I mean… if you really cared, its a few hour drive to a state where you can legally buy them. Its not a large burden, and could be done in an afternoon.
Edit: i like the downvotes this comment gets, as if its some sort of morality claim. Its just a fact. Im not personally pro gun, however i dont think the solution is an easy all guns are bad all the time. Its a very complex issue in america.
However, i am very against political theater, California isnt going to to fix gun problems unless they can outlaw handguns, which are used in more than 90% of all gun related crimes. Just like they arnt going to fix water shortages by stopping people watering their lawns or washing cars when around 95% or the water usage is corporations.
Nobody gives a fuck what criminals and terrorists could hypothetically use, they care about what they are using, which in nearly 80% of mass shootings is a legal firearm.
“Mass shooting” refers to any shooting where 3 or more people are injured, and it usually happens in areas with high unemployment. Kinda sounds like a class issue to me.
Yep, we know. It’s the climate change denier strategy. However much evidence there is, demand even more before you’ll consider acting.
But who gives a shit if you’re ever convinced? We can just build something without your rubber stamp of approval and you can join the ranks of people who opposed things like food safety and DUI laws.
Yep, we know. It’s the climate change denier strategy. However much evidence there is, demand even more before you’ll consider acting.
Arguably, we’re still waiting for any evidence at all supporting the notion it’s the firearms that are the root of the violence problem rather than merely the implement used.
The analog here would be that you seem to only care climate change can be caused by residential cars to the complete neglect of the fossil fuel contributions of the energy industry.
But who gives a shit if you’re ever convinced? We can just build something without your rubber stamp of approval and you can join the ranks of people who opposed things like food safety and DUI laws.
Feel free to find any support for the notion that I - or others here - have opposed such things.
It’s relevant to the question of what would happen in the event of a gun ban.
At this stage, anyone with sufficient desire to do so can manufacture an effective and reliable firearm using readily available tools at home, using no purpose built firearm components. Magazines are dead simple in comparison.
No it’s not, it’s a bullshit excuse to do nothing.
Overwhelmingly, criminals, abusers and domestic terrorists are using legally purchased firearms to kill innocent people. Of the minority remaining that are using illegal firearms, they were stolen from somewhere and those people should be held accountable.
Those are the people “gun grabbers” are trying to disarm and those are the people the pro-gun community is protecting, while somehow thinking they’re the good guys.
“Oh but what about 3D printed guns and bombs and cars? They’ll just use them instead” doesn’t matter. They’re not using 3D printed guns any more than they’re using giant clown hammers.
And do you know what we’ll do if they start? We’ll address it.
Much like we have addressed it, since it doesn’t take 25 years to do when there isn’t a well funded death cult blocking us every step of the way.
No it’s not, it’s a bullshit excuse to do nothing.
If your goal is to feel good about Doing Something then you are right. If the goal is to meaningfully reduce violence without curtailing the rights of law abiding citizens, you are dead wrong. The only effective way to go about this is to logically look at what the effect of a law would be.
Overwhelmingly, criminals, abusers and domestic terrorists are using legally purchased firearms to kill innocent people. Of the minority remaining that are using illegal firearms, they were stolen from somewhere and those people should be held accountable.
First of all, you are mistaken here. Guns used by criminal groups are most often straw purchases, which are very much illegal.
More importantly, looking at the problematic people and just banning whatever they have in their hands has a long history of failing to make any meaningful impact on crime.
As an example, let’s examine the long list of weapons banned in CA after the legislature associated them with “gang activity”. Martial arts tools like nunchucks, which have no practical use outside training, were banned, despite the fact that it should have been patently obvious that banning nunchucks would do zero to stop actual criminal activity.
Another example is prohibition. People saw the “immoral element” consuming alcohol and saw alcohol prohibition as a panacea. It’s well known that prohibition had wide sweeping negative effects at this point.
You have to predict the holistic effects of the law, long term, to see if it will have a positive impact.
“Oh but what about 3D printed guns and bombs and cars? They’ll just use them instead” doesn’t matter. They’re not using 3D printed guns any more than they’re using giant clown hammers.
… it kinda does
It’s not just a “what if” question, either. Even prior to the advent of readily available 3d printing, criminals in Brazil and elsewhere had developed a network of facilities manufacturing black market open bolt sub machine guns based on the Luty designs. Restricting legal guns had little long term benefit in Brazil at stopping crime with firearms.
It has only gotten easier to make them at home as time goes on. No manufacturing facilities needed.
If your goal is to feel good about Doing Something then you are right. If the goal is to meaningfully reduce violence without curtailing the rights of law abiding citizens, you are dead wrong. The only effective way to go about this is to logically look at what the effect of a law would be.
Okay, so if it’s not a bullshit excuse to do nothing, what has the pro-gun community done to address the issue of gun violence over the last 25 years?
Oh look, they’ve done nothing. In fact, they’ve done worse than nothing because they’ve actually made it easier to enable criminals, abusive partners and domestic terrorists to arm themselves on a whim.
But despite this, they continue to insist they they and they alone have the answers and what a susprise, the answer is once again “don’t change anything”.
