___
7mo ago
53 Year old Brian Malinowski was killed in an ATF raid. He was a director at the Clinton National Airport in Little Rock. (This airport was named for the Clintons but is unconnected to them personally so we can put our tinfoil hats away for now.) We have no body camera footage of the shooting, they claimed he fired at them and they fired back during their 6am raid.
The search warrant, partially redacted, was released to the public. In it we find they raided him due to his frequent activity of buying and selling firearms without the required FFL licence.
Selling your private gun collection without involving the state is something that has been legal in the US forever, but buying and selling as a business is not. The law is written such that Grandma may sell her deceased husbands musket collection without fear of state reprisal, but you cannot buy bulk AR's and distribute them to the local gang for a big profit. What counts as a business? How many guns can you sell from your collection before you cross the threshold? How fast can you turn around and sell a gun after you buy without fear of breaking the law? This law is ambiguous on this, it is what politicians have referred to as "The gun show loophole". The idea being that you can take your personal firearms and sell them at a gunshow booth (or anywhere) without having to do a background check on potential buyers.
Brian Malinowski is a novel case. He bought and sold 150 guns over a two year period, some of them sold fairly quickly after he purchased them. This was high enough to get him on the ATF's watch list - they tailed his vehicle and observed him at his job at the airport. His job seems unconnected to his firearm hobby as the warrant never accuses him of smuggling through the airport. It heavily implies this is what was happening, mentioning the airport frequently throughout the warrant, but they never suggest that he actually did. It does, however, mention his selling his collection through booths at a gun show to undercover ATF agents.
So what of downstream crimes that have occurred from Malinowski selling these firearms "off the books"? Here the ATF's case seems very weak. Out of the 150 guns sold, only 3 have been directly tied to crimes stated in the warrant. The crimes? All three are marijuana possession during routine traffic stops (marijuana still being very illegal and heavily policed in Arkansas). Personally I think this is extremely petty and very favorable to the late Malinowski's case. There is one other mention of an undercover informant in Canada having a photo of a firearm with a serial number that ties back to Malinowski, with no additional details given.
In my opinion, I believe Malinowski was technically legally in the right despite the high volume of sales. There is no indication he was attempting to profit from selling to criminals/gangs etc. Many people collect firearms and enjoy buying and selling them as others would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on motorcycles or pokemon cards. There is no law in Arkansas against purchasing a handgun and deciding you don't like it for whatever reason and selling it to your neighbor the next day. That said, Malinowski is reported to have been somewhat of an asshole by those who knew him, having previously lost a lawsuit in 2018 in which he sued someone over a mailbox in front of an empty lot after confronting them pretending to be an attorney. Given this and that he was on record stating that his activity was legally protected private collection sales when pressed, and the ATF suggests he continued his activity after he knew they were tailing him, I think it's highly probable he knew what he was doing and was intentionally skirting the boundary of the law in order to provoke a legal confrontation.
This is a good culture war inflection point in the gun control debate. Leftists can point this case as an example that the Gun Show Loophole is in fact, real, and is being exploited by so-called hobbyists selling bulk firearms. Rightist can point to rogue federal agencies abusing ambiguous laws in order to infringe 2A rights by routing around political representation.
*Disclaimer: IANAL etc.
___
10mo ago
hill people proud ignorance and shiftless rebellion against anyone who might have gotten any of that big city 'lernin.
Is this sort of demeaning caricature where we mock the accent of our outgroup and misapply the things they believe acceptable now? Because while the response you tagged wasn't great, at least he wasn't "we wuz kangz n sheeit" posting.
___
1yr ago
You might be interested to know that in 1953, the then world record grizzly bear was killed by 63 year old women with a single shot .22 held together with duct tape.
___
1yr ago
Someone suggested to me they believed switching from revolvers to pistols in the police force was a mistake, that having fewer, higher caliber bullets ready to shoot had a psychological effect on police officers that translated to fewer missed shots, fewer bystander fatalities, and more deliberate, accurate shooting on behalf of the officers.
I've never been able to find any concrete data on this, and I'm not sure if it's true or just something the person made up after watching Dirty Harry.
