All Things Second Amendment

[Town Heretic]

If you take a terrorist organization as a group of people who both commit atrocities against innocent people, and then make demands, promising that they'll stop the atrocities when their demands are met, and you separate that cluster of people between those who commit the atrocities, and those who make the demands, then you've got the dispute we're dealing with here in the US wrt gun control and gun laws and the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms.

"Negotiating with terrorists works."

It doesn't.

That was a steaming pile of subjective valuation and characterization signifying nada.

Meanwhile, every nation with the laws I support does a markedly, dramatically better job at limiting the impact of gun violence and safeguarding its citizens. And that doesn't depend on me for its existence.

 

[Idolater]

That was a steaming pile of subjective valuation and characterization signifying nada.

And that, was a declaration.

Meanwhile, every nation with the laws I support does a markedly, dramatically better job at limiting the impact of gun violence and safeguarding its citizens.

As a classical liberal who believes that the purpose of law and of government is not primarily to protect citizens bodily but to protect human rights first and foremost, and that among those human rights is the right to bear arms (my "God," not yours; supra http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Second-Amendment/page10&p=5349261#post5349261), all you're saying is that negotiating with terrorists works. If we do what they want, they'll stop. Look at all the other countries who negotiated with their terrorists, after all.

And that doesn't depend on me for its existence.

OK.

 

[Town Heretic]

And that, was a declaration.

Sure, though how you'd defend it as something other than a prima facie case made by anyone reading it. The terms and how you divide them are neither inherently descriptive or necessary as an operation of logic.

As a classical liberal who believes that the purpose of law and of government is not primarily to protect citizens bodily but to protect human rights first and foremost

The idea that it's an either/or is a false dichotomy in no part dictated by reason. That is, you are not reduced to a position by logical necessity that government may protect rights OR the people who exercise them as a primary end. If fact, if you held the position that the people are subordinate to the rights that are only meaningful when exercised by the people, you have the same problem the priests who confused the point of the Sabbath had, for the reason set in the earlier part of this response.

Or, if that is too difficult for anyone, rights are meaningless without people and so demonstrably exist to serve them and their interests, not the other way round.

all you're saying is that negotiating with terrorists works.

I'm not in any way saying that because I don't in any sense accept that your above is reasonable as descriptions go.

Rather, it is precisely and only what I set out without ambiguity, your attempt at reinvention notwithstanding.

So, we can eliminate a gun that is dangerous and unusual from the stream of commerce to promote a similar atmosphere found in our Western cousins, whose loss of life is markedly less than our own from gun violence, or we can continue to fail to protect our children, parishioners, neighbors, and give the gun lobby more time to attempt to normalize possession of the weapon.

 

[Stripe]

You self-evidently don't have much of a grasp of the law on point and are equally unfamiliar with the nation.

You have no idea what the law is or what it is for. You think the regulations that the US implemented are the law.

That's not exactly a great position from which to opine meaningfully.

It's not your heritage, it's that you proffer from ignorance.

But you won't quote me addressing a topic. You'll just pretend that when I speak of the law, I'm referring to US regulations.

You have no idea what the law is or what it's for.

Hint: It does not require one to be in the US or have attended school.

You disparage those who don't.

You deserve it. :up:

Guess what? This isn't one of those.

Coward.

You need a new hobby. Preferably one where you learn how to do a thing before you try to do it.

The ones you neither know nor understand, along with the caselaw, etc. Right. lain: I can see how you'd have to do that.

You have no idea what the law is or what it is for.

Let everyone know when you go down to the seashore to command the waves. It should be entertaining.

This is just something Town does when he can't think to do much else.

I've corrected him a couple of times.

:rotfl:

So, that was Town claiming a prima facie case without pointing to what makes it inarguably true. Instead, he just throws another unsupported declaration on the pile.

Meanwhile, and more seriously, in Dayton, Ohio, a man with an AR was shot and killed by a trained good guy with a gun, who responded quickly, dropping the fellow in about 30 seconds. The criminal still managed to kill nine people and wound a couple of dozen more.

And you want to reduce the ability of good people to respond.

In Australia, yesterday, a man who couldn't legally purchase one of those or easily purchase any, took a knife and killed a person. He wounded another. Then other people along the street where he was prowling subdued him and held him for the police. Gun laws work.