First of all, you are mistaken here. Guns used by criminal groups are most often straw purchases, which are very much illegal.
Okay, so you’re openly admitting that the current laws are a failure, but you’re also staunchly opposed to anyone fixing them. If your goal was to arm criminals and people who hit their wives, how would your actions differ from what you’re already doing?
You’re not going to allow straw purchases to be stopped, despite them being borderline non-existent in comparable countries. You’re not going to allow the gun show loop holes to be closed, despite them being openly acknowledged ways of buying guns without a background check. You’re definitely not going to support mandatory safe storage to punish dildos who leave handguns in gloveboxes, because those dildos are your friends.
More importantly, looking at the problematic people and just banning whatever they have in their hands has a long history of failing to make any meaningful impact on crime.
Yet more bullshit. “Oh look at this stupid ban or this thing law that didn’t work”. If those laws done work, go out and buy an RPG. Get a box of grenades without the appropriate license. Hell, pick yourself up a truck full of ANFO, I’ll cover the cost.
But you can’t, because it turns out banning precision engineered weaponry is actually easy as fuck.
You have to predict the holistic effects of the law, long term, to see if it will have a positive impact.
Is that your excuse for 25 years of the “good guys with guns” accomplishing absolutely nothing except lining the pockets of Republicans and lobby groups? You’re still looking at the holistic, long term effects of the laws that just happen to be the most personally convient to you.
Restricting legal guns had little long term benefit in Brazil at stopping crime with firearms.
And should we use the same dogshit, pro-gun logic for all laws? It’s illegal to fuck kids, but people fuck kids anyway, so by pro-gun logic it should be legal to fuck kids after a 2 day waiting period.
It’s illegal to drive while intoxicated, but that’s probably super inconvenient for some people so by pro-gun logic it should be allowed as long as their on their way to or from a gun show.
It’s illegal to kill people, but… Oh nevermind, judging by the murder fantasies on most pro-gun platforms, they’d be throbbing at the idea of those laws getting changed.
It has only gotten easier to make them at home as time goes on. No manufacturing facilities needed
Oh well you’ll be all set without your guns then. If any authoritarian dictatorships come along, all the pro-gun people who promised to protect us from it (but wouldn’t even wear masks in a pandemic) can just grab a $200 PLA printer from AliExpress and print themselves off a machine gun.
Right after they finish enthusiastically voting for them and losing 130lbs of course.
I mean, have you asked yourself why? There was once a time that gun control wasn’t a partisan issue and those with knowledge of guns openly supported new restrictions. Gun advocacy groups were actively involved in helping to write the legislation.
What changed? The thing that changed is that those who were afraid of any and all guns fought tooth and nail to prevent the laws that didn’t work from being walked back. The gun owners were called names and accused of heinous things for having a different opinion. The result has been that restrictions continually get tighter, even when they clearly are not doing anything to help the situation. After a century of this, the knee jerk response is to try to prevent any and all gun control.
Look at your posts here. You have called me names and are assuming a whole lot of things about my views based on a few comments. I have done far more to advocate for liberal causes at a grassroots level than 99% of the people on here. I wager this includes yourself.
I have been a part of political activism for everything from ending marijuana prohibition to seeing the end of bans on gay marriage. I advocated for BLM and mask restrictions during the pandemic. I have ended up on the front page of the news chained to city hall in defense of liberal causes. You see that I disagree with you one one small thing and just start spewing hate.
In order for this to work we need actual meaningful discourse from both sides, and realistically both pro and anti gun people fail miserably at this because of how far things have devolved.
I think the first step in building mutual trust on this issue would be to accept some lessening of restrictions on the laws that don’t work. Take suppressors off of the NFA list, for example. Stop calling for an assault weapons ban when we previously had one and the FBI’s analysis showed it had zero meaningful impact. Maybe then we can actually talk to each other in a cooperative manner to make progress.
I mean, have you asked yourself why? There was once a time that gun control wasn’t a partisan issue and those with knowledge of guns openly supported new restrictions. Gun advocacy groups were actively involved in helping to write the legislation.
And then the Republicans started taking millions of dollars from gun manufacturers and every “solution” the pro-gun crowd has come up with since just happens to align with what is most profitable and personally convient.
Because after all, only evil industries like tobacco and asbestos would happily let people die painful deaths for a few hundreds dollars profit, not loveable, cuddly gun manufacturers
What changed? The thing that changed is that those who were afraid of any and all guns fought tooth and nail to prevent the laws that didn’t work from being walked back. The gun owners were called names and accused of heinous things for having a different opinion. The result has been that restrictions continually get tighter, even when they clearly are not doing anything to help the situation. After a century of this, the knee jerk response is to try to prevent any and all gun control.
The “it’s your fault I’m a bad person” excuse, adored by abusive partners the world over. Why haven’t any of your promises come true in Texas? Because they’re lies.
Look at your posts here. You have called me names and are assuming a whole lot of things about my views based on a few comments. I have done far more to advocate for liberal causes at a grassroots level than 99% of the people on here. I wager this includes yourself.
