Federal judge issues opinion that people have the right to make their own unserialized firearms

You and everyone else will never make a new Constitution.

 

Well you learn something every day. It wouldn't be regulation in regard to a trained standing military because that's a military not a militia.

Different pronunciation and spelling typically indicates different meaning.

So your decision on whether to trust experts or not has to do with whether they do something you like or not?

The Constitution didn't grant abortion rights so the court then granting then violated the tenth amendment. You aren't going to trust constitutional experts because they act to restore the Constitution?

Are you in one of those worlds where hamburgers eat people?

I'm not actually against the right to bear arms, but it's for a completely different reason than the 2nd amendment alludes to (more like the same reason I am for legalized drugs). I just think religious devotion to the ideas of the founding fathers is silly and I'd rather make a new constitution.[/QUOTE] So you dislike the way the country works? We can write a new Constitution anytime we want it's just that you have to have a super majority to do it. The Constitution was created specifically to protect the minority from the simple majority.

Not enough people agree with you. So get better at pleading your case , you aren't that good, try meeting people where they are instead of trying to convince them that they are wrong. Luckily this is advice you probably refuse to take.

So why do tyrannical governments ban guns? If this is the case and you believe that there is no reason to amend the second amendment.

Also why are we sending fire arms to Ukraine?

Reaffirming no reason to ban guns. The only reason anybody ever wants to is to take power away from certain people. If we look back at the history of gun control, even some arguments used today were the same arguments the ku Klux klan used to disarm black people.

Nobody is really anti gun they are just anti certain people having guns.

 

Only somebody constitutionality illiterate would say make a new Constitution.

Maybe some old school house rock shorts are in order.

Only a person that's constitutionally illiterate would say we need a new Constitution. All we really need to do to change it is amend it.

 

lol no it’s somebody who disagrees with the very foundation of it. I am a technocrat at heart. And don’t make me laugh on the amendment part. That part is totally broken given how society is today

 

to be clear I am pro-gun and very pro-expert except when it comes to lawyers. Being an expert in the law seems to leave little room for being an expert in how society really works. Pro roe or anti roe, you have to admit the precedent and it’s reversal undermines scotus credibility regardless of which side you’re on. All That said, I fully acknowledge the changes I would most like to see likely won’t happen in my lifetime.

 

Who knows? Probably not me though. I hate attention and the boldest thing I’d do is write a book someday. But why bother society isn’t receptive to making things better.

 

I'm not interested in arguing about Rosie Wade there are plenty of threads exhausting that issue to the extreme.

Everyone on the planet is pro-gun that's just who you think should have them

 

You're a technocrat meaning you want to be the subject of a dictator? The Constitution was designed to protect our country from people like you.

 

If you cannot amend it, then how do you propose to repeal it?
And what does 'technocrat" mean in your usage?

 

I think I said at one point it's unlikely to happen in my lifetime, but if people are around long enough and continue to make advances, I think it will happen someday. A major cultural shift is required, a shift towards trusting science and experts and not the average person. There is basically no chance that the best conceivable system is how the average person thinks things are going electing somebody they like. Technocrat means rule should be based upon expert consensus, as opposed to say, the whims of a charismatic *******. I don't think dictator would make sense for it, but it's not democracy either. It would have a constitution to protect rights and curtail corruption. Probably a prime minister system but representatives would be selected by abilities, rather than elections. I think one of the major flaws in our system is that lawyers drive policy. Lawyers should have a role in understanding and executing the law, but they should not be the primary drivers of making policy because their expertise is in the law, not in how society works and the impact of policy.

 

Who would be doing the selecting of these controlling experts and how would that process occur?

 

So the goal is for policy to be evidence-based. This means scientists would be the best-equipped. Therefore, one would first need to identify all the areas of expertise relevant to policy. Each area would be organized into committees similar to today and voted on in a general assembly sort of like today. Expert organizations in the relevant fields based in the United States would nominate people to fill those committees. The process would need to be transparent, constitutionally, and be subject to an independent oversight branch. Their main goal would be to identify things like corruption, e.g. quid quo pro. Expert organizations throughout the United States would design a selection test for the nominees to decide which ones will actually be representatives of the fields. The test would be about things like logic, history and evidence that is relevant across fields. The purpose of the test would be to identify the most intelligent and knowledgeable of the nominees in the area of making policy in general. There's a lot more to it, but that's a general idea of one possible mechanism.

