jeremy_sylvis

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

I see you didn’t respond to what was stated. As a reminder:

I’m interested in seeing your sources comparing frequency of defensive use of firearms to frequency of firearm suicides. When making such a bold assertion, surely you’ve got actual data and aren’t just talking out of your ass… right?

Right?

This, even before your additional questionable conclusion from what is clearly an source so unbiased you cannot taint its unbiasedness by… actually showing support for your position.

I’ll consider your criticism regarding math when you’ve polished up those reading skills.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

You can trust my assertions, yes. For one, I am telling the truth. And two, I have no reason to lie.

You’ll understand how I don’t give credence to the word of a rando who makes grand claims, bold - baseless, even - assertions, and demonstrates an utter lack of rationality.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

Ah - I see you’ve dropped an entire article in lieu of any actual argument. If we’re going by average liberal quantity of articles dropped, regardless of content strategy, you’re still losing. If we’re going by more mature content matters strategy, you’ve woefully failed and approach a gish gallop. There’s some irony in that your article was titled THE INCONVENIENT MILITIA CLAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: WHY THE SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO RESOLVE THE DEBATE OVER THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS - it seems not to have aged well.

Out of an abundance of undeserved good-will, I’ll overlook that you’ve yet to address either source provided and - in lieu of actually making an argument - you drop an article you seem to not have actually read and understood. With any source, one must consider what it is and what it says.

For example, I have provided a linguistic analysis of what the framers intended regarding the right to bear arms which references the works of the framers themselves, culture of the time, and events of the time to answer myriad questions from an objective point of view - clarifying the right to bear arms, defining what arms are protected, elaborating on the validity of licensing on registration, and arriving at its conclusion from the information shared.

You, however, have shared a persuasive essay which makes no attempt to hide its bias. Indeed, its opening quote makes its interests quite clear. Its entire introduction repeatedly highlights - rather than actual definitions, historical references, etc. - attempts to disambiguate as related to what the authors believe should have happened. It is, at best, a lengthy “rah but the conservatives” mud-slinging display. The best to be said is there exists a reference to previous legal understanding - one, we should all hope, is expected to clarify over time rather than stay stagnant with poor understanding. Heck, WLU highlights in an analysis of the concept of that A legal answer that is emphatically correct, and therefore settled, for decades or even centuries might eventually lose that status in light of sociocultural progress, as the debate about the death penalty illustrates.

As your article finally delves into its analyses, it fundamentally pins its interpretation of the American right to bear arms on English history, on a comparison of the legislated acts of the colonies and its own interpretation of them, on a commentary about militias rather than arms, etc. It seems to reference everything except the actual direct commentary on the matter, the culture of the time, etc… and it does so in only the most tangential ways even there.

To summarize, your persuasive essay starts with its flawed conclusion, seeks to shore it up with anything at-hand, specifically neglects the things that directly contradict it (no worries, my first source covers that), and hopes you weren’t paying enough attention to notice. There’s a bit more irony in that this is exactly how you’ve participated in this discussion.

But hey, once you’ve gone back and done your part, we can continue this discussion.

Wow, you don’t often see an argument from a scholar as widely respected as Volohk–with whom you must be familiar as a fan of law review articles (he wrote the book on how to write them)–be absolutely torn apart with irrefutable logic.

I’m not sure you actually read what you quoted. In zero ways was he torn apart with irrefutable logic - that paragraph, at best, says - paraphrased - “if we’re right, he’s wrong, and we’re pretty sure we’re right”.

Fortunately, this entire notion was already addressed by the Judge issuing the ruling, a thing I’m sure you’ve read.

Wow we could have had it written right in there, but that version was soundly defeated because everyone there agreed it would be idiotic to allow any random person to buy whatever guns they want.

Did they? I’m not sure how anything in those paragraphs supports such an assertion, even aside from how they’re once more already corrected by the other source I’d provided.

You… aren’t good at this reading comprehension thing, are you?

Hey, until we got some illegitimate Supreme Court justices who were willing to pedal the same lies that you got tricked by. Now anyone can have any gun anyone wants and all gun laws are unconstitutional because “reasons.”

Ahh, I see - it’s all a conspiracy theory to you. Nifty.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

Bud the reason I didn’t reply with sources at first is honestly because you are a joke to me. Linking a law review article to me, you don’t know shit about law review. The scholarship on this is clear and overwhelming.