Oh boo hoo. Have you tried shooting your feelings? Maybe sending some death threats to children who survived a school shooting will make you feel better.
If you don’t want to be associated with those people, that’s too bad. I’m not going to sit down with every fuckwit with a gun on the internet and learn every nuance of their opinions. You’ve had 25 years old politeness and you’ve solved nothing, leading to the preventable deaths of thousands of people.
I have been a part of political activism for everything from ending marijuana prohibition to seeing the end of bans on gay marriage. I advocated for BLM and mask restrictions during the pandemic.
And what protest did you attend when a legal gun owner shot a black child through a door?
In order for this to work we need actual meaningful discourse from both sides, and realistically both pro and anti gun people fail miserably at this because of how far things have devolved.
Nope, fuck that. You’ve spent 25 years gatekeeping how and when the conversation is allowed to happen and you’ve used it to accomplish absolutely nothing.
The way forward is completely disregard everything the pro-gun community says. None of your promises have come true and other people’s lives are more important than your hobby and hero fantasies.
I think the first step in building mutual trust on this issue would be to accept some lessening of restrictions on the laws that don’t work. Take suppressors off of the NFA list, for example. Stop calling for an assault weapons ban when we previously had one and the FBI’s analysis showed it had zero meaningful impact. Maybe then we can actually talk to each other in a cooperative manner to make progress
Oh what a fucking plot twist. The first step is pandering to the pro-gun crowd, followed by some more pandering to the pro-gun crowd.
And what does society get in return? Maybe you’ll talk.
I’ve got a better idea, we’ll just take your guns and you can fuck off.
The “it’s your fault I’m a bad person” excuse, adored by abusive partners the world over.
See, this is exactly the issue with America today. Someone disagrees with you on something with nuance and that immediately means they’re a “bad person”
The way forward is completely disregard everything the pro-gun community says.
Uhh huh. How’s that working out?
I’ve got a better idea, we’ll just take your guns and you can fuck off.
Annndddd here’s the truth. SHOCKER that there’s no cooperation here isn’t it?!
See, this is exactly the issue with America today. Someone disagrees with you on something with nuance and that immediately means they’re a “bad person”
Nope, you’re a bad person because you’re a bad person. If someone kicks their dog or hits their wife, I don’t care about the nuances of their political beliefs or giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Uhh huh. How’s that working out?
Why, have you been actively undermining progress or something? Don’t worry, all those kids that you sold out will grow up and start voting and they’re going to show you exactly as much compassion as you showed them.
Annndddd here’s the truth. SHOCKER that there’s no cooperation here isn’t it?!
Spoken like someone whose partners all end up in shelters.
And you clearly didn’t get mine. You print yourself an RPG and fire it. Use an actual 3D printer that you actually own, print yourself an RPG (and whatever ammo you need for it), hold it in your own hands and fire it.
People have walked on the moon. You can link a YouTube video of it and pretend you totally could too if you wanted to.
No? I don’t want one, and that’s mainly because I don’t have the land to test it. Its something I want to do one day once I own significant acherage.
I have however, printed fully functional firearms (G19x, FGC-9, AR-15, others). An RPG is well within feasibility of modern desktop printers. Look on YouTube or FossCAD on Reddit if you don’t believe me. RPGs, Grenade Launchers, Silencers, full guns, and plenty other improvised weapons are fully printable with plenty of examples online. And perfectly legal for most US citizens to make.
not only this, but lets be honest here, it does absolutely nothing to reduce the lethality of firearms. Even if an active shooter abides it; most people who’ve spent a modicum of time practicing can drop and replace a magazine inside of a second or two.
Also, as Upgrayedd noted… you can drive a couple hours to arizona to get them. Or, just make your own mags. it’s not hard.
I’m all for effective gun control laws… but this ain’t it.
I don’t need to, because nobody is using them for mass shootings. But sure, I will absolutely advocate laws regarding the illegal manufacturing of firearms are enforced. I’ll also laugh when people blow their hands off.
Fortunately since 3D printed guns don’t line the pockets of Republicans, lobbyists, sleazy PR companies and the people who simp for them, there should be no issue at all actually addressing the problem.
If that problem ever actually exists of course. Isn’t it just fascinating that despite the entire world having access to 3D printers, they still don’t have gun violence that’s even remotely comparable to America? All of these comments saying
It’s almost like “but 3D printers!” is just as bullshit as everything else that comes out of pro-gun groups mouths. 25 years of insisting it was doors or video games or rap music.
I don’t need to, because nobody is using them for mass shootings.
Ah, I see - you don’t care about the dead children, but rather that firearms are used to kill children. That’s really fucked up.
Fortunately since 3D printed guns don’t line the pockets of Republicans, lobbyists, sleazy PR companies and the people who simp for them, there should be no issue at all actually addressing the problem.
I’m not sure if you’re aware or not but blue team has been decrying the evils and supposed impact of these things for multiple election cycles due to their inability to actually address that perceived problem.
If that problem ever actually exists of course. Isn’t it just fascinating that despite the entire world having access to 3D printers, they still don’t have gun violence that’s even remotely comparable to America? All of these comments saying
I’d be interested in seeing you compare such countries by violence overall and then again compare them by available social support and safety nets.
