Jump to content

Lord Ratner

Supreme User
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Lord Ratner last won the day on May 1

Lord Ratner had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

10,546 profile views

Lord Ratner's Achievements

Gray Beard

Gray Beard (4/4)



  1. Not really. The difference is that it's your turn now. Political incompetence has led to hyperinflationary spikes many times. They are usually brutal then followed by decades of stability. We are not unique.
  2. I joked with my wife that every generation officially becomes old when they go through their inflation era. Because they will spend the rest of their lives reminding everybody who will listen how cheap stuff used to be "when I was young." Everyone born after about 1970 is finally going through their inflation era. Inflation will go away eventually (years), but it's not going to be deflation in any meaningful sense. It is unlikely you will pay less than $9 for that loaf of bread ever again, and it's probably not done going up.
  3. I have yet to meet someone who uses the term "cuck" as a pejorative who can reliably make a woman cum. Your internet troll persona is weak and frightened, but now you're venturing into the 14-year-old with an internet connection territory. Relax a little.
  4. I agree they should choose the least risky option. They did not do that here. But, the police absolutely assume guilt before a trial, and have to. Explain how you have an authority to arrest, under any circumstances, if the police must assume innocence. It falls apart. That doesn't mean they take on the role of sentencing, but it would be insane if the police weren't using an assumption of guilt as the filter by which they decide whether or not to arrest someone. Arrest everyone? The presumption of Innocence is a judicial concept. And it applies to the jury and the judge, not the officers investigating or the prosecutors. The officers and the prosecutor are not supposed to assume anything, they are supposed to gather all evidence and make a rational decision. That decision is whether there is enough evidence to believe in guilt, at which point it becomes their job to convince a jury of the same belief, up to whatever standard is required for that particular crime. Obviously you have prosecutors who are after a conviction record rather than the truth, and you have officers who are jaded, or racist, or otherwise mentally unfit for the job. But those are the outliers, and incidentally the ones we hear most about in the news. I agree with what you wrote after "aside" emphatically. It's been discussed elsewhere: But again, this case is not that. Still a problem, but not the same. Edit to add: If there is any evidence that someone or someones in the chain of command set up the raid with the desired outcome of the death of the suspect, they should spend forever in jail. Currently no such evidence exists.
  5. By the way, separate of the gun-trafficking, this is why the second amendment is so important. Again, ignore the gun-running for a moment. This guy had guns, which allowed him to resist the ATF in a way that "forced" them to use deadly force. Same with Waco. Same with the Airman in Florida (not resisting at all, but 2A still escalated a situation). It is the police failing that is lighting a fire politically to rein in this type of behavior. Blood is almost always the price of freedom, and the 2A escalates government overreach to the level of bloodshed. Without guns, these types of raids would never garner enough attention to stoke public outrage.
  6. This is hyper-libertarian fever-dream stuff. A background check is not asking permission because there is not an authority position that makes a subjective decision. It is to verify that you are not already precluded from exercising that right. Your example is more accurate if your are trying to get a CCW permit somewhere like CA, where the Sheriff can arbitrarily decide to deny the application. When you go the the DMV and they ask for proof of insurance, the deck-jockey doesn't then decide if you are qualified to drive. You either check the boxes or you don't. Verification vs Permission. If you buy a bunch of legal chemicals (your property), convert them into methamphetamine, then sell them to "whomever I want," then I wholeheartedly endorse your imprisonment. If you buy a gun for the purpose of bypassing the FFL system (your property) and sell it to a Mexican cartel member, same applies. If that's not what you meant, be more precise in your post. Externalities matter, and your claim is absurd to anyone who has any sort of grasp of human nature or experience with drug addicts, criminals, or other desperate demographics. He didn't need to assist anyone in a crime, because he committed the crime himself. You may not purchase firearms for the purpose of reselling them, thus bypassing the FFL process. He did that. Again if this was just a conversation about the method of arrest, I'm with you guys, but y'all are making some claims that are simply unrealistic. I