Is anyone else a second amendment absolutist?

[Kutnupe14]

My absolutism can't go beyond the constitution. So as written within that context, I am a 2A absolutist. It doesn't give you a right to murder people with your right to keep and bear arms.

Let's say I have $150, and the gun I want is $150. I go to gun store and attempt the purchase the gun. The clerk tells me the price is $151, including tax. Shouldn't an absolutist think this is an infringement?

 

[jamil]

Oh, hahah

I even thought, "Wow. I didn't THINK I was crabby... maybe I was...."

Don't get me started on how "absolute value" only works in one direction....

I like math. Kinda. Well. Mostly. I mean, there's some math I hate. I hate all math that makes me think too hard.

We could talk about language and meaning if you'd like. Saying you're 99.9999% an absolutist is not saying you are an absolutist. It's like saying you're 99.9% a dick. I'm told no one's like 100% a dick. It's just saying you're pretty close to being one (rhetorically "you" of course). So don't get too hung up on people saying they're 99.9999% an absolutist.

But please do go on about how "absolute value" only works in one direction. It could be an interesting discussion.

 

[jamil]

Let's say I have $150, and the gun I want is $150. I go to gun store and attempt the purchase the gun. The clerk tells me the price is $151, including tax. Shouldn't an absolutist think this is an infringement?

I don't think that's a grey area if that's what you're saying. You have a right to keep and bear arms. You don't have a right to pay the price you want. Who infringed on what constitutional right here? You may have a civil case if the laws are written such that the price tag is a contract. But what if they accidentally had the wrong price tag on it?

 

[T.Lex]

What do you get after finding the absolute value? A positive number.

If you start with a positive number, then you just have a positive number.

If you start with a negative number, then you have a positive number.

The whole system is rigged against half of the numbers!

(Wait. What thread is this?)

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't think that's a grey area if that's what you're saying. You have a right to keep and bear arms. You don't have a right to pay the price you want. Who infringed on what constitutional right here? You may have a civil case if the laws are written such that the price tag is a contract. But what if they accidentally had the wrong price tag on it?

It's not a grey area; at least not for an absolutist. Legislatures pass law to create taxes. The exchange of the money for the firearm is acceptable by both buyer and seller, but since govt has passed a law assessing a tax on the item I wish to buy, I am hindered from obtaining the firearm. If you're an absolutist, then you should have issue with such an instance.

 

[jamil]

What do you get after finding the absolute value? A positive number.

If you start with a positive number, then you just have a positive number.

If you start with a negative number, then you have a positive number.

The whole system is rigged against half of the numbers!

(Wait. What thread is this?)

I thought that was where you were going with it. I am entertained.

 

[jamil]

It's not a grey area; at least not for an absolutist. Legislatures pass law to create taxes. The exchange of the money for the firearm is acceptable by both buyer and seller, but since govt has passed a law assessing a tax on the item I wish to buy, I am hindered from obtaining the firearm. If you're an absolutist, then you should have issue with such an instance.

You're not prohibited from owning the firearm. Circumstances preventing you from making the purchase you want isn't infringement.

But why didn't you say the dollar was for taxes? I took it at face value that the dude raised the price on him, because that's the details you gave. Hell. I want to go to that gun store if they're only charging a dollar tax on a $150 purchase. Wonder what the tax is on a Sig p220 in 10mm.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You're not prohibited from owning the firearm. Circumstances preventing you from making the purchase you want isn't infringement.

But why didn't you say the dollar was for taxes? I took it at face value that the dude raised the price on him, because that's the details you gave. Hell. I want to go to that gun store if they're only charging a dollar tax on a $150 purchase. Wonder what the tax is on a Sig p220 in 10mm.

I said "including," not "plus," tax. It seemed obvious to me that the $1 was the tax. Anyways, the "circumstances preventing" the purchase were installed via law, created by a legislative body. Looking back on the text of the Second, I do not see how an "absolutist" would see this as acceptable. A reasonable person, obviously would, but not an absolutist... well not one that actually understood what the word "absolute" meant.

 

[T.Lex]

I thought that was where you were going with it. I am entertained.

That's what I'm here for.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

What do you get after finding the absolute value? A positive number.

If you start with a positive number, then you just have a positive number.

If you start with a negative number, then you have a positive number.

The whole system is rigged against half of the numbers!

