5 ms·

> abortion seekers Uhhh, not sure what koolaid you've swallowed, but including them in that list is almost laughable.

HideousKojima 4y ago
I wonder how the people putting "abortion seekers" on such lists would feel if I included "self-defense rights advocates" for people 3d printing guns or smuggling them in from abroad on similar lists.
- lrvick 4y ago
  I would have no problem seeing that included on such lists either. I have friends who hunt and I myself enjoy shooting on a range once in a while. I also know single parents that live alone in sketchy areas that are well trained and level headed enough to trust with firearms for home self defense. There are almost always reasonable uses of many services and tools we tend to have knee-jerk-ban reactions to as a society.
- Volundr 4y ago
  I'd wonder if it's for self defense why you didn't buy your firearm legally, since, you know, it's legal to do so. I haven't done a deep dive, but as far as I can tell in most cases it's legal to 3d print too, though admittedly that's something that there are some semi-serious efforts to change. In other words I'd suspect the classification of "self defense advocate" to be a self serving branding effort since there are legal ways to accomplish the same, but I wouldn't doubt the need of this person for a secure messaging platform.
  - HideousKojima 4y ago
    >I'd wonder if it's for self defense why you didn't buy your firearm legally, since, you know, it's legal to do so. Outside of the United States, that's usually not the case. Even if countries do allow private gun ownership, the restrictions on how to obtain them (and what they can legally be used for, what kinds are available, etc.) are exceptionally onerous. And even within the United States, there are individual states that have attempted to severely curtail private firearm ownership. Were it not for certain Supreme Court decisions, handgun ownership would be outright illegal in the District of Columbia and likely in several other states.
    - Volundr 4y ago
      > Outside of the United States, that's usually not the case. A good and fair point. I'd fallen into the trap of being too US centric on HN. > Were it not for certain Supreme Court decisions, handgun ownership would be outright illegal in the District of Columbia and likely in several other states. Sure, were it not for the Supreme Court. But as there remains plenty of ways to legally obtain guns in the US, I'm still going to doubt that you've resorted to gun smuggling for "self defense"
    - sofixa 4y ago
      > Even if countries do allow private gun ownership, the restrictions on how to obtain them (and what they can legally be used for, what kinds are available, etc.) are exceptionally onerous Citation needed. I, and probably the majority of the citizens of those countries do not consider the standard test/psych eval/background check/random checks in the future to make sure you're following the rules to be "exceptionally onerous". And i think most non-Americans would agree that adding some friction to a fringe case (owning a personal firearm for protection or fun is not something most people do, even in the US) is worth it if it nearly eliminates blatant misuses of firearms - either making suicides easier and more terminal, enabling easier revenge murders, or making your average school/public place shooting easier. What would you consider a just middle ground between "onerous requirements" and "everyone can buy any weapon without any requirements but paying for it"?
      - HideousKojima 4y ago
        >Citation needed. I, and probably the majority of the citizens of those countries do not consider the standard test/psych eval/background check/random checks in the future to make sure you're following the rules to be "exceptionally onerous". Just because you've accepted the boot on your neck doesn't make it not a boot. When (not if) a currently free and democratic Western nation decides to be not so democratic anymore (whether due to invasion, international pressure from economic partners like Russia and China, or just that the assholes in power decided to seize even more power) the citizens (or rather subjects) of those countries will have no means of fighting back. You can already see it with several countries' response to covid. >What would you consider a just middle ground between "onerous requirements" and "everyone can buy any weapon without any requirements but paying for it"? My feelings on gun control can be summed up as "I want mail order rocket launchers delivered to my doorstep." The state should fear its people, not the other way around, and the best way to ensure that is to give the people the means to put a bullet (or several) into any would-be tyrants. And, regardless of what "the majority of citizens" feel about bootlicking and trampling on their own natural rights, advances in home manufacturing are quickly making any efforts to do so a pipedream.
Volundr 4y ago
How do you figure? Several states had abortion laws that were never repealed and others have trigger laws on the books that have gone into effect or will shortly, so yes you can be prosecuted for abortion now. Hence the need for privacy.
lostcolony 4y ago
Why is it laughable? https://www.npr.org/2022/08/12/1117092169/nebraska-cops-used-facebook-messages-to-investigate-an-alleged-illegal-abortion https://www.npr.org/2022/08/12/1117092169/nebraska-cops-used...
- WaitWaitWha 4y ago
  I agree none of this is laughable. Irrelevant of your position, please read the entire article that you referenced for facts (pre-RvW overturn, pregnancy at 23~28 (?) weeks, took Pregnot, buried in back yard, Nebraska law was at that time 20 weeks). The Vice article seems to have quite a lot more facts and references. https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7zevd/this-is-the-data-facebook-gave-police-to-prosecute-a-teenager-for-abortion https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7zevd/this-is-the-data-face...
  - lostcolony 4y ago
    I did read it. The point is that the mother is being charged with aiding her daughter to have an abortion due to evidence collected from chats they thought were secure, but which were still susceptible to a warrant. Now, there are other charges. And the time the abortion happened it occurred while the 20 week ban wasn't being enforced, because the state knew it wouldn't hold up under Roe (and is only illegal and chargeable now, with the court having overturned Roe). So, yes, it's super interesting. But the point is that police are charging someone for aiding an abortion due to texts the sender thought were secure. That's the entire relevancy. Anything else about this particular incident isn't germane.
- HideousKojima 4y ago