It once more seems you only care that suffering involved a firearm rather than actually caring about people and their suffering.
Ah, I see - you don’t care about the dead children, but rather that firearms are used to kill children. That’s really fucked up.
Thoughts and prayers for whatever point you thought you had.
I’m not sure if you’re aware or not but blue team has been decrying the evils and supposed impact of these things for multiple election cycles due to their inability to actually address that perceived problem.
And “team red” takes $16 million a year from the gun lobby and are adamant the solutions just coincidentally align with what’s most profitable.
I’d be interested in seeing you compare such countries by violence overall and then again compare them by available social support and safety nets.
Of course you would be, because you’re looking for excuses to do nothing, especially excuses that might take decades to prove wrong.
But whatever “social support and safety nets” you find are still going to be paired with vastly better gun laws that try and balance social risk rather than protect profits.
You want a half solution that doesn’t impact you, not an actual solution.
Ah, I see we’re forgetting about Bloomberg and his profiteering off of sensationalism of violence.
Yeah who knows why he bothers with the abstraction when he can just take bribes directly from the gun lobby. Maybe he’s secretly bankrolled by a shady lobby group representing school children and abused partners.
Feel free to highlight any comment I’ve made where I suggest doing nothing.
You’re a representative of the pro-gun community, using their talking points to push their agenda, making you a representative of them. If that label upsets you, it sounds like a problem you should take up with them.
In point of fact, I quite explicitly argue for actual solutions.
Did you even read your own link? They openly acknowledge that changes to gun need to be a key part of the solution since “curing everybody of violence forever” is 100 years away.
Accessing someone’s past behaviour and restricting or denying them guns accordingly? Congratulations, you’ve invented red flag laws and background checks that actually check backgrounds, 25 years later than everyone else. Go forth and spread the word to your pro-gun brethren and try not to reflect on who could have been saved
Yeah who knows why he bothers with the abstraction when he can just take bribes directly from the gun lobby. Maybe he’s secretly bankrolled by a shady lobby group representing school children and abused partners.
I’m not sure I’d call it abstraction given it’s literally his media business, but hey, whatever makes you feel better.
You’re a representative of the pro-gun community, using their talking points to push their agenda, making you a representative of them. If that label upsets you, it sounds like a problem you should take up with them.
Oh, I see - generalizations are okay when they’re your generalizations.
I’m not sure how you interpret an actual focus on actual problem solving as a pro-gun agenda - a rational individual would reflect and consider that when basic problem solving is given a demeaning label, it might be indicative of a bad opinion on the matter. Let me know when you get to that point.
you even read your own link? They openly acknowledge that changes to gun need to be a key part of the solution since “curing everybody of violence forever” is 100 years away.
And you’re confused by this… how?
Accessing someone’s past behaviour and restricting or denying them guns accordingly? Congratulations, you’ve invented red flag laws and background checks that actually check backgrounds, 25 years later than everyone else. Go forth and spread the word to your pro-gun brethren and try not to reflect on who could have been saved
Ah, so two things we already have, excellent
We can then proceed to the rest of the preventative measures and actually improve some lives, eh?
Work cited: crack pipe. You cant legally buy a glock switch, and there are plenty of exanples of glocks with switches on them (which usually come from china), and seeing as the ATF considers the switch themselves to be a machine gun, these are guns that were never legal, and yet theres an ungodly number of them on the streets
It was an attempted dunk based on the assumptive chain that you defended a stricken-down firearms restriction therefore are clearly conservative, therefore clearly push abortion bans.
It’s if it’s impossible to them that anyone outside the NRA can like firearms.
The NRA has been a trvesty for the firearms community. Also fuck em and fuck Reagan for banning open carry cause of the black panthers. Bunch of fucking cowardly welps.
I see, thanks for making that connection for me. To be clear, I’m not playing for either side. I’m just a realist. Not every issue or opinion has to be red or blue.
My point is that anyone can make a magazine or buy one from somebody who can. So a ban would be useless. The only people it would effect would be those who choose to obey.
For what it’s worth, I think if everyone on the radical right were launched into the sun, the world would be a better place.
I see, thanks for making that connection for me. To be clear, I’m not playing for either side. I’m just a realist. Not every issue or opinion has to be red or blue.
No worries at all, and agreed. It’s part of why this is so incredibly frustrating - the sheer entrenched nature of this partisan-aligned wedge issue precludes any form of meaningful progress.
My point is that anyone can make a magazine or buy one from somebody who can. So a ban would be useless. The only people it would effect would be those who choose to obey.
Correct, and entirely agreed. This is the nature of the flaw with most such restrictions - unless there’s compelling evidence the tools used for a given crime were sourced by legal owners, further restricting legal owners does absolutely no good.
For what it’s worth, I think if everyone on the radical right were launched into the sun, the world would be a better place.
Everyone can sexually abuse minors and minors continue to be sexually abused. Does the pro-gun community advocate legalising sexually abusing children?
After all, it only effects those who choose to obey it.