___
1yr ago
Sure, that's a valid point, but in practice recognition is largely enforced through whatever borders a polity is capable of maintaining militarily (or having another nation maintain on their behalf). South Vietnam and South Korea are good examples of this playing out post WWII, their differing outcomes being a result of how their respective wars played out. Had Russia enough power to project their will, it's not clear to me that the rest of the world wouldn't just quietly drop recognition of Ukraine, since it wouldn't serve any benefit to them. (Thankfully for Eastern Europe, this doesn't seem to be the case.)
For the CSA's part, every other country remained neutral. CSA had powerful trading partners in Britain and France and they opted to wait to see how it played out, not wanting to upset trade deals with an emerging nation in the event of a CSA victory, or hurting relations with the Union by backing a rebellion in the event of a CSA loss. This is a similar diplomatic stance that the US held towards Europe as well, attempting to remain neutral as possible in 19th century European wars.
___
1yr ago
My point is that we didn't end up in a world that was opposed to boat tipping on principle, but rather other effects came into play that made tipping the boat a generally undesirable activity. In other words, I think you are mistaking description for prescription.
The evidence for this is that modern society venerates people who conquered and annexed their outgroup using very similar rhetoric to Putin, and I believe they would very likely do it again if the situation allowed for it.
___
1yr ago
The point can be made without bringing Lincoln into it. If you were to poll liberals and ask "Nation A finds out their neighbor Nation B is has been raiding and enlsaving members of a foreign nation. Do you think it is morally acceptable for Nation A to invade and annex B in order to prevent this from occuring?" My priors here are that you'd get an overwhelming yes, in direct contradiction to the claim Steffari made.
Don't project lack of principles onto other people with this sort of flat characterization.
Sorry, I meant the general you, since you are arguing on behalf of a society that does think those things. I don't doubt that your personal views are more nuanced. What I don't understand about your point of view is whether you believe secession was simply the incorrect mechanism for the Southerners to use or if you hold a more general stance that the Southerners should not be allowed to self govern (but the Ukranians can).
___
1yr ago
"Putin claims Ukraine belongs to them" is not some ambiguous claim that only becomes true or false depending on whether or not Russia wins. We know Ukraine does not legitimately "belong" to Russia, regardless of whether Russia succeeds in taking it. Obviously if they take it then they win, ownership being 9/10 of the law and all that. But we disagree on the universal legitimacy of "might makes right."
I may not have been clear, I do not believe "might makes right" is morally correct. I think we are in agreement here. If you are making a narrower Sovereign Citizen adjacent argument then I would love it if you would expound on that because I don't think I've ever read anyone on the motte argue that before. If it's some third thing then I don't understand your post. Ownership is 9/10s of the law if the guy with the most guns says it is. I don't endorse this point of coarse, I would prefer if I could avoid federal taxes by claiming status as CSA citizen, but the guys with the guns say otherwise.
The question of whether a population is allowed to secede is not the same as the question of whether a population is allowed to resist being annexed.
I don't understand your point here. (Sorry, I may be a little slow). This seems closer to the sovereign citizen thing.
Has claiming "You do not have the right to invade and annex me" ever prevented anyone from getting invaded and annexed? What does it mean to be "allowed" to resist being invaded an annexed? Who is doing the allowing?
I'll repeat here what I posted further downthread to Steffari:
Typically, when you send troops into a place to depose the existing government and install your own puppet government, we call that "invasion". You can characterize it differently, if you wish, such as "quelling a rebellion", but this your original point was that Russia was violating a modern guiding principle for the international order, which was "Don't invade and annex other countries". That you are willing to split hairs over exactly what counts as an invasion instead of leaning in on the more general principle of "People ought to be able to self-govern, if they so choose, and attempting to force them into your polity is wrong" further reinforces to me the idea that no such principle actually exists in the modern world.
...
Casting the Union in the same role as Russia and Lincoln as a direct equivalent to Putin is understandably an attractive proposition for Confederate apologists, but the Confederacy was not in anything like the same role as Ukraine.
Hmm, I never really considered myself a "confederate apologist". I think most of the modern criticisms are largely accurate, they just pale in comparison to the deeds of the yankees, who subverted the will of a democratically enacted government, deposed them and installed their own, then proceeded to spend the next thirty years culling the native population. That you consider these to be beloved heroes and good people on the right side of history is the point I was attempting to make to Steffari about the principles held by westerners.