When you ban cars, traffic fatalities fall.

 

[ok doser]

3000 people died because some guys got their hands on boxcutters

 

[ok doser]

Then there's:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/mass-murder-without-guns/

 

[annabenedetti]

Actually, I'm using the standard of a court you don't have familiarity with in a nation you have even less concerning on a topic you couldn't be more wrong about.

:chuckle:

Great post overall, but this was my favorite part.

Thanks for your general excellence throughout the thread, I'm glad you were here.

 

[Town Heretic]

:chuckle:

Great post overall, but this was my favorite part.

Thanks for your general excellence throughout the thread, I'm glad you were here.

Likewise...ready to blow the joint for a bit?

I hear there's a twofer at Denny's...seriously, is that like your state restaurant?

Is there a law requiring a Denny's at some regular interval or something?

I can't get over it. :chew:

Coco's was swell though.

 

[annabenedetti]

Likewise...ready to blow the joint for a bit?

I hear there's a twofer at Denny's...seriously, is that like your state restaurant?

Is there a law requiring a Denny's at some regular interval or something?

I can't get over it. :chew:

Coco's was swell though.

There's not that many... :chuckle:

 

[Idolater]

And for a very specific purpose - "the security of a free state"

Yeah, and what's a "free state?" Is it Anarchy? God no. Liberty and freedom is the battle cry of classical liberalism. Nobody thought rights existed that authorized you to steal someone's rights, who hadn't already stolen someone else's rights. Doing otherwise is unjust and wrong and evil and wicked on its face. Preposterous to think that our founders were anarchists. They fought the Revolution! What anarchist thinks being a troop of a country is justified anarchist behavior, if fighting the Revolution was anarchy or even anarchy-adjacent, it was wrong, flatly.

The American Revolution was right. The Civil War, the War of Northern Aggression, was right. WWII was right. They are each replications of the original. It's the reason I break rank from my otherwise party, of modern, "Ron Paul" libertarians. They're wrong on the Civil War, the War of Northern Aggression. It was right and just. And Abraham Lincoln was the finest practitioner of the founders' own philosophy of classical liberalism to ever occupy the presidency. He murdered 650,000 Americans because of classical liberalism. Untold dead in the Revolution and WWII. All because of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is worth dying for, which is a sacrifice of your inalienable right to life, which is what this dispute is all about.

In America, we live and breathe and eat and sleep and die, classical liberalism. We jihadistly sacrifice our lives for human rights! We do it so Muslims' right to practice Islam is defended! So that lgbt+ people's right to fornicate is protected! And so that women's right to dress like a whore is recognized and affirmed! Absolutely, it appears insane sometimes, from certain Unamerican viewpoints, but this is what America always was, we were born from people, our ancestors, those first Americans, who died on purpose for freedom and liberty, which is the same as hardcore classical liberalism. Just like hardcore Nazism, or hardcore Stalinism; there's death, but that blood in America is for freedom and liberty, for all everywhere, and for our future. Those first Americans who died for rights like the right to bear arms, their blood was shed for me. And for you. And even for non-Americans; it doesn't matter. America is for humans, classical liberalism is human; it is for humans.

Is that enough 'entendres?'

 

[Idolater]

...The Court recognizes that dangerous and unusual weapons aren't protected....

The Court very helpfully also clarifies what this means.

The short answer is that every gun is "dangerous," and so since guns are protected by the Second Amendment, therefore no guns can be restricted due to it failing a "dangerous and unusual" test, which any weapon must fail, to be Constitutionally banned.

And the AR and AK pattern semiautos, et al., are obviously not "unusual" in any meaning of that word anyway, but it doesn't matter, since they can never be determined to be "dangerous" for the purpose of a test for "dangerous and unusual" weapons, which are the only weapons you could argue, according to current S. Ct. caselaw, can be Constitutionally banned.

 

[Stripe]

Ready to blow the joint for a bit?

Don't let the door hit yous in the butt on the way out.

 

[ok doser]

The Court very helpfully also clarifies what this means.

The short answer is that every gun is "dangerous," and so since guns are protected by the Second Amendment, therefore no guns can be restricted due to it failing a "dangerous and unusual" test, which any weapon must fail, to be Constitutionally banned.