Right - it has nothing to do with your having negligible awareness of the issue, getting caught blatantly shitposting, and scrambling to try and shore up your position with such scholarship as to apparently have not even read what you’ve posted.

Totally.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

It was an attempted dunk based on the assumptive chain that you defended a stricken-down firearms restriction therefore are clearly conservative, therefore clearly push abortion bans.

It’s if it’s impossible to them that anyone outside the NRA can like firearms.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

We’ve already done the research on mass shooters and understand how to address the problem - it’s a multi-faceted, systemic approach.

So, naturally, neither party is willing to make any progress on it.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

The ruling in question highlights magazines are effectively arms and magazine sizes cannot be arbitrarily restricted, even when integral.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

It’s less a culture issue and more a safety nets issue - one we need to do much to improve upon.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

By your unsupported and baseless opinion, in the face of well-supported refutation lol.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

You are ridiculous. Try responding to any of the arguments I quoted and put in bold.

We’re still waiting for your responses to the arguments raised. You don’t get to ignore the arguments made and then complain waaah respond to the arguments - out of an abundance of good will, I’ve addressed your source itself and highlighted its myriad flaws.

It was you that threw up a linked and said “Duke says,” no context, no quotes, no arguments.

I see you haven’t bothered to glance it over. That, at least, confirms the suspicions regarding your failure to do so.

My article contains undisputed facts.

See the previous comment regarding what these actually say. You seem to have just skipped right over that - perhaps continuing your trend of either not reading or failing to comprehend what one has read.

Your source does not seem to support your position in any way.

You are trying to revise actual history as this and the weight of all law review articles on the subject demonstrate.

You find my one instance of the “phrase bear arms” prior to 1776 suggesting clearly an individual right, and you might have a leg to stand on. You cannot.

Both of which were quite clearly addressed by the previous comment - the one you seem to have not actually read.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

Nah, you’re a joke. I’ve already read all the seminal articles and half of the bullshit ones.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. You got caught shit posting, having only a superficial awareness of the subject matter.

Ah, I see - you’re left with personal insult and a half-assed appeal to authority in lieu of any actual arguments.

I begin to wonder if you’re aware of the irony of calling someone a joke given the extent to which you’re just shitposting.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

Interesting - I was not aware of that. I’ll have to dig up the law and related rulings - I suspect the judges’ opinions on the matter would help clarify the reasoning for arriving at such a stance and would help me understand if, say, they might be due to mimicry of that actual harm and actual abuse, etc.

I appreciate that highlight.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

Which is perfectly fitting in response to an absurd, reductionist generalization.

You seem to be rather one-sided in your application of criticism.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

Ah, yes. Both sides.

Let’s not pretend Blue team is absent of any responsibility or blame here - doing so does them a disservice in withholding the necessary pressures to change and do better, enabling the exact mediocrity and incompetence currently on display.

It may shock you to realize that one can correctly lay fault at the hands of a party while understanding that party is overall less problematic than its opponent.

And, of course, the only problem with guns is mass shooters.

It was, in point of fact, the thing I was responding to.

I’m not sure if you’d actually read that source let alone much else on the subject - do you believe there is zero overlap between the general pressures toward violence (firearm or otherwise) and the observed pathway to becoming a mass shooter?

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

Meanwhile, pro-gun people are one of the largest single-issue voting blocks in the county. So all the Dems are really doing is handing votes over to Republicans.

This is a point that cannot be stressed enough.

As of 2022, Iowa had a ballot initiative for codifying a strict scrutiny clause on restrictions on the right to bear arms in our state constitution. We have a ~3-way split of Democrat, Republican, and Independent voters. The measure passed with ~66% support.

On an entirely unrelated note, our Republican governor won her election with ~58% the vote against a Democrat pushing - admittedly mild - restrictions on firearms.

Blue team isn’t going to lose blue team die-hard votes by dropping these points. They are, however, demonstrably alienating Independents who reject such restrictions.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

Not really - It doesn’t read the right to bear flintlock pistols. It reads the right to bear arms.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

I see, thanks for making that connection for me. To be clear, I’m not playing for either side. I’m just a realist. Not every issue or opinion has to be red or blue.