I wonder how the people putting "abortion seekers" on such lists would feel if I included "self-defense rights advocates" for people 3d printing guns or smuggling them in from abroad on similar lists.

lrvick 4y ago
I would have no problem seeing that included on such lists either. I have friends who hunt and I myself enjoy shooting on a range once in a while. I also know single parents that live alone in sketchy areas that are well trained and level headed enough to trust with firearms for home self defense. There are almost always reasonable uses of many services and tools we tend to have knee-jerk-ban reactions to as a society.
Volundr 4y ago
I'd wonder if it's for self defense why you didn't buy your firearm legally, since, you know, it's legal to do so. I haven't done a deep dive, but as far as I can tell in most cases it's legal to 3d print too, though admittedly that's something that there are some semi-serious efforts to change. In other words I'd suspect the classification of "self defense advocate" to be a self serving branding effort since there are legal ways to accomplish the same, but I wouldn't doubt the need of this person for a secure messaging platform.
- HideousKojima 4y ago
  >I'd wonder if it's for self defense why you didn't buy your firearm legally, since, you know, it's legal to do so. Outside of the United States, that's usually not the case. Even if countries do allow private gun ownership, the restrictions on how to obtain them (and what they can legally be used for, what kinds are available, etc.) are exceptionally onerous. And even within the United States, there are individual states that have attempted to severely curtail private firearm ownership. Were it not for certain Supreme Court decisions, handgun ownership would be outright illegal in the District of Columbia and likely in several other states.
  - Volundr 4y ago
    > Outside of the United States, that's usually not the case. A good and fair point. I'd fallen into the trap of being too US centric on HN. > Were it not for certain Supreme Court decisions, handgun ownership would be outright illegal in the District of Columbia and likely in several other states. Sure, were it not for the Supreme Court. But as there remains plenty of ways to legally obtain guns in the US, I'm still going to doubt that you've resorted to gun smuggling for "self defense"
  - sofixa 4y ago
    > Even if countries do allow private gun ownership, the restrictions on how to obtain them (and what they can legally be used for, what kinds are available, etc.) are exceptionally onerous Citation needed. I, and probably the majority of the citizens of those countries do not consider the standard test/psych eval/background check/random checks in the future to make sure you're following the rules to be "exceptionally onerous". And i think most non-Americans would agree that adding some friction to a fringe case (owning a personal firearm for protection or fun is not something most people do, even in the US) is worth it if it nearly eliminates blatant misuses of firearms - either making suicides easier and more terminal, enabling easier revenge murders, or making your average school/public place shooting easier. What would you consider a just middle ground between "onerous requirements" and "everyone can buy any weapon without any requirements but paying for it"?
    - HideousKojima 4y ago
      >Citation needed. I, and probably the majority of the citizens of those countries do not consider the standard test/psych eval/background check/random checks in the future to make sure you're following the rules to be "exceptionally onerous". Just because you've accepted the boot on your neck doesn't make it not a boot. When (not if) a currently free and democratic Western nation decides to be not so democratic anymore (whether due to invasion, international pressure from economic partners like Russia and China, or just that the assholes in power decided to seize even more power) the citizens (or rather subjects) of those countries will have no means of fighting back. You can already see it with several countries' response to covid. >What would you consider a just middle ground between "onerous requirements" and "everyone can buy any weapon without any requirements but paying for it"? My feelings on gun control can be summed up as "I want mail order rocket launchers delivered to my doorstep." The state should fear its people, not the other way around, and the best way to ensure that is to give the people the means to put a bullet (or several) into any would-be tyrants. And, regardless of what "the majority of citizens" feel about bootlicking and trampling on their own natural rights, advances in home manufacturing are quickly making any efforts to do so a pipedream.

Volundr 4y ago

How do you figure? Several states had abortion laws that were never repealed and others have trigger laws on the books that have gone into effect or will shortly, so yes you can be prosecuted for abortion now. Hence the need for privacy.

lostcolony 4y ago

Why is it laughable? https://www.npr.org/2022/08/12/1117092169/nebraska-cops-used-facebook-messages-to-investigate-an-alleged-illegal-abortion https://www.npr.org/2022/08/12/1117092169/nebraska-cops-used...

WaitWaitWha 4y ago
I agree none of this is laughable. Irrelevant of your position, please read the entire article that you referenced for facts (pre-RvW overturn, pregnancy at 23~28 (?) weeks, took Pregnot, buried in back yard, Nebraska law was at that time 20 weeks). The Vice article seems to have quite a lot more facts and references. https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7zevd/this-is-the-data-facebook-gave-police-to-prosecute-a-teenager-for-abortion https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7zevd/this-is-the-data-face...
- lostcolony 4y ago
  I did read it. The point is that the mother is being charged with aiding her daughter to have an abortion due to evidence collected from chats they thought were secure, but which were still susceptible to a warrant. Now, there are other charges. And the time the abortion happened it occurred while the 20 week ban wasn't being enforced, because the state knew it wouldn't hold up under Roe (and is only illegal and chargeable now, with the court having overturned Roe). So, yes, it's super interesting. But the point is that police are charging someone for aiding an abortion due to texts the sender thought were secure. That's the entire relevancy. Anything else about this particular incident isn't germane.
HideousKojima 4y ago