For what it’s worth, I think if everyone on the radical right were launched into the sun, the world would be a better place.
Gotta make sure the gun owners know who your murder fantasies are about. Meanwhile, back in reality, everywhere far-right is an absolute shithole and everywhere progressive absolutely smashes them as far as healthcare and happiness goes.
Everyone can sexually abuse minors and minors continue to be sexually abused. Does the pro-gun community advocate legalising sexually abusing children?
After all, it only effects those who choose to obey it.
Could you help me understand how sexual abuse of minors is somehow related to firearms? I have serious concerns regarding the state of your mental health if you actually entertain the notion that people should be able to sexually abuse minors.
Gotta make sure the gun owners know who your murder fantasies are about. Meanwhile, back in reality, everywhere far-right is an absolute shithole and everywhere progressive absolutely smashes them as far as healthcare and happiness goes.
Does such a reality intersect at all with your hyperbole?
Could you help me understand how sexual abuse of minors is somehow related to firearms?
Probably not, since you’ll just deliberately miss the point to try and deflect.
The pro-gun community routinely claims that gun laws are pointless because they’ll just be broken anyway, a philosophy which is deeply stupid and morally reprehensible when applied to absolutely anything else, but they seem to think they logic is sound when it comes to gun laws.
Does such a reality intersect at all with your hyperbole?
Yes. Vastly more so than pro-gun promises to keep people safe from criminals and tyranny.
Probably not, since you’ll just deliberately miss the point to try and deflect.
Ah, I see. You can’t explain the canyon-crossing leap between the two because of the other person - it’s totally not because you’re connecting nonsense.
Neat.
The pro-gun community routinely claims that gun laws are pointless because they’ll just be broken anyway, a philosophy which is deeply stupid and morally reprehensible when applied to absolutely anything else, but they seem to think they logic is sound when it comes to gun laws.
I’m still looking for the connection to your bizarre obsession with the abuse of children. Did you have one?
This, aside from your absurd reduction of the rejection of ineffective laws which provide no benefit regarding the stated problems yet provide an pointless restriction on otherwise law-abiding citizens.
Yes. Vastly more so than pro-gun promises to keep people safe from criminals and tyranny.
I see we’re still deep in the realm of works cited: crack pipe. Fair enough.
I admire your positive thinking, but it may also provide plausible deniability for legitimate CSAM, by your own logic. Either way, I see this being used to bully, blackmail, or worse. It’s not that we are going to stop AI development, nor that we should. Perhaps as it improves (remember, right now it’s the worst it will ever be), we can teach AI to recognize when it may be used for purposes like creating realistic CSAM or other such material, and have it log or report such uses.
I honestly don’t know the solution, but I don’t see the world ever getting “ho-hum, it’s all fake anyway” about minor involved pornography.
it will do neither. i generated pictures can usually be identified by eye alone, and some companies are starting to add an invisible watermark to their output
You guys are working with the idea that companies and organizations will be creating these AI tools. They will be bound by laws but random people of groups of people will not. It will only get worse.
Methinks you might want to give it space to breathe from the child porn scandal before you attempt a positive spin on truth becoming irrelevant in the future.
But the overall impact of not being able to trust any image will not be positive. We already have widespread distrust of everything in the media that leads to people forming cults around their beliefs and strong personalities that are immune to facts. That will only get worse as photos and videos can no longer be trusted as evidence of anything real.
Yeah, I’m a volunteer firefighter in Catalonia, we only really do maintenance work or fill up gopher roles and damping down in the event of a serious fire … proper firefighting is in no way fun, people need to be paid for it (and you can’t just drag anyone in off the street to do it, lots of my fellow volunteers can’t hold a hose for long and would panic in an emergency … that’s not a criticism, it’s just how people are)
Oh of course. Yeah, that’s exactly what I’m talking about, it seems like such a difficult and dynamic job it seems absurd for any governing body to essentially depend on volunteers to perform any essential part of that job.
Thank you very much for doing way more than your part, and especially at this point where every year there’s more wildfires than there ever have been before in larger wildfires than there ever have been, governments better take the hint and start paying people.
Yeah, the firefighters here are well supplied, it’s amazing that places like Canada and Australia don’t have this sorted out already … and don’t get me started on the lack of upkeep of electricity infrastructure causing fires in the US!
Oz has long relied on the Rural Fire Service, which is almost completely volunteer. Not saying that’s the way it should be, only that there is precedent.
The sad thing is that there is no political incentive to have a paid rural fire fighting service - there’s not enough votes out there to buy. We’ll face more and worse summers of fires but it’s not until a major town is threatened that anything will actually change.
So? There are dozens of ways to get around paywalls nowadays. If you use a decent browser like Firefox you’ll be able to circumvent it with ease. In addition to reader mode, you can get add-ons like noscript or unlock origin. I didn’t even notice the paywall until you mentioned it because that part never loaded in mine. There are also archive websites for anyone to use.