 

Would statisticians be included? They'd be the first to tell you that this idea has zero percent chance of being implemented.

 

And who would say "that passes the bar"? Who would discern when scientists were correct? Who makes the decision?
Who is the independent oversight branch and how do they come to power? How are they recruited? How are they chosen? Who will make the initial determinations that create them?
When there are more than one expert org for a given profession, who plays solomon to say 1 is legitimate but not 2?


So you want feudalism by another name. How quaint.

 

The effort to fully address all concerns would probably be of a volume and time similar to writing a book... at a miniumum. See if you can agree it would be a good idea in principle before we worry about details of getting there. To boil it down, the goal is to get people who understand evidence and policy to make policy decisions instead of charismatic leaders who lead because old ladies like their smile and old men want to have a beer with them.

But no, it wouldn't be similar to feudalism at all, no idea where you get that idea. Maybe you're saying it's oligarchical? That's the only overlap I see. Would it involve a strictly hierarchical society in which serfs serve lords and lords serve the king for land in exchange for military service? No.

 

lol good one... zero in our current society, sure. There's always an undercurrent of democracy in any society. The populace has to, in some way, buy in to the system of power in place or feel like it's not worth challenging. America's stability has depended upon people's belief in the democratic process, the republic, and the constitution, much like the old monarchies relied upon people believing in divine right, or not disbelieving it enough to challenge the minority in iron suits. People, in the west at least, believe in democratic processes, not science/logic/technology, as a way to optimal policy. Someday that will probably change, for better or worse, and so too will the governments.

 

what does trusting science have anything to do with the Constitution are you suggesting the Constitution isn't scientific?

no that's democracy a technocrat must take over by force.

a technocrat would be a dictator. A ruler ruling at the consent of the governed is democracy there's no other word for it

so why would you call them a prime minister if they're a dictator.

so can anyone that worked is a lawyer from holding public office???

I think you have very very bizarre ideas and I don't think you know what technocrat means.

 

If you don't have ready answers for the most obvious of inquiries to demonstrate how you would 1) actually achieve your stated aim and not simply make it an oligarchical dictatorship 2) make the transition without violent civil war, I'm going to give it the same credit as an idea I give to my 5 year old nephew who says everyone should just be happy and have all they need. Ie that's nice but I don't think you've considered much about how it would work and what you're asking for.

And you don't have an explanation for how we will sort these persons and ensure only those who understand have power. You also don't explain how we quantify what 'evidence and policy' even are.
You're talking in soft platitudes. I want at least the outline of a hard system before I'll even entertain the idea as a thought experiment.

 

The constitution is more about logic than science per se. I don't think I suggested anything about it except that my system would still need a constitution to protect rights.

Neither of those terms have anything to do with force. Either could require or not require force to establish. Democracy just means the power comes from the people. In a democratic republic the people elect representatives. I am saying we shouldn't be asking the average person who should lead. Technocracy is: Technocracy - Wikipedia " Technocracy is a form of government in which the decision-maker or makers are selected based on their expertise in a given area of responsibility, particularly with regard to scientific or technical knowledge." No force would be needed if people bought into that idea. Currently they don't.

There wouldn't be one absolute leader. Maybe you mean oligarchy.

By your definition democracy is always present then, because kings ruled until the peasants decided to lop off their heads.

Because the executive would be chosen from the legislature. The legislature would be composed of selected experts rather than elected. Hence technocracy.

I think they would have jobs in a technocratic legislature in drafting policy, and in a judicial part of government, but no being a lawyer should not be a good qualification for actually leading.

Of course you think that. You're a product of our culture and you don't think out of the box. But you seem to be the one who doesn't know what a technocrat is. Read this: Technocracy - Wikipedia

 

I think you should probably move to China they're already the way you want it to be.