you

Did they? Yes, I know we've all tossed those numbers out, but where do they come from? Polling, as shitty as it is now, was a fuckton a lot worse, back in the 19th Century when they even bothered to do it. So, where do they come from? I can tell you where they don't come from: Polling of 19th Century residents of the United States, regardless of their race, gender, or religion or the voting actions of a population where everyone who has met certain residency requirements, age requirements, and nobody giving much of a shit about a person's race. If they bothered to poll anyone, they probably didn't poll too many women, or enslaved people.

We're coming at this from two different angles. Your angle is that, "This is what the voting population wanted, so that's what we got." My angle is, "Do you really think that a majority of the enslaved population would have been happy with slavery continuing? And what did women think of it? As well, as other adults who would otherwise be able to vote, save for they failed to be a white, male, property owner." It's been a while since I looked at the demographics for the Confederacy, but I know that in at least a couple of states, the ratio of slaves to free individuals was getting to the point where had it lasted much longer, you would have had more slaves than free people in a state. Does that sound like a free society to you? Because it doesn't to me.

Again, I'm not so sure about this. Roe v. Wade was decided at a time when a woman couldn't have a credit card in her own name, and there were other restrictions on the things women could do in our society at this point in time as well. I think that by this point in time, they were allowed to buy property (like houses) without providing proof that they had permission from a male relative to do so. (And yeah, that was a thing within living memory. My mom, who's 91, can tell you all about it.) So, what do you think opinion polling of women was like? You think that anyone cared? You think that in such an environment women would freely express themselves?

I'm not saying that if you used modern sampling methods in 1860 or in 1973, you'd have gotten results that align with modern values. Because, after all, we still have people today who say things like, "I'm so glad my ancestors were enslaved by white people and brought to America so I could learn about Jesus." I'm sure all of us, for any number of reasons, can imagine why an enslaved person in 1860 America would say that they were happy in slavery. I'm not going to hazard a guess.

I am saying that we need to rethink what we define as a "free society." Because while certain voting restrictions are reasonable (minimum age and residency requirements, for example), others are not. I think that we can all agree that prohibiting people based on their race and gender is not something that a free society does. Which is exactly what the United States has done for much of its history. (One could argue that we're still doing it, but I'm not going to bother with that argument since none of the current laws specifically target people based on race and gender. Yes, I know that there are arguments to be made that some of the current laws have the same effect, but shoulders on giants kinda thing here. We used to have laws that specifically targeted people on the basis of their race and gender to keep them from voting. Such as, if a woman or a man of color, tries to vote, they are to be arrested. As opposed to laws that we had both then and now, that primarily impact marginalized individuals, without naming a specific group.)

I’m an environmentalist. So, naturally, I’d be the one protesting.

Regardless, my apologies if you were speaking of ‘this’ world applications. My response was in direct opposition to ‘this’ world. As long as whatever economic system, if money/currency/whatever is involved, there will be corruption and eventually that society will fail.

Adam Smith was wrong. John Nash proved it. A society works better when the goal isn’t “everyone out for themselves” rather everyone working toward one goal.

The pendulum is swinging back. The old thesis was monarchy. The anti-thesis is a democracy and we’re finding that isn’t working either, so, now we have people looking for a syn-thesis - a joining of the two, the best parts of both.

Same with the economy. The old thesis was bartering, the anti-thesis was capitalism, the synthesis will be some sort of combination of the two.

My post was “perfect world”. I’m not going to make a long post about an ideal solution for the problems in ‘this’ world because I don’t believe one exists. Our current existence, the world in which we live, is not sustainable. The “pendulum” will change the world within he next 50 years.

Whether that new world becomes the new thesis or is just another antithesis is anyone’s guess. But, if it going to work and work for everyone, then laws must be few. They must be simple. And they must benefit EVERYONE in that society.

Okay. My point is: can't the people on the other side also claim to be doing what's best for the people?

Every economic system needs some method of accounting and valuation. There must be some way of determining whether the product created from raw materials has more value than the raw materials.

But eliminating wealth or money doesn't fix human nature anyway. In a system where production is determined by planners, the planners are the wealthy and powerful.

I think we discussed this before. Nash didn't disprove classical economics, but he did show that in certain situations coordination among the players can maximize each's outcome. (Illustrated perfectly by the bit in the film A Beautiful Mind with the gorgeous blonde in the bar.)

The balance between the rule of "the best" (however you define that) and rule by the masses is going to be what we have now: rule by those chosen by the masses.

