Yeah when Vance released that book and everybody said you’ve got to read it It explains the entire mindset of the conservatives. I found a copy and read it. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop.
The entire f****** book is just an explanation that towns were built around big companies in coal mines and the big companies went overseas in the coal mines closed down. In the way it left drugs and joblessness.
It’s not like immigrants are coming in and taking their jobs. And then the entire right is begging for companies to not have any repercussions for doing any of that s***. It’s like they think if they’re really nice to the companies the companies will be really nice back to them or something.
The whole book is just a poorly written country song that doesn’t absolve any of the bad behavior at all.
Good, goood, ban all firearms, so when some nutcase pulls another Uvalde there will be nothing stipping all the fairgoers from getting riddled with bullets while the cops bumble around outside of the gates
You mean where the police don’t act and instead stand around? Man it almost seems like law enforcement not acting should be the focus not the fact people are unarmed.
Every event like this will have security with the local PD on alert if they call. That’s how it’s supposed to work - “good guy with gun” often gets shot by police response if you hadn’t been keeping track.
I fail to see your logic? The slavecatcher patrols are where the problem lies, so ban a bunch of random stuff? Might as well ban shoes, pants, bags, and people under the age of 44, that would make the fair safer!
I’m not sure if the solution to a psycho firing in a crowded fairground is for amateur shooters to also fire in a crowded fairground at whomever they think is the instigator.
Washington Post - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Washington Post:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Nikkei Asian Review - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Nikkei Asian Review:
> MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - Japan
> Wikipedia about this source
I think that should be allowed, but then just have like an outright charge on things like water and roads and education. I mean it’s already kind of like that for rich people, but let poor and middle class ‘opt out’ of government provided stuff and just take stuff a la carte…I mean it would probably have to be more expensive for each thing, but overall let people decide what to chip in towards
Last presidential election here in Brazil some churches were asking their people to swap children with other couples so that those children could keep watch to ensure everybody is voting for the right candidate (children are the only ones allowed to join you in the voting booth).
Even if it didn’t have superior functionality, I’d still support & use firefox over chrome just because I don’t care how fast the sports car is: if it’s not going where I tell it to, I ain’t gettin’ in.
One is access to serial ports to flash ESP devices, or update the firmware on my XR glasses. Firefox can’t do that.
The other is to automate Twitch drop collection. The addon I found to reload broken streams and collect drops while I’m at work only has a Chrome version.
Looking at it, seems not. Google store page says it doesn’t follow best practices and may soon no longer be supported. AFAIK it’s a single dev hobby project so this might be the end of it. Ah well. I’ll just no longer have as many free skins for games.
Some websites intentionally break Firefox for some reason. I’ve had numerous issues on Firefox which were resolved by switching to Chrome. These could potentially be fixed by a User-Agent string change, but instead of dealing with it I switched to a Chromium based browser.
What if we stop using User-Agent altogether? It would increase privacy and prevent browser discrimination. Too bad for the Analytics services, but after all… who cares?
Last time I checked: tab groups. Yes there are extensions for it, but all the ones I tried were either really over complicated or buggy. Chrome tab groups are pretty simple and seamless to use.
But I’m going to have to figure something out because I’d rather lose tab groups than ad blocking, so I’ll have to switch to something.
Waterfox has a native sidebar/vertical tab feature along with container tabs that might fill your tab group needs (I stopped using chrome before they added tab groups so I watched a 4m video on them and seems like you could get all the features and more out of the sidebar).
to be fair, the kids were on bikes? cars are weapons, and I can see not wanting those in your community. this is the fuckcars activism we need in the world.
Back in the wild west, it was common to “check your guns” apon entering almost every single town. Yes, you needed protection from bandits and outlaws, but entering you left them with the sheriff and picked them up leaving.
Wyatt Earp enforced such laws and he was about the most manly tough guy you can get. He’s an example of everything they think of as anti-woke and he restricted gun access within city limits.
Funnily enough, usually it was to keep black people and Asian people from being armed while turning a blind eye to armed white people. Gun control is racist.
That I don’t know, but I do know that black people made up a huge portion of the cowboys in the wild west. 25% or more. After the Civil War freed slaves rode west. Some settled and built homes, many more became cowboys.
Louder for those in the back. Volumes have been written on the subject, and the information is a only a quick search away.
Many of you are familiar with Reagan, as Governor of California, banning open carry because of the Black Panthers. Yeah, that gets tossed around a good bit, but the racism inherent in historical and modern gun laws goes far deeper.
So is it less racist if everyone's arms are restricted or if everyone can open carry? Not trying to be an asshole, I'm just not convinced that asking for guns upon entry is inextricable from racism.
Though I suppose policing an an institution in itself is pretty racist since enforcement is often done by authoritarians who are terrified of others. But that's not really exclusive to policing, unfortunately; most state institutions are racist.
Anyway, I agree with you on some level, but surely there's an answer here that doesn't subjugate specific classes of people.
Edit: Then again, it's in the interest of the state to have a monopoly on violence, so idk what to think. I'm just sick of not doing anything and not having any ideas when mass shootings happen.
Honestly? More education (and possibly more exposure) and less fetishization, although I’m not quite sure how to achieve the second one.
Back when my parents were in school, schools had shooting teams (my high school apparently had an award-winning women’s team), and my dad even brought a gun to school once to show to a teacher (it was an older gun and the teacher was a gun collector). They spent the whole of lunch period talking about how cool that old gun of grandpa’s was.
Because back then a gun was just a tool, and one more people had access to, since a lot of people were still out on the farm and such. My dad learned from a young age that guns were dangerous, and how to properly handle them, and pretty much all his classmates did too.
But then the Republicans started the, ‘we have to regulate!’ and the ‘but think of the children!’ nonsense because that was when the Black Panthers started going around armed, and a bunch of white people were suddenly uncomfortably aware that minorities could defend themselves from racial violence if they wanted to.
And then the Republican Party turned around and started making guns an ‘identity’ thing, so suddenly they became a symbol of Republican so-called ‘values’, and people began obsessing over them like they were rare jewels or some such nonsense. It didn’t help that the Democrats were happy to jump on the bandwagon as the ‘we’re totally against guns so you can tell we’re different from them!’ group to provide a pearl-clutching counterpoint.
And so now we’ve got, well, all the fetishized and forbidden-fruit bullshit. Guns are kind of seen almost like cigarettes on steroids: the cool and dangerous thing that all the rebels and ‘strong independent types’ have.
I’m a bit In despair as to how to get us to stop doing that. Certainly other nations, like Switzerland, have lots of guns and gun access and don’t have our problems. But they definitely don’t build identities around firearms either.
Edit to add: of course Switzerland has actual functional health care, including mental health care, so I imagine that helps.
Indeed, which is why they have auto-switch Glocks in Chicago ordered off the internet but Kyle had to endure months of struggle sessions disguised as trials.
Private event, their rules. Fuck off Paxton. This “good guy with a gun” stuff is bullshit and everyone knows it, but by all means puff out the chest and bluster for the idiots in your constituency.
they’re afraid because they know if TX cops will cower around outside while school kids are massacred inside, then they sure as shit aren’t going to rush in to gOoDgUyWItHgUn at some fair with drunk texans
There are some people who both start and end every gun debate with the “good guy with a gun” argument. Nothing gets through the impenetrable logic of “it makes sense to me”.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.