The thing about FA-FO is it doesn't have to be the law of the land. Better by judged by 12 than carried by 6 is human nature. They can do their damnedest to criminalize self-defense & FA-FO. Communism always loses to human nature in the end.
I don't see how that could possibly be successful or feasible in any way whatsoever. How would you possibly achieve 2, "A legal system that fully supports "fuck around and find out", as things currently are? With the absolutely extreme, ludicrously insane amounts of evil and corruption there is currently present? And what about people that just look the other way? And all other kinds of system-wise properties? The current laws are not even being upheld, or twisted into insane mockeries. And who decides what "fuck around and find out" means? The child rapists (and worse) that have had great success with infiltrating and subverting the USA?
How would you even get anywhere near what you propose without what I propose?
Now, this is funny. You call this guy out for asking for self-defense laws after giving your wish list? How do you think any part of your revoke and deport ideas are even possible? Your bullet list is your wet dream, not anything resembling reality.
Now, this is funny. You call this guy out for asking for self-defense laws after giving your wish list? How do you think any part of your revoke and deport ideas are even possible?
I am not at all against self-defense laws, nor did I argue against them. And I didn't focus on or address his first point, 1 (which I am not necessarily against). I directly and specifically referred to his second point, 2.
Your bullet list [...] not anything resembling reality.
I raised that concern as well. And my argument was that the proposal I give seem much, much, much more realistic (and would help enable his second point, 2) than his second point, 2, as I argued for.
And notice this part from my first comment:
So I have no idea whether even this is possible.
EDIT: I apologize if I was unclear in my comment that I focused on the second point, 2. I notice now that for the first sentence, I put in a dot instead of a comma or similar before making it clear what I referred to.
Strip qualified immunity from DA's. So if a DA refuses to prosecute a criminal, than said criminal goes out and commits another violent act, the DA can be sued civilly. Use civil courts to change behavior. The ACLU has done that for decades and changed the entire country for the worse in the proccess
To be honest, that seems like very, very small stuff, and while potentially (very?) good in itself (I have not considered or thought through it in depth), it seems like it would require much, much more than that. And without the proposals I wrote about... I don't know how much of a chance that road would work. The situation is different than some decades before, dramatically so in a number of very/extremely important regards, some for the (extreme) better, some for the (extreme) worse. That said, president Donald Trump is incredibly gifted, driven, caring, hard-working and capable (among other aspects), so if someone can help bring about such a road and make things work out well for everyone in practice at least a little bit, it seems like he would be the guy to do it. But at this point in time and the given situation, it seems incredibly difficult or impossible, even for miracle makers. Dealing with 13/50, BLM, Antifa, burning country, millions upon millions of illegal invaders, extremely corrupted and infiltrated systems (including various churches, evangelicals as well as the Catholic (anti-?)pope, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
It would work, none of these DA's would be letting criminals go wholesale if it would be their lives and assets on the line. The problem is that it would not be easy to remove that qualified immunity. The politicians who would need to pass the law, take advantage of it themselves.
The right to keep and bear arms means we can have them on us locked and loaded at all times. Open carried or concealed. Long gun or pistol. Gustave recoilless rifle or lmg. Doesn't matter.
Appreciate the thought that went into what you said, but all we really need is:
Universal CCW as the 2A says there should be
A legal system that fully supports "fuck around and find out"
Random criminality will effectively end within the same week.
The thing about FA-FO is it doesn't have to be the law of the land. Better by judged by 12 than carried by 6 is human nature. They can do their damnedest to criminalize self-defense & FA-FO. Communism always loses to human nature in the end.
I don't see how that could possibly be successful or feasible in any way whatsoever. How would you possibly achieve 2, "A legal system that fully supports "fuck around and find out", as things currently are? With the absolutely extreme, ludicrously insane amounts of evil and corruption there is currently present? And what about people that just look the other way? And all other kinds of system-wise properties? The current laws are not even being upheld, or twisted into insane mockeries. And who decides what "fuck around and find out" means? The child rapists (and worse) that have had great success with infiltrating and subverting the USA?
How would you even get anywhere near what you propose without what I propose?
Now, this is funny. You call this guy out for asking for self-defense laws after giving your wish list? How do you think any part of your revoke and deport ideas are even possible? Your bullet list is your wet dream, not anything resembling reality.
I am not at all against self-defense laws, nor did I argue against them. And I didn't focus on or address his first point, 1 (which I am not necessarily against). I directly and specifically referred to his second point, 2.
I raised that concern as well. And my argument was that the proposal I give seem much, much, much more realistic (and would help enable his second point, 2) than his second point, 2, as I argued for.
And notice this part from my first comment:
EDIT: I apologize if I was unclear in my comment that I focused on the second point, 2. I notice now that for the first sentence, I put in a dot instead of a comma or similar before making it clear what I referred to.
Strip qualified immunity from DA's. So if a DA refuses to prosecute a criminal, than said criminal goes out and commits another violent act, the DA can be sued civilly. Use civil courts to change behavior. The ACLU has done that for decades and changed the entire country for the worse in the proccess
To be honest, that seems like very, very small stuff, and while potentially (very?) good in itself (I have not considered or thought through it in depth), it seems like it would require much, much more than that. And without the proposals I wrote about... I don't know how much of a chance that road would work. The situation is different than some decades before, dramatically so in a number of very/extremely important regards, some for the (extreme) better, some for the (extreme) worse. That said, president Donald Trump is incredibly gifted, driven, caring, hard-working and capable (among other aspects), so if someone can help bring about such a road and make things work out well for everyone in practice at least a little bit, it seems like he would be the guy to do it. But at this point in time and the given situation, it seems incredibly difficult or impossible, even for miracle makers. Dealing with 13/50, BLM, Antifa, burning country, millions upon millions of illegal invaders, extremely corrupted and infiltrated systems (including various churches, evangelicals as well as the Catholic (anti-?)pope, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
It would work, none of these DA's would be letting criminals go wholesale if it would be their lives and assets on the line. The problem is that it would not be easy to remove that qualified immunity. The politicians who would need to pass the law, take advantage of it themselves.
The right to keep and bear arms means we can have them on us locked and loaded at all times. Open carried or concealed. Long gun or pistol. Gustave recoilless rifle or lmg. Doesn't matter.