You know, this was one of my biggest annoyances at The Other Place: someone would post an article and another person would come in to read it. But if it was paywalled, the second person, instead of either deciding the article wasn't interesting enough and walking away; or doing one of a dozen things to get past the paywall and read the article; or actually contributing to the community by posting a non-paywalled link / the text of the article - instead of doing any of those either non-disruptive or actually-contributing things, the person just stands there and bitches, "Paywall! Paywall!"
We're not your mother and we're not necessarily going to hand things to you. You're presumably an adult and can learn how to cope with ppaywalls - Google will be more than happy to help you figure out how. Or if you can't, then at least have the decency to just walk away without commenting paywall! paywall! like a helpless baby bird.
This is like saying the Constitution doesn’t guarantee a barrel on the rifle, or that it uses smokeless power or only muzzle loading muskets…go ahead and apply that same thought of yours to computers/Internet and the 1st amendment…you will argue against it.
Guns work fine with smaller magazines. They do not work fine without a barrel.
Edit: and I say that as someone that owns several guns. That are in a gun safe at a family members because I have kids and not a great place to store them.
Tell that to the FBI and LEOs who run double stack mags because it keeps you in the fight. Tell that to the military…hell tell that to a hog hunter…or the pregnant woman who is having to defend herself from a home break in.
Pornography is protected under the first amendment, and sharing it via the internet is allowed. Child pornography is illegal and should stay illegal. Similarly there are other forms of speech that are criminal and should stay criminal, such as death threats. I think you would agree that these are reasonable regulations on our free speech.
Here’s an example on the gun side: in the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, bump stocks were used, allowing one man to kill 60 people and injure an additional 867 (just to confirm this is not a typo: 927 people were killed or harmed). Bump stocks were banned in 2018. The bump stock ban seems justified to me, does it seem justified to you?
No, as knee-jerk reactions to a single facet of an outlier event are absurd.
As an comparison, your highlight of child porn is due to the actual harm of actual abuse - the thing is banned because it cannot exist without traumatizing and abusing children. Your highlight of an outlier shooting is really the highlight of the potential harm of a future event - the thing might maybe be used for harm.
Most of us don’t live our lives in terror of inanimate objects or overrepresented and oversensationalized events.
Point of fact: child pornography is obscene–and not covered by 1A–even if no real people are harmed. I’d have to dig up the law (I think it dates to the mid-90s), but it’s pretty broad. Lolicon may be illegal by itself, even though drawings don’t generally cause direct harm. At least one person has been convicted of obscenity for comics, albeit not lolicon. It is *likely that even AI-generated child pornography, even though it wouldn’t involve real children, would end up being ruled obscene.
Personally, I would take your position; images and depictions of child pornography that don’t involve actual minors should not be obscene and therefore illegal, regardless of how distasteful and repellent they are.
Interesting - I was not aware of that. I’ll have to dig up the law and related rulings - I suspect the judges’ opinions on the matter would help clarify the reasoning for arriving at such a stance and would help me understand if, say, they might be due to mimicry of that actual harm and actual abuse, etc.
Real child pornography should only be illegal because of the harms it represents. The text of the First Amendment would clearly protect victimless obscenity.
It is worth pointing out that in the Las Vegas shooting the investigation never concluded if he actually used the bump stocks. Some of the guns had them installed but with his amount of preparation and knowledge of firearms he could have just as easily modified them to be fully automatic. During the course of the investigation they specifically prohibited the ATF from inspecting any of the weapons for modifications and merely said that the use of the bump stocks was a possibility, not a fact. The bottom line is it isn’t known one way or another if he actually used them, he might have but the firing rate was more consistent than most bump firing.
go ahead and apply that same thought of yours to computers/Internet and the 1st amendment…you will argue against it.
The Constitution is explicit in regards to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law…” This isn’t even remotely the case with the Second Amendment. There’s more truth to constitutionally allowing direct physical threats and defamation, which are considered not protected by the First Amendment, than there are magazine sizes, lmao.
I think what trips up a lot of people, especially Americans, is the idea of something not being black and white. Just because the First Amendment talks about speech and the Second Amendment talks about guns doesn’t mean it’s a black and white, when you have this unfettered right to speech and guns. Something being in a gray area makes Americans very confused.
The Second Amendment is even clearer than the First: "the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Any law that even borders on restricting the right of the people to own and use weapons is clearly a violation of the Second Amendment.
It’s the only Amendment that explicitly says the right be “well regulated.” A “well regulated” right shall not be “infringed” is undeniably different than “Congress shall make no law” which has no limitation to its attached right.
Well regulated militia…aka one of good working order. It is not in the same breath of the right of the people to bear arms…does it say the right of the militia or people?
You mean REGULATING guns or gun magazines violates the well REGULATED militia of the constitution? Are the caps enough for you or do I need to spell it out?
“Well regulated” in the context of the constitution clearly meant well-trained/mobilized/deployed, in an efficient and orderly manner, and should be adequately capable. This is clear if you look at it from an unbiased linguistic standpoint, and look at the usage of the phrase around the time. Words don’t constantly have the same exact meaning that we’re primarily used to, they’re a spectrum of different definitions that form, morph, and wane over time.
