Such a state law doesn’t make the 2A moot, because the law doesn’t make the federal government infringe on the right. It’s still operative as to the federal government, which is what it’s designed to be. As long as the federal government doesn’t infringe upon the right, that’s the extent of the 2A. Silence means silence.
Nope, it’s not - it’s the larger group of people the law/policy is supposed to cover. In my analogy, I’m referring to people at a construction company. It doesn’t change the meaning for the purposes of my example.
No, it didn’t, and honestly, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Employees = people in my example - the bigger group of individuals subject to the law/policy.
This makes absolutely no sense. As in, it’s not that I disagree with it, it literally doesn’t make sense.
Well, muticulturalism has been proven as an abject failure, so no discussion here.
Honestly, I have no idea how to address this problem. This may sound childish, but to quote a certain Donald J. Trump at the NRA convention “there is a thing such as too many guns, right?”
Let’s look at this from a business perspective - relevant statistics about the number of guns per gun owner show that gun manufacturers are actually focusing on a specific segment of the population to sell new products. If people were content to stick to their existing arsenals, the gun manufacturers would be out of business. Makes sense - you’re up selling to your existing customers, like in regular retail, telco or finance.
In order to convince existing customers to buy more guns, you need an effective marketing strategy - a negative one was “Obama is coming for your guns, better stockpile before the proverbial hammer falls”, the positive marketing strategy is to convince existing gun owners that they need another gun. And for that they need to make these new brands and models attractive, desirable, conveying a sense of superiority over non-customers. In other words, treat it as a retailproduct and an acceptable form of spending one’s money and leisure time.
Therefore, the gun stops being a “tool” for hunting, self-defense etc. and becomes a regular retail consumer product to be slickly marketed and sold just like chai lattes or the new IPhone model.
And in my view, that’s the toxic part of the “gun culture”.
Having lived in an American inner city I can say that there is no comparison to a 3rd world nation’s slums. We actually had clean water and sanitation service. Some kid in a Brazilian favela would think Chicago is utopia.
Some cultures have pathological components (pathological here meaning that they detract from, or impede the achievement of, the common good). For example, some aspects of inner-city AA culture are clearly pathological. Likewise, some aspects of gun culture are pathological.
Honestly, TB, your analogy is terrible. You’re basically saying that only employees on the job site get to keep and maintain safety equipment because they’re the ones responsible for maintaining a safe job site. Aside from the fact that in my experience that’s just wrong (safety is everyone’s responsibility is a common theme in manufacturing), all American’s have a right to a free state and, in the late 1700s, basically, every able-bodied man was a part of the militia anyway. It’s not just a subset of employees (militiamen) of the whole company that has a right to a safe job site (free state) or the means to maintain the safety of the site (hard hats). It’s every employee (American).
And, let’s take this a step further. Is your contention that each division (state) of a company has the right to make their own policy on job site safety, including outlawing the use of hard hats even though there’s a clause in the company charter that says the employees have a right to a safe work environment? That doesn’t make sense, but that’s the 2A argument being put forth.
Multiculturalism has not been a failure, in the US at least.
And you can’t compare cultures in a way to come up with one being better than another. It all depends on what the objectives and values of a given culture are.
I would argue that inner city culture is actually anti-culture. It’s a culture-less culture. It only exsists, in whatever way you want to define it, because it is funded by the government. If it had to rely on itself to exist it would vanish.
We have ethnic neighborhoods, restaurants, social clubs. Many people are products of mixed (racial and ethnic) relationships. We have done a very good job of allowing people the ability to retain their heritages while also integrating and being allowed to play a part in society as a whole.
It still can be argued it is not a culture but what happens when there is no culture. Also, whatever people see as culture (or anti-culture) does not apply to everyone who lives there.
Multiculturalism would use cultural/religious/ethnic classifications as a primary way to identify an individual with corresponding different criteria for everything, including and not limited to the application of laws.
No, no, no, no, no - I’m not offering it up as good or bad policy, I’m offering it up on how to read a policy. It might be terrible policy - that’s irrelevant. I’m using item to show meaning, how when you see a prefatory clause, common sense and plain reading points to certain qualifications of the right. My analogy is about construction of language, not whose job safety is.
I’m not using “employees” as a subset of a bigger group. I’m using “employees” as the group - everyone covered by the written policy. Same as “people” in the constitutional sense. Employees = people, as in everyone covered.
This is a different angle entirely from my analogy, as the analogy wasn’t about the substance of the policy. But in any event, on substance, your example doesn’t translate. A company may not want a division to have that kind of autonomy over safety (for obvious reasons), but companies are not run with federalism in mind as an object to achieve. The substantive policy ends are way different.
As an aside, I just don’t see why and how it is so hard for people of a conservative/libertarian persuasion to accept this as what is commonly understood to be states’ rights in action. The Constitution didn’t step into many aspects of a state’s sovereignty. This isn’t so much a pro-gun or anti-gun issue, it’s about good old fashioned federalism.
That’s a hijacked definition of multiculturalism. It’s what happens when sociology majors and racists decide to poke their noses into linguistics. They make a neutral word that has no real political connotation play a part in their identity politics agenda.
What behaviors are you seeing that you define as cultural or more specifically AA inner city culture? Because whatever it is, it is not indicative of all black people in the inner city. It’s a dangerous way of thinking that does more harm than the actual behaviors because it leads to the racism of low expectations.
I believe that what you are defining as AA inner city culture is not culture but a lack of culture/values.
Nothing is ‘indicative of all people’ in a given group, other than perhaps trivial generalizations concerning living conditions; eg, ‘All inner-city residents live in the inner city.’
Again, it’s hard for me to respond, because I don’t understand what you mean by the terms culture, anti-culture and no (or lack of) culture.