have never once met a stupid libertarian. Every single one has been of above average intelligence, most of them substantially so. The biggest failing of the intelligent has been their complete unfamiliarity with, and thus complete inability to govern, below-average and psychopathic people. The Socialists always underestimate the human desire for choice. The Libertarians always underestimate the human capacity for self-destruction. I don't disagree with this, and I'm thrilled to see the Supreme Court unwinding a lot of the madness. But society does evolve, and changes are needed. The trick is always moderation. As an example, there wasn't much need for restrictions on speech in 1880. With social media causing the youth suicide rate to skyrocket, now there is for targeted restrictions. Similarly there wasn't much need for anti-trade restrictions in 1820. But with countries like China willing to exploit our social contract with the expressed purpose of destabilizing and eventually overcoming our society, now there is a need. These restrictions need to be clearly defined and strictly limited, something that our current crop of politicians can't seem to do. That doesn't diminish their need or utility.
  7. The presumption of innocence is for the purposes of litigation. Not police arresting action. If the assumption of innocence was absolute then there would be no arrests in the first place. You are assuming, from the same data sources I have, that the ATF went there with the goal of killing him. Murder. That is a wild claim, especially considering the conversation we are having about the presumption of innocence. He fired first. Whether the ATF should have chosen this method of arrest is secondary unless you can prove they did so for the expressed purpose of goading him into a shootout. You obviously can't do that, so lets apply the same presumption of innocence to the non-criminal ATF agents who raided his house. He was the bad guy, by his own actions and by conscious choice. Does that merit execution? Nope. But there is no such thing as an accidental execution or unintentional, so this was not that. I agree with this. He absolutely should have been taken in his office. However, equating what happened to him to "many instances of these no knock warrants being served to the wrong address," is false equivalence. It was the right address. He was (allegedly) the criminal they were after. But all of these permutations are different things with different moral implications: Raiding the wrong house and killing an innocent defending their home Raiding the correct house, but doing it instead of a less-risky arrest option resulting in a dead criminal Raiding the correct house, but accidentally killing a bystander you didn't know was there Raiding the correct house, but some cops are killed in the shootout when they could have chosen a better arrest method All of those are tragic, but they are not all immoral or murder. Proportional force is not binary. It's literally a ratio. And his ratio was shittier because he was (allegedly) a criminal gun trafficker. Your right to do a lot of things vanishes when you break the social contract. Depending on how badly you break it determines how much you lose. Losing the right to credibly defend your home against unannounced invaders when your actions set the stage for having your home invaded is not a travesty of constitutional magnitude.
  8. Victimless? There are plenty of instances of Americans buying guns and selling them to criminals. Those criminals then kill people. It's hyperbole, and frankly just stupid, to say that. It's like when gun supporters use the well knives kill people, why not ban knives argument. It's intentionally ignorant. Of course the irony is that the ATF Fast and Furious boondoggle also created victims from their gun-running. Turns out gun trafficking is bad no matter who does it. But the government screwing up is not an argument for lawlessness. Y'all are trying too hard on this one. Sometimes someone breaks the law and finds out it doesn't matter that you disagree with it, it's still the law. We have mechanisms to fix that, including the Supreme Court. If you don't feel those mechanisms are sufficient, you can roll the dice and put your life as the wager. Whether you were right or wrong will be determined by the public response. Waco and the Bundy standoff are good examples. But so far it looks like a guy who was buying guns and knowingly selling them to people who otherwise wouldn't have been allowed to have them. Some were even used in actual crimes. This is like the left using Michael Brown as a martyr. Pick a better mascot.