No worries at all, and agreed. It’s part of why this is so incredibly frustrating - the sheer entrenched nature of this partisan-aligned wedge issue precludes any form of meaningful progress.

My point is that anyone can make a magazine or buy one from somebody who can. So a ban would be useless. The only people it would effect would be those who choose to obey.

Correct, and entirely agreed. This is the nature of the flaw with most such restrictions - unless there’s compelling evidence the tools used for a given crime were sourced by legal owners, further restricting legal owners does absolutely no good.

For what it’s worth, I think if everyone on the radical right were launched into the sun, the world would be a better place.

I would wholly-support a MAGA-ectomy.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

This isn’t the gotcha you think it is. The only thing the 2nd amendment covers is “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.”

Fortunately, we have an abundance of analysis on the subject including that used in the ruling to help clarify.

Your argument that bullet capacity is covered is as valid as another’s argument that it’s not because it’s not explicitly stated, so it’s left to interpretation.

This, too, was covered.

However, if someone would like to own a Chambers gun or any other firearm that existed in 1791 when the amendment was ratified then they should be allowed to without restriction, including felons, children, people with mental health issues, illegal drug users etc. This is what the 2nd amendment guarantees in context

That depends quite a bit on whether or not there were historical analogues, though it’s fair to say that felons and “illegal” drug users e.g. marijuana are trending toward correcting.

That context is important though. 230 years ago the most common weapons owned and available to the people were muskets and flintlock pistols. Single shot, muzzle loading weapons.

… with complete technological parity with the standing armed forces of the time, in context.

Let’s also not forget that James Madison redrafted the Second Amendment into its current form "for the specific purpose of assuring the Southern states, and particularly his constituents in Virginia, that the federal government would not undermine their security against slave insurrection by disarming the militia.”

Fortunately, we have quite a bit of other text including that from Madison on the subject; a specific limited-scope purpose in one instance does not negate his other statements.

It is incredibly easy in modern times in the US to be able to access firearms capable of dealing significantly greater death and harm than in 1791. It’s fair to argue that, in current context, the intent of the 2nd amendment would not protect magazine capacity. In fact the case that defined bearable arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, leaves much to debate about whether a magazine constitutes a “bearable arm”.

And in the post-Bruen world, there’s much less room for debate, especially for arbitrary and capricious restrictions on a right.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

Do we need fully auto firearms? No not really.

Sure, but it’s not really about need and there’s nothing meaningfully different about them.

Guns should be registered.

You’re going to see much resistance to the notion of the state owning a registry of every individual owning a firearm and what they own. Allow for the concept of a paper trail of transfers especially where private-party transfers are legal, allow those to request NICS checks, and you’ll probably be set.

Lastly I know this is a stretch, but the US should be checking vehicles going to Mexico. Interesting that we only check coming back but not going. Firearms trafficking would be significantly reduced if we started checking.

Alternatively, we could address the root of the problem: Between 70 to 90 percent of guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico can be traced back to the U.S. Drug cartels - there are policy changes we could enact to defang drug cartels while also helping enable addicts to seek the support they need.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

Proud gun owner here. I’d like to see a more proactive approach to gun registration and some sort of yearly inspections for “assault rifles” - just to appease the ones that don’t know anything about guns. Kinda like how you would get “tags” on a car, if that makes sense.

Hard pass. I have zero interest in the state having constant, perfect awareness of who is armed with what. This is not information they need to have, and in an era where law enforcement is constantly making headlines for abuses of power, this is information they should not have.

Let’s consider a different extreme: I would counter that the best way to appease those who don’t know anything about firearms would be education; we should instead have yearly mandatory classes on firearms, safety, and proficient operation thereof. Remove the mystery and it’s much harder to be scared of scary black rifle.

However, we should be able to own fully automatic firearms and silencers/suppressors, muzzle breaks and other “evil” attachments and modifications if the previously mentioned system is in place. The more capable and dangerous the machine, the more tests and certifications you’ll need to legally own them.

I would be happy with a compromise position for select-fire so long as suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, etc. are fully-deregulated; I would instead suggest we implement the majority of what has been identified as actually addressing mass violence as the compromise point and require equitable shall-issue training and certification for select-fire. This is also what I’ve been suggesting blue team take up as a policy jiu-jitsu reversal for nearly a decade.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

When they wrote the amendment a single-fire cap and ball was perfectly acceptable as a firearm, should be good enough for today.