And the AR and AK pattern semiautos, et al., are obviously not "unusual" in any meaning of that word anyway, but it doesn't matter, since they can never be determined to be "dangerous" for the purpose of a test for "dangerous and unusual" weapons, which are the only weapons you could argue, according to current S. Ct. caselaw, can be Constitutionally banned.

the second amendment, as written, did not exclude "unusual" or "dangerous" weapons.

Surely there existed, in 1791, weapons that were dangerous?
Howitzers? Cannon?

Weapons that were unusual?
Fully armed man of war?

none of these were excluded



and in the context of the original intent, to ensure an armed population familiar with weaponry, ready to be formed into militias to resist any force that threatened the security of a free state whether internal or external, it seems clear that the intent was that the people were expected (required?) to keep and bear those arms that would be necessary to resist an opposing force

 

[ok doser]

by the way, nothing in there about hunting, or collecting, or target shooting, or home defense

no, the people's right, which was not to be infringed (note the lack of qualifiers) was to ensure an armed and trained (well regulated) population able to resist tyranny

 

[ok doser]

Then there's:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/mass-murder-without-guns/

couldn't cut and paste the text i wanted with my handheld, but here's the article:

Mass Murder without Guns We’re focusing on the wrong thing. There is much focus this week on the role of guns in mass murders. But the history of such atrocities teaches us that other methods can be just as effective. I am currently creating an encyclopedia of mass murder in America and have catalogued 504 incidents so far. Common methods used throughout our history include axes, hatchets, blunt objects, knives, hanging, drowning, poison gas, poison, fire, and aircraft (and not just on 9/11). Some of the rarer weapons demonstrate that where there is an evil will, there is a way. Scythes. Blowtorches. Of course, the axes and hatchets were around because they were needed in an age when people cooked over wood stoves. I can imagine axe-control fanatics in 1890 arguing that “an axe in your home is more likely to be used against you than against an intruder.” And perhaps it would have been true: The “Church of the Sacrifice” slaughtered dozens of families with their own axes in the early 20th century. Even today, there are a lot of non-firearm mass murders in America: In USA Today’s collection of mass murders for the period 2006 to 2017, nearly a quarter were done without guns. And most of them you have probably not heard about because they do not advance the Left’s cause of disarming the peasants. There’s the 1973 mass murder at a gay bar in New Orleans that killed 32: An ejected customer went down the street and bought a can of cigarette-lighter fluid. And the 87 murdered in New York City in 1990: A guy upset with his ex-girlfriend bought $1 worth of gasoline. In 1986 in San Juan, Puerto Rico, union officers put pressure on an employer by using camp-stove gas to murder 97. On July 5 of this year, a guy in Port Angeles, Wash., burned his trailer, killing his wife and three children. Did you see that on CNN? Nations with strict gun-control laws still have mass murders. One man stabbed to death five people with a kitchen knife at a Calgary party. After the 1996 Port Arthur mass murder, Australia banned most semiautomatic rifles, but they still have mass murders: eight siblings killed in a mass stabbing in Queensland; five bludgeoned to death in Sydney in 2009. Mass murders by arson are also a problem in such countries. Palace Backpackers Hostel in Childers, Queensland, was intentionally burned in 2000, killing 15. The 2011 Quakers Hill Nursing Home fire killed eleven, set by a nurse after police questioned him about drug abuse. Japan has mass murders. In 1995, a sarin poison-gas attack killed 13 and injured many more. In 2016, a former employee of a nursing home stabbed to death 19 of the patients. Eight students were stabbed to death at an Osaka school in 2001. A combination vehicle/stabbing incident killed seven in Tokyo in 2008. A father burned his wife and five children to death in Tokyo in 2017. Last month, 35 died when a man set fire to an anime studio. China, another society with very strict gun laws, also has mass murders. A 2014 terrorist knife attack in Kunming left 33 dead and 143 injured. A series of school attacks in the early 2010s killed at least 25 in total; while not all of these school attacks were mass murders (five or more killed in one attack), some meet the criteria: eight schoolchildren murdered with a knife in Nanping in March 2010; nine murdered in Hanzhong with a meat cleaver in May 2010. Explosive mass murders have also been common: 22 with explosives in Manchester, England, in 2017. Two terrorists killed 33 people at an airport and subway station in Brussels with bombs. There have also been motor-vehicle mass murders in Europe and Australia: 84 murdered with a truck in Nice, France; 12 in Berlin, Germany; five in Stockholm; 13 in Barcelona, Spain; eight by truck and knives in London. While these were terrorist mass murders, others have been mental-health-related, such as an attack in Melbourne, Australia, that killed six. In the U.S., the core problem underlying most mass murders is people with severe mental illness, who in 1960 would have hospitalized before chalk marks had to be drawn around bodies. If we solve the mental-illness issue, the guns do not matter. And focusing on the guns directs the severely mentally ill to other weapons.