You seem to be referring to historical materialism (hi, Karl!) and, if so, I think you mean feudalism. Nothing close to simple bartering will ever return, as it would be so grossly inefficient that no economy of any size could function.

There is no well-articulated alternative to capitalism except socialism, and its reputation is (or should be) in tatters after the horrors of the 20th Century.

No such thing, for many reasons, but one is that you'll never get agreement on what constitutes perfect.

We'll see. But I think it more likely that global elites will form a new managerial aristocracy that keeps the capitalist mode of production but that intervenes in the lives of individuals far more pervasively than now.

That's a nice-sounding platitude, but it's not at all realistic.

I thought we were talking about laws? and if we have one government working solely for the benefit of the people, there shouldn't be "another side". There should only be one side - the side of the people. 'More jobs' isn't an argument for the people if it's at the detriment of an environment in which the people live. In those cases, anyone voting for "more jobs" is really just voting for business.

You only think this because you cannot imagine another way. It’s ok. I can’t either. But, I’m not an economist.


If all you’ve ever known is “this”; it’s very difficult to imagine “that”.


It doesn’t mean “that” is not possible, it just means at this point, you and I do not have the capacity to imagine it.

Actually, I’d read Nash long before seeing A Beautiful Mind. The only thing that did was provide a visual for a very complicated explanation. But, again, I’m not an economist, so I can’t explain what I don’t have the words. Same thing with physics and String Theory – I understand the math, but don’t ask me to explain it.


Your explanation is just as simplistic as the movie’s explanation. I don’t think Nash’s motive’s were to “disprove” Smith. But, he was able to prove that Smith’s economics in most real world situations was a hindrance to the individual rather than a benefit.

You’re speaking of philosophies coming out of The Enlightenment. And, it may have worked – under a different economic system. Unfortunately, combining Smith with Kant and Locke was a disaster and we are living proof of that.

Socialism in the 20th century has only been implemented by countries whose government is authoritative. You are conflating the two. Socialism has been successful in communities across the US, many communities began in the 1960s and are still going strong. Just because you don’t know about something, doesn’t mean it can’t work.

You do realize the writers of the US Constitution wrote it to be “perfect world”. Just because it can’t exist, doesn’t mean we should strive for it anyway. Always deferring to the lowest common denominator is worse, so I will not ever striving for better. But, you do you.

Possibly. Or maybe they’ll all get their heads chopped off. Kids today are angrier than the French in 1789.

Only because you can’t imagine it.

After this exchange I am pretty sure @Paladin is back to steal @Uncle Albert 's cock gobbler.



I have a genuine curiosity as to why all the right wingers seem to want to have WF foreplay with her. Not for nothing, but maybe the owners could make some bank by whoring her out to stormfront?

Really? Isn't it a matter of how much benefit is obtained for how much cost? Would you say no to employing 10,000 people if it meant cutting down an acre of forest?

Unless you or someone you care about is one of the people who stands to get a job.

I think this exposes a problem: you say "all laws should be for the people." But you dismiss the concerns of other people. Couldn't they dismiss yours?

I can imagine heaven. That doesn't make it real. And it doesn't provide a roadmap for getting there.

What's the difference between that and fantasy? I don't know how the Force works but can imagine Luke Skywalker using it. That doesn't make it real.

I don't think that was the conclusion. Nash's ideas were about making more advantageous decisions by having a better understanding of the decision-making of others in the system. That doesn't obviate free markets or private enterprise or price signals; it allows self-interest to reach its highest potential.

Really? We live longer, healthier lives with more options and opportunities than ever. People in a society have never had more personal liberty. We routinely enjoy luxuries, entertainments, and diversions that wouldn't have been available to kings a generation ago.

I think you can't see the forest for the trees. In focusing so intently on the bad, you've taken all the good--and there is a lot of good--for granted.

As for economic systems, which real world ones have done better? It's easy to compare reality to the ideal and find the reality lacking, but where is the example of something better?

Socialism requires authoritarianism to work at scale. Social ownership or control of the means of production ultimately subordinates everyone to the economic plan.

Many experiments in communism have turned out badly. Most notably, from our own history: the colonists at Plymouth nearly starved because their communal organization produced very little food. It turns out that people aren't nearly so committed to growing food for others as they are for themselves.

No, they wrote it for a real world, a world where they accounted for many human failings with checks and balances.

Read that out loud. Slowly.

Young people are always angry, convinced that no one before them had any brains or heart. Most of them will eventually realize that the world is more complicated than they could understand.

But if they are angrier than starving French peasants, their anger is all out of proportion to their actual problems.