  9. Was this no-knock improper? I don't know. Are many of them improper? Absolutely. They are certainly not always improper. When I say "the no-knock shit" I mean the indiscriminate use of no-knocks for non-time-sensitive crimes. Very useful for kidnappings, known armed gangs, etc. Ridiculous for raiding the homes of Trump associates or non-violent criminals. His reaction is colored by his status as a law-abiding citizen. If you are a drug-runner, murderer, gun-trafficker, etc, then you have a reasonable expectation of having your door beat down, announced or otherwise. Your participation in certain crimes removes your moral authority to respond to a police breach with deadly force. There is a reason we have the term "law-abiding citizen." The distinction matters. He was not one, if the above evidence is substantiated. If you are illegally selling firearms, and you know you are doing it, then you have a reasonable expectation of having your door kicked in. Is that the best choice for the ATF to make? I don't think so. But that doesn't make it wrong, or the same as other cases. The crimes alleged and the evidence supporting the allegation determine if the risk is justified. As an example, in the Florida Airman incident, there was no evidence and the alleged crime was "loud domestic disturbances." In that instance, law enforcement should do everything to avoid a potentially fatal encounter, to include calling the apartment first, staying in clear view of the door peephole, loudly announcing your status as police, or simply leaving the scene. This was not that. All well and good, but the SCOTUS has very intentionally not struck down background checks, limitations on felons, the NFA, and FFL regulations. Some of those should be changed, but they aren't at the moment. I'm very familiar with the new ATF rule, and it is sloppy and improperly sourced. This should come from congress. But unless you believe someone should be allowed to buy guns using their legal status and sell them to someone without a legal right to own the firearm (I do not), some variation of this rule will have to exist. Or, we can just mandate background checks for all private firearms purchases, make the check free, and then private sales are good to go. If you are law-abiding, it is reasonable to assume a gang attack. If you are a gun-runner, it is unreasonable to be surprised by a police raid. Not literally surprised, that's the point obviously. But confused as to why police, as opposed to gang bangers, are busting down your door? No. Nonsense. Dealers have to do background checks. They have to verify the legal right to a firearm. He was intentionally subverting that process. He was acting exactly as a gun-runner.
  10. This is all well and good, right up until the point that he was illegally dealing in firearms. If that turns out to be an unfounded allegation, then this is all relevant. But if it's not, we're now operating under the assumption that he had was an illegal arms dealer who had no idea why his house was being raided. That's bridge too far. Agree completely with the argument that he should have been apprehended at his place of work. And I also agree that the no-knock shit has to end. "According to the warrant, Malinowski purchased more than 150 guns between May 2021 and Feb. 27, 2024, which he then resold. " "He would then resell the just-purchased guns in as little as 24 hours through gun shows where he maintained a table or through private sales." If that's true, and I'll bet anyone here (limit one bet) a bottle that it is, then the entire situation tilts against him. There is a huge difference between this and the dead airman.
  11. Hang on. A hit? This dude was (allegedly) operating an illegal gun trafficking operation, with some pretty damning evidence. Jail forever type of crimes. He got caught, and when the world was collapsing in on him, he committed suicide by cop. That's not even remotely hard to believe. If he took a shot at the ATF agents, he 100% earned his death. What am I missing here? Did he not shoot at the police? Was he not an illegal gun-runner? Anyone got an article that supports any evidence of innocence?
  12. Leave it to the Jack-of-all-trades Marine Corp to design an MWS that is a plane, a helicopter, and a JDAM all in one unaffordable package. They really are the America's Swiss army knife!
  13. His Article 32 hearing didn't go well for the prosecution. This is just a general who doesn't want to be the one to "prevent justice."
  14. Yikes. Dude seems like a sycophant more than a mastermind, but Jesus how much more proof do people need? One thing that stands out after having read the entire document, these people all seem to have believed their bullshit. I don't suspect Peter dashek and fauci believed their lies about the issue, but the leadership rarely does. However I suspect all of these underling scientists that were involved in letter campaigns, the actual research, testimony, news interviews, and all the other ways they were employed, really truly were so enamored with their scientific heroes that they believed anything they were told to believe, and thus believed they were justified in plainly absurd things such as overtly avoiding the foia requests, or promoting the natural origins theory. It goes to show how we are in an era of incompetence, with narcissistic clowns at the top of nearly every organization: Corporate America, academia, the government.
  • Create New...