Applied slightly differently - When they wrote the amendment, civilians had complete parity with military - should be the same today.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

They are, though.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

You’re not gonna bend me.

That is generally the case when one is operating on sheer, blind faith rather than an understanding of the subject.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

You don’t seem to understand what a preamble is…

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

Those shifting goalposts make quite the sound.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

From reading your article, wouldn’t the serial registration also help prevent US drug cartels from spamming mexico with ghost guns, which could be traced back to crime organizations?

The entire premise to the ghost gun fearmongering is the lack of traceability - “serial numbers” aren’t part of it.

I somehow suspect a cartel manufacturing firearms isn’t going to bother registering it before trafficking it to Mexico. So, no - it would be entirely ineffective.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

I believe you misunderstand, perhaps intentionally. Civilians had complete parity - not army recruits.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

lol, I grew up with firearms, and still own some.

You do understand the as an [X]/hello fellow kids is pretty transparent, right?

Your declaration of my understanding doesn’t make it so.

It is, rather, your showing your lack of understanding in various comments that shows it is so.

Blind faith? I don’t even know what you’re trying to get at. Save your thoughts and prayers for the next person

Yes, you do. While I enjoy the implied conservative lean - I always enjoy when a rando demonstrates the extent to which they’re partisan biased and irrational - you miss in your assumption.

I’d argue I care more about this problem than those of you do cannot help but make bland insults when faced with disagreement and who cannot manage to actually try identifying and solving problems amidst their rants and hyperbole.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

The truly fucked up thing is gun owners are so obsessed with firearms they let everything else slip away.

I wonder if you’re aware the extent to which this is deliciously ironic.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

Quote the rest of the definition - you seem to be intentionally missing the an introductory statement part.

It does provide context, that’s true - thus, it’s neither the right nor a restriction on it.

You’re far dumber than you think you are.

Given your rants, insults, and absolute lack of points made… I’ll give that due consideration.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

you: makes statement

them: directly addresses statement

you: pivots to different statement entirely

No, that’s a textbook shifting goalpost.

It’s interesting you comment on depth given your demonstrated inability to engage with anything - be it arguments or your own sources - beyond the most superficial.

Understand, indeed.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

I didn’t say anything about the militia, not sure why you’re referencing that. I provided the verbatim text, which doesn’t reference capacity.

And I provided the opinion from a ruling which directly addressed the most common but militia arguments.

Heller did not establish protections for magazine capacity, that’s what your image says. It’s not settled law, that’s why it’s being contested. This judge was overruled on appeal on this once before. Until it’s settled law the argument magazine capacity is protected is as valid as the argument it’s not.

I’ll take a federal judge’s opinion on the matter - one which aligns with what was clearly laid out in Heller - over yours, thanks.

You seem to be intentionally neglecting that SCOTUS vacated that and kicked it back down to be revisited in light of Bruen, resulting in… this exact ruling.

Yes, in context for the 1790s the people had access to the same weapons as the standing army, of course they didn’t really have a lot of choice…

It’s almost like context changes over time and laws need to as well

Which doesn’t change the intent of parity was quite clear - another thing those pesky sources highlight for you.

This is wrong. Bruen simply held that may issue states cannot use arbitrary evaluations of need to issue permits for concealed carry. Everything else is, by definition, debatable which is why this case is working its way through the courts.

Do you truly believe that’s all that was established in Bruen? You seem to be intentionally ignoring the majority of the outcome of that e.g. the things that triggered this to be vacated and reheard - thus this judgement we’re discussing.

Again, this is a dumb law and not at all representative of reasonable gun control but magazine capacity is not protected by the 2nd amendment. Not yet, at least.

And the federal judges disagree with you.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

No, but it could stop some from buying from actual legal stores.

That would be the entire point to the existing straw purchase legislation - which would be a better place to start, if such avenues are demonstrably the actual problem.

Like you said it is a multifaceted issue but repairing like cracks here there will help reinforce other parts of the issue.

Addressing symptoms will never be as effective as addressing root issues, you’ll just feel better about negligible impact. That’s the problem.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

Unfortunately, your other statements speak to it quite effectively.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

Once more with the delicious irony.