Plus the first/second clause in the sentence is clearly just a justification for the other 2 clauses, it’s not a directive or even the subject. That alone would make the “well regulated” part meaningless for anything other than explaining why the constitution is in place in the first place. It doesn’t give orders to “regulate” militias, or even that militias are the only things which should have access to guns in the first place.
The point of arguing against current treatment of guns isn’t to argue what the syntax or basic meaning of the amendment was, no that’s clear if you actually know what you’re talking about (and you can find plenty of actual linguists breaking it down for you), it’s to argue to what extent the amendment’s directive (disallowing infringement on the people’s right to bear arms) applies, or especially if the amendment is even beneficial or if it’s harmful to a modern America and should be amended.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
If you’re an able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, a citizen or have declared an intention to become a citizen of the US, you’re part of the militia.
Some people seem to have trouble with the english in the second, so I started writing it in relation to something else to illustrate how the sentence structure works.
A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.
So, in the above revision, who would you say has the right to keep and eat food, “the people” or “a well balanced breakfast?” Clearly, as “breakfast” is a concept and incapable of “ownership,” “the people” is the answer. It stays the same gramatically if you plug in “regulated militia” for “balanced breakfast” and “guns” for “food,” the first part is clarifying the reasoning for them delineating the right’s importance, the scond part is delineating the right itself and who has it.
It isn’t saying you’re only allowed to eat breakfast, it’s saying that breakfast is important, and as such, your right to keep food in your fridge/pantry and cook/eat it to your specifications shall not be hampered by the government.
A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of the free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
But it doesn’t, it specifically delineates “the people” as those with the right to arms.
Furthermore, under the definition of militia as per the US Gov, able bodied male citizens age 17-45, and those who wish to be citizens in that same age group, that would mean women dom’t have the right to bear arms.
Also, from the wikipedia article on the second,
The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[12] While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by the militia, “a standing army … would be opposed [by] militia.” He argued that State governments “would be able to repel the danger” of a federal army, “It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.” He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as “afraid to trust the people with arms”, and assured that “the existence of subordinate governments … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition”.[13][14]
Clearly, the intent wasn’t to give the National Guard, a subsect of the US Military, the power to fight itself.
I agree, I prefer the argument that “everyone deserves the right to defend themselves so long as they haven’t proven they’re a danger to others, and presumption of innocence is how our court system works thankfully, so only those convicted of violent crimes should be barred from ownership.” Problem is everyone likes to argue about the intent, which still seems not to be “let the army have guns.” I agree, we shouldn’t have a standing army.
Firearms are not defensive, they are offensive weapons.
No, the difference is who the aggressor is.
Why? The second amendment protects the rights of “the people to keep and bear arms”. Are those not people? Let’s restrict the 2nd amendment rights of some people, but not others?
Fuck it, I’d rather them be able to have em too than nobody, fine you win. I figured you probably would agree with that one though.
Great! Let’s get rid of it, use its budget to fund more social programs.
Sure
We can change to the militia style military and gun control laws of Switzerland.
This highlights the absurdity of the absolutist 2nd amendment take.
Which is why I think the “what the founding fathers intended” argument isn’t necessarily the best path.
It’s between people that value their guns over loss of life and those willing to see more restrictions to prevent loss of life
Except it isn’t though. We already have a large amount of gun laws, and we don’t properly enforce those. We could start doing that, and paying attention to the root causes of the violence rather than one of many tools people use to do harm by focusing on either A) completely ineffective feel good laws that solve nothing or B) completely totalitarian laws that restrict our rights and generally disproportionately affect marginalized POC communities.
But no, gotta ban standard capacity magazines which are in 95% of people’s firearms and make them disadvantaged in a deadly force encounter in which they would need full capacity. Doesn’t matter that criminals could just buy a few regular followers or file the limiter down so they have full capacity but I can’t because I am not running away if I have to use it in defense, so I’ll get caught unlike them. Doesn’t matter that a mass shooter can just put in another mag and keep shooting since there isn’t anyone returning fire, so the law only affects people carrying for self defense since they are limited on how many mags they can carry unless they want to lug around a bookbag or a trenchcoat like the school shooters.
The law can just be a dumb law, it doesn’t mean I support school shootings or some such nonsense argument you’d use to discredit me, you just support bad laws because “guns bad” and I actually think about their impact or lack thereof.
And how many of those firearms were provided by the ATF? What, two or three separate fucktons? I can’t remember. There was the first one, then fast and furious, then I think another.
It may “work” if we go with the totalitarian options sure, especially if we forget about the 600,000,000+ guns already out and trillions of rounds to go with them, and the people who don’t want to relinquish those, but feature bans which are by and large what the legislators push are completely meaningless.
Reasonable advocates for greater gun control aren’t looking for “totalitarian” control.
Not according to the legislation they’ve been attempting recently. It’s almost always something that is too far, or just a feature ban.
Accountability is the big one in my opinion. If you own a gun and keep it loaded and unsecured and it is stolen and used to harm or kill others you should bear responsibility, even if it was reported stolen
Define unsecured. This is too subjective, to some it means on your person or locked in a house, to some it means stored in a safe with the ammo in another safe (neither of which I’ll have time to open in a break in).
