Message from @Aetius
Discord ID: 440162017383546891
I should have made a bet
@ @LotheronPrime I believe you could make the argument that you have the right to travel but to use a car you need a license. Also, you are already required to have so much paperwork and registration stuff that it is really not much different than what they have to deal with today, but perhaps less red tape and it would be the same in all states then.
I don't recall there being an amendment that says "You have the right to drive a car", hence the license,
Also gun control is already undoable nowadays, you can 3d print a gun
Also i'm not convinced that "blue flight" from Cali and NY is that good, chances are those people are gonna vote blue in the states they migrate to, flipping red states if they do it in masses
you assume that there are enough people "fleeing" that a) vote b) "blue" and c) keep doing that.
does not make sense
estimates across the globe seem to suggest people will move towards cities
not away from them
@I AM ERROR Leeches tend to go where those with money are, when they move, leeches follow, and seeing as those same leeches are SJW they'll try to convert the new place to their liking again.
and it makes perfect sense Cytos,
Companies and Rich people establish in cities where its cheap so they preserve most money,
They give people jobs, people then can consume products, increasing the local businesses, places can expand and hire more people, so people move there. In addition, with many people comes many taxes to collect, which the city can then use to support the people (and in liberal cities funnel money to help the "lessers")
End result is a big city.
But with a big city comes more costs, so taxes are added to compensate, meaning the initial businesses will be strained, and eventually it will be more profitable to move rather than endure.
Which then gets businesses in other states for example,
And with the rich gone, a chunk of tax money moves with it, so the "liberal" solution is to raise more taxes to make up for it, making the average people strained more, so they move too
Hence people flood away from cities
They flood to different cities
yes that
i meant cities as in the big lib ones, LA/NYC/DC etc
should've specified it more, my bad
Its a cycle... city gets too expensive, people move to a cheaper city, that city gets too expensive, people move to cheaper city...
Obviously „where is the work?“ has a massive influence on the cycle
as shown by the rust belt
its rather fascinating to watch that cycle. Like you can see a rich city become poor, then watch it become rich again.
yeah... problem is if it turns into too much of a shithole... scares away people even if its cheap
@Dr.Wol Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The government is WELL past overstepping it's constitutional power.
And you get detroit, thats still a shithole.
@RyeNorth Thats to prevent government from basically going "oh yeah, thats also punishable but we didn't write it so shucks for you"
I was merely joking about there not being a 2nd amendment for automobiles "You have the right to cruise around" or something 😛
The reactionary bell breaks.
saywut?
Driving is a privilege, not a right, hence the license requirement. Defense is a right, which therefore should require no license, hence the Second Amendment.
Driving is not a right, but traveling or freedom of movement is. A car is simply a tool used to enhance that right. You can defend yourself with your hands, a gun is just a tool to enhance that right. Is it not possible to have someone who is so careless with their handling of a gun that they have proven themselves such a danger to other people that they should not be allowed to keep their firearms? At what point does one person's right to self defense trump another person's right to self defense? I've seen and know people who are unfit to own a firearm and it could be argued that taking their weapon away is a form of self-defense, one that is a better alternative to shooting them the next time they don't check their back stop and nearly shoot me.
I'm not seeing anything in the Bill of Rights about freedom of movement. Could you point me to which amendment contains a recognition of that right, explicitly?
Meanwhile, the Second Amendment says shall not be infringed.
i think the main reason for that is that 1776 was a bit before automobiles
and as for a driving license
Who should be entrusted with the authority to judge whether someone be careless? Who says whether someone be unfit to own a firearm?
It wasn't all that long ago that homosexuality was regarded as a mental illness. Should we then restrict people who have an alleged mental illness from owning and bearing arms?
society as a whole should, and be moderate about it
If you give the government power to decide, they can declare being conservative a mental illness and take away guns
If you give the people the power to decide, it becomes mob rule
also the 2nd amendment must be preserved at all costs
The vast majority of people who own firearms are very responsible with them. Should we then deny them their rights because of a minority of people who have committed crimes using firearms?
Group punishment?