 

[Town Heretic]

Just to underscore a previous point, this is our resident grammarian in action:

Don't let the door hit yous in the butt on the way out.

So that's funny right there...unless he's from Jersey, in which case it's funnier. Otherwise it should be "you" and on, not "in" the butt, unless you have really peculiar and invasive doors where you come from.

Okay, back to the funny papers.

You have no idea what the law is or what it is for

That's him doubling down of the previously noted habit of declaring himself a thing he cannot in any sense demonstrate himself to be empirically, while attempting to marginalize by that same subjective means anyone who actually knows what they're talking about.

You think the regulations that the US implemented are the law.

Stripe doesn't understand the laws or Court findings on the topic here, as noted prior. It makes him testy.

That's not exactly a great position from which to opine meaningfully.

And that's Stripe doing the parroting form without function or attribution thing I noted.

But you won't quote me addressing a topic. You'll just pretend that when I speak of the law, I'm referring to US regulations.

Well, the conversation is about the 2nd Amendment (see: the OP and literally every remark I've made that Stripe tried to respond regarding) and a move to change laws here.

Hint: It does not require one to be in the US or have attended school.

If there's one thing Stripe has given actual and ample proof of it is that you don't need to know anything to comment on something (get your crackers handy).

Coward.

He's a bit temperamental too.

You need a new hobby. Preferably one where you learn how to do a thing before you try to do it.

And that's Stripe doing the parroting form without function or attribution thing I noted.

Let everyone know when you go down to the seashore to command the waves. It should be entertaining.

And that's Stripe doing the parroting form without function or attribution thing I noted.

This is just something Town does when he can't think to do much else.

And that's Stripe doing the parroting form without function or attribution thing I noted.

:rotfl:

And that is actual Stripe commentary. lain:

So, that was Town claiming a prima facie case without pointing to what makes it inarguably true. Instead, he just throws another unsupported declaration on the pile.

And that's Stripe doing the parroting form without function or attribution thing I noted.

Seriously, if you remove the parroting misuse and smilies he'd mostly look like a mime around here.

And you want to reduce the ability of good people to respond.

No, but it's like Stripe to declare a thing he can't argue into existence. Nothing in my position reduces the ability of people to respond. What it will reduce is the likelihood of someone doing what the man in Dayton, Ohio (that's a state in my country) managed to do despite two good and professionally trained men with guns stopping him in about 30 seconds, which is still killing nine people and wounding dozens more.

Because that's the problem of the AR and the thing that makes it unusual and dangerous. Well, that and the fact that most people don't own one. Idol is wrong in his declarations about the Court when it comes to guns and those terms, by the way, to kill two birds with a post.

In a radical departure from precedent, the 5-4 split, the Court did not, in fact, give indirect carte blanche under the 2nd Amendment to the owners of ARs, as it held in Heller that the 2nd should not be understood as conferring a “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” The Court provided examples of laws it considered “presumptively lawful,” including those which:

• Prohibit firearm possession by felons and the mentally ill;
• Forbid firearm possession in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings; and
• Impose conditions on the commercial sale of firearms.

Also, the Court noted this list (and the third leg gives states a great deal of ability to restrict) wasn't exhaustive AND that it was consistent with laws addressing dangerous and unusual weapons not in common use. Again, that's why the gun industry has been pumping these things and lowering prices. It's a race. A human one.

When you ban cars, traffic fatalities fall.

Stripe is right here, but doesn't seem to understand the application of that principle. When you ban Pintos people don't die as often from rear end collisions. Just so.

A Pinto was a mass produced car in my country that was demonstrated to be unsafe in design and had an alarming tendency to explode when struck from behind. :thumb:

Ban ARs and large capacity magazines and you will dramatically impact the worst of mass shootings, which is the point after all.

