4 ms·

You don't have to, but I'd appreciate it if you did. Being affiliated with a group doesn't mean you are in lock-step with that group or its members on every iss

by lukifer 14y ago

You don't have to, but I'd appreciate it if you did. Being affiliated with a group doesn't mean you are in lock-step with that group or its members on every issue. People are capable of changing or expanding their views as they age. And finally, a cursory glance at the Joyce Foundation describes policies of gun regulation, not a tacit elimination of the 2nd Amendment.

hga 14y ago
Sorry, I just don't have the time now, and it's old news, since now we have his actions as a President to judge. From memory, there's that questioner he filled out while running for state? office, John Lott said while they were both at the U. of Chicago Law school that he absolutely refused to debate the issue and said he didn't think civilians should have guns, and I'm sure there's other things I'm forgetting. But you really should look into the Joyce Foundation some more, they massively funded an effort to provide a legal foundation for the "collective right" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment; as I note here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5070792 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5070792 that investment was a total loss, 9 out of 9 Supremes said individual right. And while one might not be "in lock-step with that group or its members on every issue" it makes a statement when you take the highest position after Chairman of the Board in the nation's premier anti-gun funding foundation. And as a board member you're responsible for the oversight of donations, the foundation's spending strategy, it's hard to see how he could have been in that position without agreeing with e.g. it's position of nullifying the 2nd Amendment. Would you be as sanguine if he'd been a board member of the Pioneer Fund (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund)? I met its future head Philippe Rushton when he first presented his work at a late 80's AAAS annual meeting, he appeared to be an honest albeit naive scientist, he didn't expect the firestorm that his research resulted in (roughly quoting: "for every criteria I can find, blacks and Orientals plot at the extremes with whites in the middle"). (I myself have no informed opinion on these topics, ask me about chemistry, guns, computers, etc., but not that.)
- lukifer 14y ago
  Thanks for the reply. The Heller case does seems pertinent, though I'm unable to find concrete information on JF funding the Heller case beyond the conservative blogosphere. > now we have his actions as a President to judge Again, so far these actions are nothing more than mainstream liberal boilerplate about background checks, "assault rifles", "cop-killer bullets", etc. While this could be the first salvo in an attempt to undo the 2nd Amendment entirely, it doesn't meet my burden of proof. It feels up there with Naomi Wolf's "You just wait, Cheney's gonna declare martial law any day now!" in 2007.
  - hga 14y ago
    Errr, perhaps you missed his call yesterday to ban "assault weapons" and "high" (really, standard) capacity magazines? You may consider these to be "mainstream liberal boilerplate"; where I come from, they're "fighting words", and we'll see if we can send any Democrats and Republicans who support him back home to spend more time with their families in 2015. There are also serious implications to his claim of executive privilege in the DoJ's denying the Congress documents on Fast and Furious. Either that operation reached into his staff, or the claim is bogus. Your statement that starts with "While this could be the first salvo in an attempt to undo the 2nd Amendment entirely..." is irrelevant about my defense of my assertion that he's a "gun grabber". Although one should note how every time something does get passed, it's described by "gun grabbers" as a good first step..... ADDED: The massive funding wasn't of the Heller case per se. It was of legal "research" to support a future case like it, they weren't willing to bet the Supremes would keep dodging the issue like they have since the manufactured Miller case in 1939.
    - lukifer 14y ago
      Yes, assault weapons and magazines are what I was referring to. I understand the objections, and I sympathize; I don't really have a horse in this race either way (I'm keenly aware that if so inclined, The State will happily squash me like a bug, whether or not I own a fully auto AK-47 that fires armor-piercing bullets). My point is that there is clearly a policy distinction between what liberals are calling "common sense protections", and legislation to _proactively take every gun from every gun owner_. There is a spectrum of opinion wider than [x] gun-grabber [ ] non-gun-grabber, and I don't believe any opinions should be dismissed a priori. There are real arguments to be made in favor of gun regulation, even if those arguments are wrong; holding such opinions does not necessarily mean one is secretly in favor of repealing all gun rights.

by lukifer 14y ago

hga 14y ago

Sorry, I just don't have the time now, and it's old news, since now we have his actions as a President to judge. From memory, there's that questioner he filled out while running for state? office, John Lott said while they were both at the U. of Chicago Law school that he absolutely refused to debate the issue and said he didn't think civilians should have guns, and I'm sure there's other things I'm forgetting. But you really should look into the Joyce Foundation some more, they massively funded an effort to provide a legal foundation for the "collective right" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment; as I note here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5070792 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5070792 that investment was a total loss, 9 out of 9 Supremes said individual right. And while one might not be "in lock-step with that group or its members on every issue" it makes a statement when you take the highest position after Chairman of the Board in the nation's premier anti-gun funding foundation. And as a board member you're responsible for the oversight of donations, the foundation's spending strategy, it's hard to see how he could have been in that position without agreeing with e.g. it's position of nullifying the 2nd Amendment. Would you be as sanguine if he'd been a board member of the Pioneer Fund (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund)? I met its future head Philippe Rushton when he first presented his work at a late 80's AAAS annual meeting, he appeared to be an honest albeit naive scientist, he didn't expect the firestorm that his research resulted in (roughly quoting: "for every criteria I can find, blacks and Orientals plot at the extremes with whites in the middle"). (I myself have no informed opinion on these topics, ask me about chemistry, guns, computers, etc., but not that.)

lukifer 14y ago
Thanks for the reply. The Heller case does seems pertinent, though I'm unable to find concrete information on JF funding the Heller case beyond the conservative blogosphere. > now we have his actions as a President to judge Again, so far these actions are nothing more than mainstream liberal boilerplate about background checks, "assault rifles", "cop-killer bullets", etc. While this could be the first salvo in an attempt to undo the 2nd Amendment entirely, it doesn't meet my burden of proof. It feels up there with Naomi Wolf's "You just wait, Cheney's gonna declare martial law any day now!" in 2007.
- hga 14y ago
  Errr, perhaps you missed his call yesterday to ban "assault weapons" and "high" (really, standard) capacity magazines? You may consider these to be "mainstream liberal boilerplate"; where I come from, they're "fighting words", and we'll see if we can send any Democrats and Republicans who support him back home to spend more time with their families in 2015. There are also serious implications to his claim of executive privilege in the DoJ's denying the Congress documents on Fast and Furious. Either that operation reached into his staff, or the claim is bogus. Your statement that starts with "While this could be the first salvo in an attempt to undo the 2nd Amendment entirely..." is irrelevant about my defense of my assertion that he's a "gun grabber". Although one should note how every time something does get passed, it's described by "gun grabbers" as a good first step..... ADDED: The massive funding wasn't of the Heller case per se. It was of legal "research" to support a future case like it, they weren't willing to bet the Supremes would keep dodging the issue like they have since the manufactured Miller case in 1939.
  - lukifer 14y ago
    Yes, assault weapons and magazines are what I was referring to. I understand the objections, and I sympathize; I don't really have a horse in this race either way (I'm keenly aware that if so inclined, The State will happily squash me like a bug, whether or not I own a fully auto AK-47 that fires armor-piercing bullets). My point is that there is clearly a policy distinction between what liberals are calling "common sense protections", and legislation to _proactively take every gun from every gun owner_. There is a spectrum of opinion wider than [x] gun-grabber [ ] non-gun-grabber, and I don't believe any opinions should be dismissed a priori. There are real arguments to be made in favor of gun regulation, even if those arguments are wrong; holding such opinions does not necessarily mean one is secretly in favor of repealing all gun rights.