I’m interested in your thoughts on how I’ve elevated authoritarians; you seem to know quite a bit about who I’ve voted for… or to be talking out your ass once more.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

That would explain why they’re all you provide.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

Ah, I see - criticism and correction of your misunderstandings is supporting firearm ownership without nuance - a thing of freedoms and rights; therefore I’m an authoritarian.

With leaps like that, you could do gymnastics.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

Who wrote that, Benitez?

He’s making shit up and he knows it.

That’s an interesting assertion - especially given the lack of actual criticism of his ruling and its arguments.

This wouldn’t be denial, would it?

I’m sure you guys won’t complain if every magazine, optic and accessory is required to ship to an FFL for paperwork before getting to the customer. 'Cause they’re “arms” now, right?

You might want to revisit his provided statement on the matter - it wasn’t very ambiguous.

That said, you’re certainly welcome to try to push for such - SCOTUS has a history of slapping down such ban-incrementalist measures lately and I suspect that such a laughable overreach is more likely to result in erosion of FFL processes and requirements.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

Neat - more personal attacks.

Truly, the hallmark of civil discourse. I wish I could say I expected better.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago (edited 9 months ago)

He decides to reclassify a accessories as arms, and that’s not a valid criticism.

Is that what he did? Reclassify?

I’m increasingly confident you haven’t actually read any of it and are just talking out of your ass.

He decides to reclassify a accessories as arms, and that’s not a valid criticism.

Ah, so you are just straight-up full of shit. Fair enough. Way to own it. You don’t see that often.

I was pretty sure I’d referenced the ruling in this comment chain, but on the off chance I haven’t, here’s the relevant part. Also, here’s where it was already provided.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

I’d argue handwaving away rejections of your own nonsense - which appears to hinge on anything but the actual amendment and its intent - as mere “NRA propaganda” is both actively preventing useful, rational discourse and highlighting the extent to which you retreat behind your own biases rather than confront being wrong.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

Could you clarify your position? It’s hard to tell if this is rant, sarcasm, or satire.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

Emergency restrain orders could be another reason for the exception.

Would this be the same ERPO process often touted as a solution to unhinged individuals going on a rampage that almost never works due to the current slow process, general unawareness, and issues with restoration of rights?

Try justifying the waiting period rather than creating some Rube Goldberg machine of negligible value.

Should be added to the law. If for whatever reason that gun that was legal and becomes illegal, government should pay double the retail price when bought to the owner. If over turned, there should be a automatic availability to buy the firearm with no waiting period for the person that previously had it.

You seem to miss that California has a rich and established history of using SLAP lawsuits and sandbag legislation specifically intended to require lengthy federal appeal and judgment to resolve, always with the next legislative measure ready to go no matter how unconditional.

You seem to believe such states are operating in good faith - they’re not. Your suggestion only works if they are.

Additionally, the state still has information it shouldn’t regarding civilians and ownersgip of firearms and has already demonstrated incompetence with such information resulting in leaks.

I can respect the brainstorming, but the answer truly is to simply address the underlying issues behind individuals and the myriad pressures toward violence.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

Oh, I didn’t own or store the trailer. I rented it when I needed it and just had a little hitch rack to take one bike most of the time.

Fair enough.

My point was that my midsize hatchback had the same internal space for taking things around as your SUV, just with less weight and fuel consumption. Unless your kids are larger than adult sized and you have five of them?

I’ve yet to see this bear out. I have a midsize hatchback - a Chevy Volt - which does not have close to the same space. There is an argument to be made for fuel consumption there, though.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

If your oversized modern SUV can fit, any minivan can fit

Oh? By what numbers, specifically, are you comparing?

The Chrysler Pacifica, for example, comes in at nearly two feet longer than the average mid sized SUV I ended up getting.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

Length isn’t the limiting factor for most “average” SUVs in getting into a garage.

You seem to be making quite the generalization there - while not actually providing any numbers.

I’ve never had a garage or carport that I couldn’t park my mother’s Dodge Ram 3500 15 passenger van in, and that’s even longer than the Pacifica.

That’s awesome. Unfortunately, your experience doesn’t change that my garage does not allow for the length of a van.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

Ah, I see your error - you imply the road trip rather than explicitly highlight it.

Fair enough - I had mixed you up with another poster and you did not deserve my frustration. My apologies.

jeremy_sylvis, 9 months ago

180.4" L x 71.2" W x 56.4" H.