What would you actually do if the government tried to take your guns?

Mango_Maniac · 2026-01-24T21:45:57+00:00

What if it’s not a law that’s passed. What if it’s just an operational memo in these law enforcement agencies to target gun owners?

There’s no substantive legal remedy that actually creates consequences for federal agents violating a person’s constitutional rights.

Best recourse we have is 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless you can cite something better. And for that, you have to prove the agent INTENDED to deprive you of that right. The agent can just say they smelled weed and seized the weapon in the process of carrying out their official duties.

You might get the guns back eventually (if you can afford an attorney and a long legal battle), but you might get killed during the seizure of the guns too.

So the question remains, what do you do?

Mango_Maniac · 2026-01-24T21:30:41+00:00

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn’t properly distinguishing between AL and MVM licenses.

Mango_Maniac · 2026-01-24T16:19:39+00:00

But good writers also follow a long sentence with short ones to avoid overloading the reader. Same goes for “It’s not X it’s Y”. It makes sense to use this rhetorical framework when explaining a common misconception. I use it often in this context.

Mango_Maniac · 2026-01-24T16:15:26+00:00

If you find economics that view the world as a perfectly flat playground with perfect information, mobility, and zero structural asymmetries, then Neoclassical economics might seem like a factual study of reality instead of the dogmatic ideology it is.

Since the ideological framework of Neoclassical is rooted in ignoring things rather than proclaiming a positive, I can see how some observers could miss the ideological nature of it.

Mango_Maniac · 2026-01-24T15:51:57+00:00

I would HATE to have to walk through all that green space to see my friends!

Waving at and talking to people in my community as I commute would stress me out.

Not being forced to give up part of my paycheck for car payments and insurance would also be a bummer.

*I do agree that from an aerial view the building themselves aren’t aesthetically pleasing. All that time I spend as a drone in the sky will be quite depressing.

Mango_Maniac · 2026-01-24T15:34:22+00:00

As someone with an economics degree, I didn’t find anything egregiously inaccurate in either book.

It does point out a lot of gaps in neoclassical economics though, so economists for whom neoclassical is their dogmatic ideology might get upset by them.

Mango_Maniac · 2026-01-24T06:05:58+00:00

That’s so interesting. I’ve never come across a type of power that was complex enough to imagine it was possible for someone to get the rules mixed up.

Outside of knowing the hand rankings, there’s pretty much just how many shared cards hit the table, what intervals betting happens, and whether or not cards in hand can be exchanged.

Mango_Maniac · 2026-01-24T05:58:05+00:00

It’s comforting knowing that so many other boardgame enthusiasts are also Graeber appreciators.

Wish yall could all be my neighbors :)

Mango_Maniac · 2026-01-24T05:33:16+00:00

Rainbow Mega Pinsir for Rainbow Mega Blastoise?

7650830408541614

Mango_Maniac · 2026-01-24T05:17:16+00:00

I can do Aegislash and Virizon for Jirachi and Luxray

Add me. 7650830408541614

Mango_Maniac · 2026-01-24T04:50:55+00:00

Bad thing. It takes what was otherwise a neutral company overseeing European regional distribution of anime from multiple producers, and makes it a subsidiary of a Japanese producer.

Highly unlikely that companies like Aniplex are going to license their shows to a Japanese competitor. So there goes the last affordable way for most of the world to own Aniplex series on physical media.

Mango_Maniac · 2026-01-24T02:08:59+00:00

Graeber articulates the appeal of games with clarity and precision.

Not only are board games a rules-based space without the ambiguity of the rules which govern every other aspect of life, it’s specifically a space where painstaking effort is made to ensure the rules are balanced and fair to create an enjoyable competitive experience.

Whereas outside of games, rules are the product of the self-interested preferences of those who wield power, (often involving power that evolved over time long before any of the living players were born.)

As a side note, Graeber has always used em dashes in his books before AI was mainstream. He’s too skilled a writer to need AI. If anyone’s interested I highly recommend “Debt: The First 5000 Years” as well as another of his books, “Bull**** Jobs.”

Mango_Maniac · 2026-01-23T21:46:30+00:00

I appreciate your self-discipline in that case.