The Court very helpfully also clarifies what this means.

The short answer is that every gun is "dangerous," and so since guns are protected by the Second Amendment, therefore no guns can be restricted due to it failing a "dangerous and unusual" test, which any weapon must fail, to be Constitutionally banned..

Supra.

Don't let the door hit yous in the butt on the way out.

I can see where Stripe would find arguing the point with no one arguing on the other side of it challenging enough.

 

[ok doser]

couldn't cut and paste the text i wanted with my handheld, but here's the article:

Mass Murder without Guns We’re focusing on the wrong thing. There is much focus this week on the role of guns in mass murders. But the history of such atrocities teaches us that other methods can be just as effective. I am currently creating an encyclopedia of mass murder in America and have catalogued 504 incidents so far. Common methods used throughout our history include axes, hatchets, blunt objects, knives, hanging, drowning, poison gas, poison, fire, and aircraft (and not just on 9/11). Some of the rarer weapons demonstrate that where there is an evil will, there is a way. Scythes. Blowtorches. Of course, the axes and hatchets were around because they were needed in an age when people cooked over wood stoves. I can imagine axe-control fanatics in 1890 arguing that “an axe in your home is more likely to be used against you than against an intruder.” And perhaps it would have been true: The “Church of the Sacrifice” slaughtered dozens of families with their own axes in the early 20th century. Even today, there are a lot of non-firearm mass murders in America: In USA Today’s collection of mass murders for the period 2006 to 2017, nearly a quarter were done without guns. And most of them you have probably not heard about because they do not advance the Left’s cause of disarming the peasants. There’s the 1973 mass murder at a gay bar in New Orleans that killed 32: An ejected customer went down the street and bought a can of cigarette-lighter fluid. And the 87 murdered in New York City in 1990: A guy upset with his ex-girlfriend bought $1 worth of gasoline. In 1986 in San Juan, Puerto Rico, union officers put pressure on an employer by using camp-stove gas to murder 97. On July 5 of this year, a guy in Port Angeles, Wash., burned his trailer, killing his wife and three children. Did you see that on CNN? Nations with strict gun-control laws still have mass murders. One man stabbed to death five people with a kitchen knife at a Calgary party. After the 1996 Port Arthur mass murder, Australia banned most semiautomatic rifles, but they still have mass murders: eight siblings killed in a mass stabbing in Queensland; five bludgeoned to death in Sydney in 2009. Mass murders by arson are also a problem in such countries. Palace Backpackers Hostel in Childers, Queensland, was intentionally burned in 2000, killing 15. The 2011 Quakers Hill Nursing Home fire killed eleven, set by a nurse after police questioned him about drug abuse. Japan has mass murders. In 1995, a sarin poison-gas attack killed 13 and injured many more. In 2016, a former employee of a nursing home stabbed to death 19 of the patients. Eight students were stabbed to death at an Osaka school in 2001. A combination vehicle/stabbing incident killed seven in Tokyo in 2008. A father burned his wife and five children to death in Tokyo in 2017. Last month, 35 died when a man set fire to an anime studio. China, another society with very strict gun laws, also has mass murders. A 2014 terrorist knife attack in Kunming left 33 dead and 143 injured. A series of school attacks in the early 2010s killed at least 25 in total; while not all of these school attacks were mass murders (five or more killed in one attack), some meet the criteria: eight schoolchildren murdered with a knife in Nanping in March 2010; nine murdered in Hanzhong with a meat cleaver in May 2010. Explosive mass murders have also been common: 22 with explosives in Manchester, England, in 2017. Two terrorists killed 33 people at an airport and subway station in Brussels with bombs. There have also been motor-vehicle mass murders in Europe and Australia: 84 murdered with a truck in Nice, France; 12 in Berlin, Germany; five in Stockholm; 13 in Barcelona, Spain; eight by truck and knives in London. While these were terrorist mass murders, others have been mental-health-related, such as an attack in Melbourne, Australia, that killed six. In the U.S., the core problem underlying most mass murders is people with severe mental illness, who in 1960 would have hospitalized before chalk marks had to be drawn around bodies. If we solve the mental-illness issue, the guns do not matter. And focusing on the guns directs the severely mentally ill to other weapons.