I go back to it: because you can imagine something doesn't make it realistic. And I think I've already shown you that "for the people" is a highly subjective standard.

(Wayne & Garth dream/flashback noise)
*Diddluh, diddluh, diddluh*

Paladan & Jenee-

UA- JESUS NO!!!!!!!! Eeeh heh heh heeehh!!!

Paladin- Would you...like to jooooin uuus?

UA- Oh, God yes, so very much.

Porno guitar guy-

(2 hours later....)

Tererun- (As the maid) Housekeeping! Oh my God!!! *Trying to wave away the stank* What happened in here?!?!?!?! *Sprays the peach oatmeal Lysol in a thick fog*

Paladin, UA, Jenee-


See? Who needs AI to write this shit?

I like how the second amendment wankers think this shit is written in stone, like it's some kind of holy bible or something.

It's right in the fucking title. Amendment.

The second amendment was written in 1791.

Anyone else think it might be time to update it to reflect 21st century realities, and not rely on a bunch of bullshit SCOTUS interpretations?

Nonsense; the 18th and 21st totally aren't a saga of of this country being ridiculous.
This shit is sacred as fuck.

Amend away!

You'll need 38 states to ratify. Good luck with that. Nearly 30 states are Constitutional Carry.

A couple of additional points:

1. The 2nd isn't just some amendment. It's one of the Bill of Rights, whose inclusion were necessary to get the Constitution adopted.

2. The 2nd recognizes an existing right. Striking it from the text might make infringement legal, but people wouldn't look at it that way.

The 2nd is here to stay and within the next few years, most infringements of it will be history.

My bad. I thought you were serious. Please go ahead and assume you’re going to keep your 2nd amendment rights forever. Push your head further into the sand. Your children and grandchildren will be just fine.

I think it's ironic that the second amendment nutbags see firearms somehow as a symbol of freedom, yet the more mass shootings that occur in the United States, the more their freedoms will be curtailed. Oh, they'll still be able to carry a gun and feel like a big man, but make no mistake that freedoms will definitely be curtailed in other areas. All in the name of "safety".

Such a small price to pay for the freedom to own a closet full of guns.

Case in point:

The hypocrisy of the second amendment nutbags knows no bounds. Freedom!

When you live in a society where you can get shot in the ass because of a dispute over a convenience "food"...

https://crooksandliars.com/2023/05/kentucky-man-shoots-roomate-over-last-hot

I dunno, for those guys, that Hot Pocket may have been like the last coconut on the deserted island.

I am. I've answered your points in good faith. I think some of your ideas are feel-good utopianism but are practically unworkable and unattainable. Imagining something doesn't make it real or possible, and it certainly doesn't provide a roadmap of how to get there.

I personally won't keep them for more than a few decades (at most), but I do intend to do what I can to ensure that following generations have them.

My children and grandchildren will have their rights, and the capability to resist tyranny.

dude..your kids' and grandkids' generations are going to be the ones that, while perhaps not repealing the second amendment, will live to see "well regulated" and "militia" effectively defined.

You mean redefined. They already have legal definitions.

And if they choose to forfeit their rights, there's little I can do. But I won't speed the process.

when the next highest concentration of privately owned firearms per citizen happens to be Yemen, you might wanna wonder what the right is for?

you have a gun to defend against bad guys, who have guns (at a likewise alarmingly high rate). Oh, and of course, various whackaloon survivalist clubs.

Seems to me the only people who's interest is still being served are those who own gun companies.

Well, maybe prisons and hospitals.

Undertakers, for sure.

No matter... you want to continue to have more school shootings in a month than we've had in my 54 years... America! Fuck, yeah!?

More mass shooting per capita than India, just saying...

Oh, god. Did he reproduce?

Hey now. Just you wait until Cousin Albert joins the board. Then he'll show us!

Oh, gawd, there's no way Cousin Albert wouldn't go Goth, date a pink hair, and tell UA he hates him every 5 seconds.

You said you can imagine heaven but not a viable alternate economic system. Describe to us what you imagine heaven to be like.

I personally love the argument that says that Americans need guns because they are much less trustworthy with guns than anyone else.

Top 10 Countries with Highest Gun Ownership (Civilian guns owned per 100 people):

1. United States - 120.5
2. Falkland Islands - 62.1
3. Yemen - 52.8
4. New Caledonia - 42.5
5. Serbia - 39.1 (tie)
6. Montenegro - 39.1 (tie)
7. Uruguay - 34.7 (tie)
8. Canada - 34.7 (tie)
9. Cyprus - 34
10. Finland - 32.4