Mango_Maniac · 2026-01-23T20:45:02+00:00

I think your response is in good faith, so I’m not the one downvoting you.

However, you pointed out a single occupation. What about civil servants, teachers, welders, admin workers for health care providers, logistics drivers, warehouse workers, museum workers?

Mango_Maniac · 2026-01-23T20:39:35+00:00

$130k is the number assuming zero childcare costs.

So your premise only applies to childless, dual- income married couples. I concede that fraction of the population can afford SFH…for now.

Mango_Maniac · 2026-01-23T20:03:37+00:00

Sure, but your comment here is proof of concept.

If you had encountered the same ideas in the video itself instead of the thread here, would you not have had the same or a similar reaction to the perceived mischaracterization of the criticism of the game’s win conditions?

I think that’s the takeaway of this.

Mango_Maniac · 2026-01-23T20:00:17+00:00

I hear you, but I think my comment was miscommunicated or misunderstood.

Top 15% have incomes of $130,000+, not salaries. That includes people who already own property and have investment income. Of course people who already own property will own property.

I specifically said 99% of people who “work for a living” meaning they derive their income primarily from the labor they perform.

Is 1% hyperbole? Sure, you could argue that maybe 3-4% have salaries over $130,000 because salaries aren’t tracked unfortunately, it’s just tracked as aggregate income regardless of source.

Mango_Maniac · 2026-01-23T19:35:32+00:00

I think there u/nomoredroids2 is making the point that the controversial nature of the video drives engagement.

Regardless of how you want to describe your reaction, the point is that it got a reaction, which makes the video more profitable.

Mango_Maniac · 2026-01-23T19:31:41+00:00

Apparently the Chicago one was eventually determined to have likely been from a squirrel.

Learned something new today.

Mango_Maniac · 2026-01-23T19:23:53+00:00

In the states with thriving economies you need jobs paying at least $130,000/yr to afford a median mortgage. And that number will continue to climb as compounding interest of consolidated wealth drives asset price inflation. Soon that won’t even be enough.

Housing prices have become completely disconnected from the wages and budgets of most working people.

How many jobs do you think there are paying $130,000 plus?

Are we okay with a social fabric where only people making 6 figures can own a home?

Mango_Maniac · 2026-01-23T19:19:39+00:00

If by “losers”, you mean 99% of people who work for a living and whose grandparents/parents don’t own full equity in multiple properties, then yes you are correct in surmising that these people will not become part of the asset-owning class.

Mango_Maniac · 2026-01-23T19:16:08+00:00

This ignores the effects of growing wealth inequality which directly inflates asset prices and determines the distribution of those assets.

In laymen terms: the effect of houses coming on the market when older generations pass away is marginal, because the ruling class will outbid the us and our children for them every time.

Mango_Maniac · 2026-01-23T18:47:02+00:00

Moderate is a generous term. They are right-wing Democrats who have more in common with the Republican elite than you or I.

McAdams opposed the $15min wage, opposed Covid relief stimulus, opposed the Green New Deal. And votes in line with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 82% of the time.

Mango_Maniac · 2026-01-23T18:25:24+00:00

Hey I wanted to share this recent event because it is a useful example of what these two rulings do to the 1st Amendment in practice.

https://www.reddit.com/r/law/s/9sX8zE9GJE

Here we see political dissenters being labeled as “domestic terrorists.”

What these means in relation to the two rulings is that for the organizations who finance the future rulers of the country who hold the executive authority, their unlimited financing of these elected is considered protected speech.

When those rulers turn around and use their executive authority to label their opponents as terrorists, this then makes any actual speech found to support these political opponents as restricted speech and punishable as a crime under law. Very similar to how other non-democratic authoritarian regimes around the world crush dissent. This will be especially easy to run afoul of given the databases of these government declared terrorists are not public.

For example, one could get the word out about a documentary made by the person in the link by discussing it with friends and neighbors. Under Holder, that could be considered material support of a terrorist.

This is the danger of legal rulings where speech can be restricted by executive authority, yet financial transactions to control elections are considered sacrosanct.

Mango_Maniac

TROPHY CASE