___
1yr ago
The actions of the North, to be clear, were "in explicit violation of treaties and structures it has formerly recognized as valid". The constitution does not give the president the right to send troops to forcibly abolish the existing democratically elected government in the case that they choose to secede, and my ancestors would not have signed it if it did. It was originally a free association of states, not unlike the EU (and my state has an almost identical population to your country).
Typically, when you send troops into a place to depose the existing government and install your own puppet government, we call that "invasion". You can characterize it differently, if you wish, such as "quelling a rebellion", but this your original point was that Russia was violating a modern guiding principle for the international order, which was "Don't invade and annex other countries". That you are willing to split hairs over exactly what counts as an invasion instead of leaning in on the more general principle of "People ought to be able to self-govern, if they so choose, and attempting to force them into your polity is wrong" further reinforces to me the idea that no such principle actually exists in the modern world.
___
1yr ago
I agree that prior to secession it is clear the South was part of the United States.
But immediately after secession but before the war is ended is this sort of fuzzy area where the winner gets to declare the legal state after the fact. It turns out that the secession was illegal and the South was always part of the US, but only in retrospect after they lost. Had they won, then the moment secession was declared would have been the moment an independent nation was legally formed which would have meant that Lincoln's actions would have been an invasion by any reasonable definition.
This puts your second paragraph in context.
Russia may claim that Ukraine is and always has been part of Russia, but the Ukrainians obviously do not agree, and neither does the rest of the world.
Whether the Ukrainians agree or not is no more relevant than whether the Southerners agreed or not. What actually matters is what force Russia/The Union are capable of projecting onto their reluctant citizens.
The only guiding principle here is "It's okay when we do it, it's bad when they do it." just as it always has been throughout human history.
___
1yr ago
It was not Lincoln trying to adjust the borders of the United States unilaterally. It was the Confederacy that tried to do that.
Huh? By democratically seceding? Why do Ukrainians have a God given right to an independent polity but the southern states do not? Do you imagine that if the South had not fired on Fort Sumpter, Lincoln would have moved the troops out eventually and respected the will of the Confederate peoples?
It was after WW2, and due to WW2, that the current international system, along with its respect for existing borders, was born. To my knowledge America has not annexed new territories since WW2.
Yet our historical mythos remains unaltered in a post WWII order (despite many other historical events getting revamped to match modern morality). Actually its much worse, confederate statues and flags were far more tolerated prior to WWII than they are now, we have gone in the opposite direction. It's all "who whom".
___
1yr ago
People have been elucidating the reason why Americans and Europeans, in general, keep supporting Ukraine in many individual posts; one of the main pillars of the global international order is countries not altering their borders unilaterally through invasion and annexation, and whatever other violations to this principle there have been, none have been as flagrant as what Russia is doing now.
This line of reasoning is thoroughly unconvincing as long as Lincoln remains a beloved historical figure.
Having briefly spent some time on confederate twitter, I noticed the typical progressive low-effort culture war snipe is some variation of "we Sherman'd you once, and we'll do it again."
The threat here is quite explicit: You belong to the empire, independence and self governance -even democratically enacted- are a form treason, which is so heinous as to justify killing civilians and burning their houses down. (bonus points for Ukrainian flag in username)
This isn't limited to the worst elements on twitter or the left. Tom Cotton claims the confederate flag is a terrorist symbol while helping to spearhead efforts to aid Ukraine.
It's a very common strategy in the leftwing/neocon playbook to trot out Libertarian principles when it suits them and abandon them when it doesn't, that is almost certainly what is happening here. Scott, for example, noticed the CSA/Ukrainian dissonance and just decided to ignore it in typical Scott fashion (IIRC).
It does not have a sovereign right to adjust its own borders on a whim. Not for the "protection of Russian minorities"
Yes, indeed, it would seem only the United States is to morally grounded enough to forcibly annex independent states on behalf of minorities, according to Americans anyway.
There's a widespread belief held by urban Jews that rural whites areas are heavily anti-Semitic (which is untrue), I would guess that it's probably related.
More options
Context Copy link