(Wait. What thread is this?)

Hey! Work your side of the street. Leave math to the experts before you hurt yourself.

 

[T.Lex]

Hey! Work your side of the street. Leave math to the experts before you hurt yourself.

Freedom for Gimbals!

 

[BugI02]

What do you get after finding the absolute value? A positive number.

If you start with a positive number, then you just have a positive number.

If you start with a negative number, then you have a positive number.

The whole system is rigged against half of the numbers!

(Wait. What thread is this?)

One way to think of absolute value is as the scalar of a vector on the co-ordinate space (doesn't have to be 2D). It just represents the magnitude of the displacement from the origin, and as such gives a definite value for purely positive functions as well

 

[jbombelli]

Long live Rafael Bombelli!

 

[jamil]

I said "including," not "plus," tax. It seemed obvious to me that the $1 was the tax. Anyways, the "circumstances preventing" the purchase were installed via law, created by a legislative body. Looking back on the text of the Second, I do not see how an "absolutist" would see this as acceptable. A reasonable person, obviously would, but not an absolutist... well not one that actually understood what the word "absolute" meant.

Sometimes absolutism is reasonable.

Anyway, to breach "infringement" you're requiring that something should be seen as something else. I just don't think of sales tax as a prohibition.

Now, if there was an extra tax imposed specifically for guns or ammunition, for the purpose of making them prohibitively expensive, then I'd say that's gun control and I'd see that as an infringement. And that's been proposed by many politicians, and has been implemented in more progressive states. Avec, before becoming shootered, wanted to heavily tax certain calibers of ammunition to make them prohibitively expensive. That's gun control. I see that as an infringement.

Now, if that's what you were getting at with your scenario, you should have just said so.

 

[jamil]

Hey! Work your side of the street. Leave math to the experts before you hurt yourself.

I think common core will eventually fix the thing T.Lex is complaining about.

Positives numbers are privileged.

Negatives numbers are oppressed.

We need numerical justice. We need equal outcomes with both sides of the equation. Greater than/less than is problematic and should be eliminated. Well, except that we should acknowledge positive privilege which gives the fair outcome of negative > positive. It's because of intersectional negativism. If you're not an intersectional negativist, that makes you a positivist bigot who hates the negatives.

Positives should check their privilege.

 

[jamil]

One way to think of absolute value is as the scalar of a vector on the co-ordinate space (doesn't have to be 2D). It just represents the magnitude of the displacement from the origin, and as such gives a definite value for purely positive functions as well

Check your privilege positivist! You're not considering the intersections of negative oppression. It's bad enough just to be a negative. But try being a negative irrational. Huh? Try living as a negative under that oppressive line. Oh. And try living YOUR life as i^2=-1? Dude, you've not seen that kind of oppression. I think you should consider how the other side of zero lives and how the intersections of oppression magnifies the difficulties of negative displacements from zero. So you just check your positive privilege before speaking about displacements at all. And speaking of that, even mentioning such things is numerical appropriation.

 

[Spear Dane]

I think common core will eventually fix the thing T.Lex is complaining about.

Positives numbers are privileged.

Negatives numbers are oppressed.

We need numerical justice. We need equal outcomes with both sides of the equation. Greater than/less than is problematic and should be eliminated. Well, except that we should acknowledge positive privilege which gives the fair outcome of negative > positive. It's because of intersectional negativism. If you're not an intersectional negativist, that makes you a positivist bigot who hates the negatives.

Positives should check their privilege.

Are you assuming my sign????? I am sign fluid. And what about the poor, forgotten imaginary's?

 

[HenryWallace]

Why are there no hair splitting or soapbox imojis (SP) on this site?

 

[jamil]

Are you assuming my sign????? I am sign fluid. And what about the poor, forgotten imaginary's?

Ug. I'm so sorry. I miss-signed you. I shall do 50 privilege checks as penance. But I did address imaginaries above as perhaps one of the most oppressed intersections of negative oppression: i^2=-1. Definitely that one is sign-fluid.

 

[jamil]

Ug. I'm so sorry. I miss-signed you. I shall do 50 privilege checks as penance. But I did address imaginaries above as perhaps one of the most oppressed intersections of negative oppression: i^2=-1. Definitely that one is sign-fluid.

ETA: because of my positive guilt, as part of my penance for miss-signing you, you can have my teddy bear in the safe space.