In a very real way, one can consider these mentally ill people akin to posters on the internet who are determined to have the last word before leaving this vale of tears

:think:

 

[Idolater]

the second amendment, as written, did not exclude "unusual" or "dangerous" weapons.

Right. That was 'an add-on' from subsequent judges.

Do you know how much power judges have, whenever cases 'fall between the cracks' in our law? They have autocratic power in such so-called "hard cases." And judges have proven throughout the centuries to possess no greater infallibility, nor less bias, than every other person. In "hard cases," judges actually are empowered to very nearly make up new law, according to whatever standard or principle or moral or philosophy that they personally prefer.

The advantage of a constitution is that We the People can interject our will right into "hard cases," and force judges to abide by our will. The only difficulty is that we require a super majority to instruct judges thusly. And wrt gun rights and self defense and the right to bear arms and the Second Amendment, we do not have any super majority one way or another, so we are at the mercy of our judges, especially and ultimately those on the S. Ct.

Surely there existed, in 1791, weapons that were dangerous?
Howitzers? Cannon?

Weapons that were unusual?
Fully armed man of war?

none of these were excluded



and in the context of the original intent, to ensure an armed population familiar with weaponry, ready to be formed into militias to resist any force that threatened the security of a free state whether internal or external, it seems clear that the intent was that the people were expected (required?) to keep and bear those arms that would be necessary to resist an opposing force

I find your reading of the Second Amendment to be reasonable.

 

[Town Heretic]

Speaking of temperamental, Stripe actually reported my asking anna if she wanted to blow/leave for a bit...get this, as a goodbye something or other.

That boy is wound too tightly.

Meanwhile, if we model our laws after established, superior examples that abound in other Western Industrial Democracies, we can share something else with them: a nation made safer from gun violence.

Or we can keep doing what we're doing and adding to the body count.

 

[Stripe]

Just to underscore a previous point, this is our resident grammarian in action:

So that's funny right there...unless he's from Jersey, in which case it's funnier. Otherwise it should be "you" and on, not "in" the butt, unless you have really peculiar and invasive doors where you come from.

I'm from New Zealand, dummy. I thought you liked accents. :idunno:

Oh, that's right. You think that it has to be American to be legitimate.

Okay, back to the funny papers.

Stripe doesn't understand the laws or Court findings on the topic here, as noted prior.

That's him doubling down o[n] the previously noted habit of declaring himself a thing he cannot in any sense demonstrate himself to be empirically, while attempting to marginalize by that same subjective means anyone who actually knows what they're talking about.

It makes him testy.

The conversation is about the 2nd Amendment (see: the OP and literally every remark I've made that Stripe tried to respond regarding) and a move to change laws here.

The second amendment is routinely ignored by people like you who justify sidelining it using poor statistics. :idunno:

If there's one thing Town has given actual and ample proof of it is that you don't need to know anything to comment on something.

He's a bit temperamental too.

And that's Stripe doing the parroting form without function or attribution thing I noted. And that's Stripe doing the parroting form without function or attribution thing I noted. And that's Stripe doing the parroting form without function or attribution thing I noted. And that's Stripe doing the parroting form without function or attribution thing I noted.

And that's Town being a parrot.

Seriously, if you remove the parroting misuse and logical fallacies, he'd mostly look like a mime around here.

It's like Town to declare a thing he can't argue into existence.

Nothing in my position reduces the ability of people to respond.

Just what they can respond with.

And we know that next on the list of things to ban when this crusade fails will be more things that good guys would use.

What it will reduce is the likelihood of someone doing what the man in Dayton, Ohio (that's a state in my country) managed to do despite two good and professionally trained men with guns stopping him in about 30 seconds, which is still killing nine people and wounding dozens more.

And you want to limit the response potential of the good guys. Had just one man with the courage to ignore the law been armed in Canterbury (that's a region in my country), dozens could have been saved.

Stripe is right here, but doesn't seem to understand the application of that principle. When you ban Pintos people don't die as often from rear end collisions. Just so.

Except that you used an example from places where guns are largely banned outright.

Did you forget?

Ban ARs and large capacity magazines and you will dramatically impact the worst of mass shootings, which is the point after all.

And you will do nothing to solve the problem, while further restricting liberty

I can see where Stripe would find arguing the point with no one arguing on the other side of it challenging enough.

So, you're not leaving now?