511–520 of 617 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because people literally want to give gifts to each other sometimes. A friend I met playing CS get each other a skin every year for Christmas.
Gambling for kids so we can gift skins?
A better analogy would be to say kids are banned from bringing cash to school because that makes bullies take their money and kids gamble and bet.
Can someone explain to me how such an "economy" can grow so large ? How many people actually care about the skin of the CS knife or gun?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I waded through some Tik Tok comment threads on this change and it was so eye-opening: there are a shocking number of people without disposable income who were seriously investing in CS items, thinking it was a retirement portfolio. I fear the crypto era has lead to even further diminished financial literacy at large… Blessed be compound interest and financial regulation.
> shocking number of people without disposable income who were seriously investing in CS items If you meant children, with access to parents credit cards, who are addicted to gambling, you’d be more accurate. Children gambling is a huge problem in CS, which created this economy. The players know it, the influencers know it, Valve knows it and pretty much anyone who’s played CS in the recent years knows it. This implo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government has imposed most of those on gold at various times yet it continues to be a component of many investor portfolios.
There's an international market in gold. NFA firearms have an artificially high value because of the exact set of legal restrictions that the government has put in place: loose enough to not crater legal demand, yet tight enough to restrict legal supply. This market is tied to within US borders. The government can destroy the assumptions behind this market with a stroke of the pen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's because the state argued they were unregistered machine guns, thus never legally held property. It is not at all comparable to legal, stamped machine guns then being made illegal. The EO couldn't have forced an uncompensated surrender of a registered bump stock, were it one existed before the Hughes Amendment.
The case law I’m seeing does not seem to provide that level of certainty. There’s plenty of flexibility in the case law for what counts as “public use”, but nearly all of it is about individual cases where the government takes a specific person’s specific property, or damages it in some way. There doesn’t appear to be much case law at all for the guardrails if the government declares an object to be illegal to posses…
My initial claim in any case was that the constitution requires the compensation, not that there is 0% chance the government would violate the constitution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hilarious to US CS items/weapons as a retirement portfolio when you could get pretty damn good and government protected monopoly by buying NFA machine guns knowing the number is capped and the price is likely to only go up. These are now being used by actual retirement funds. http://machinegunpriceguide.com/html/german_subguns_0.html
Link to the retirement fund? I’m surprised to hear that bit, there are way too many lawsuits flying around right now in the gun the world to consider that kind of risk. Then again perhaps the fund managers taking on fees are the real point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump banned bump stocks because he thought they were too close to machine guns. Ron Paul and maybe Massie are about the only politicians of my lifetime that held any real power that I can think of that would even entertain deregulating machine guns.
And the supreme court ruled against the bump stock ban. Which is also why the Forced Reset Trigger was not banned - they didn't think they could.
The ruling on those had nothing to do with overruling any part of the NFA. Only correctly identifying that FRT and bump stocks do not shoot automatically more than one shot by a single function of the trigger, which is what congress said would be the things allowed to be called machine guns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gambling for kids so we can gift skins?
You're almost purposefully missing the point. A better analogy would be to say kids are banned from bringing cash to school because that makes bullies take their money and kids gamble and bet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have had friends in the 90s and 00s "invest" in Beanie Babies and Legos and make a ton of money... for a while... and then get wiped out. This is not a new thing.
Yeah, I was trying to think about that when I wrote my comment. I do think there’s at the very least a scale change between the proliferation of unregulated “markets” these days (crypto, cs skins, Pokémon cards, I’m sure others) and the “your beanie babies will be worth a fortune some day” of the past. Perhaps what’s more surprising, though, is how consumer behavior leads these markets to now actually move up and to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> shocking number of people without disposable income who were seriously investing in CS items If you meant children, with access to parents credit cards, who are addicted to gambling, you’d be more accurate. Children gambling is a huge problem in CS, which created this economy. The players know it, the influencers know it, Valve knows it and pretty much anyone who’s played CS in the recent years knows it. This implo…
How much of the CS player base is actually kids? Maybe wrongly, my view of CS is that it's a legacy game with an audience in their 30s or 40s. And that kids are mostly gambling with roblox or fornite.