There is often such focus on individual freedom
Good.
individual responsibility falls by the wayside.
Individual responsibility would have the theif be responsible for the theft, not the victim for “being too easy to steal from.” You don’t actually want individual responsibility to take a front seat, you want to pawn it off on people you feel were culpable for being victimized.
Responsible, legal gun owners shouldn’t be impacted by greater accountability. They would be inconvenienced
You contradict yourself.
waiting periods and more thorough checks.
Waiting periods have shown to have a negligable effect on crime. It is specifically for “crimes of passion,” and “suicide prevention,” but typically those will be commited regardless with whatever is on hand or they’ll just wait the 10 days if they’re really intent on going through with it, and if they don’t this time they can pick it up and just have it for next time. Mass shootings fall outside the purview of waiting periods, those psychos plan their attacks for months.
“More thorough checks” is also subjective and often how we get into ableist conversations on how “the ‘mentally ill’ catagorically do not deserve rights.” I’m not typically for them. If we actually enforced the laws we already have too that’d be a good start but we can’t even do that.
mental evaluation and 1 year waiting period
Ah, yeah, that ableism. Not into it. Which mental illnesses should preclude one from their rights, pray tell? And a murderer one year a murderer the next, they’ll bide their time. In fact statistically the ATF says average “time to crime,” (that is, time from purchase at a store until it shows up at a crime scene) is *11 years."
And that still doesn’t address the 600,000,000+ guns and trillions of rounds already unregistered.
A well regulated diet is a much better example, but it destroys your argument. It also goes right into the same ethos as people demanding their high capacity magazines and 64 oz sodas.
How does that destroy anything? A diet is still a concept that lacks the ability to “own.” It still isn’t dependant on the well balanced diet, the well balanced diet is simply the reason for delineating your right to keep and eat food.
The National Guard is a component of the United States Army. A militia is a civilian force and would never be deployed to fight in other countries outside of wartime.
But hey since you’re ignoring history and rewriting to serve your ammo sexuality, might as well rewrite all of it.
You seem to be the one rewriting history, friend.
That said… lol. That you can’t discuss a thing you dislike without seeking to disparage others - e.g. ammo sexual - highlights the worth of your contributions. Why don’t you try an actual argument, next time?
Ah, I see - because it disagree with it, we’re supposed to trust your assertion they rewrote historydespite their rich citations and arguments and your absolute lack thereof.
That is, unfortunately, exactly the kind of quality comment I’ve come to expect from the thoughtless anti-firearm brigade.
You can trust my assertions, yes. For one, I am telling the truth. And two, I have no reason to lie.
You’ll understand how I don’t give credence to the word of a rando who makes grand claims, bold - baseless, even - assertions, and demonstrates an utter lack of rationality.
In [Professor Eugene] Volokh’s argument [for a broad individual right], the operative right in the Second Amendment is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and the justification of the right is to provide for a militia, “being necessary to the security of a free state.” A facial construction of these clauses would be that a right should be no broader than its justification; thus, individuals have a right to bear arms only to the extent that it is related to a militia or defense of a state. Or, as Volokh sets forth the issue, “[s]ome argue that justification clause should be read as a condition on the operative clause: The right to keep and bear arms is protected only when it contributes to a well-regulated militia or only when the well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.” Volokh’s response to the question flows from his review of state constitutional provisions. Although rarely occurring in the federal Constitution, state constitutions often contain justification clauses. Volokh explains that there need be no exact fit between the right and the justification: “one should expect the possibility of a mismatch between justification clause and operative clauses: The means chosen to serve the end will often be somewhat broader or narrower than the end itself. But it’s the means that are being made into law.” In Volokh’s words, the justification clause does not “trump the meaning of the operative clause…” Thus, there may be no law to “deprive people the right to keep and bear arms, even if their keeping and bearing arms in a particular instanne doesn’t further the Amendment’s purposes.” Volokh has made a convincing case that the breadth of a right may exceed its justification. It is less convincing that this premise compels the conclusion he asserts. The questionable aspect of his analysis is the breakdown of the Amendment into operative and justification clauses. It is clear that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” is justified by the need for “security of a free state”; but to which clause does the militia belong? Only if the militia belongs to the justification clause may the right of the people be broader than participation in a militia or acting for the preservation of a state. If the militia belongs to the operative clause, Volokh’s conclusion does not follow. Under this reading, the individual right to own guns would be constrained by participation in a militia because the limitation occurs in the operative clause. The broad rights advocates would then be reduced to arguing the logical absurdity that the individual right is broader than itself. Should the reference to the militia be construed as belonging to the justification or the operation of the Second Amendment? It is more likely that it belongs to the operative clause. The militia has no independent justification or reason to exist. Its function is strictly in subservience to larger ends; in this context, it exists to protect the security of the state. It fulfills this function by operating as the tool through which armed individuals come to the aid of the state. The operative right should thus be read as a conjunction of the right to bear clause and the militia clause: the right belongs to individuals in a militia. Under Volokh’s analysis, it is possible that individuals in a militia have rights broader than relate to the security of a state. It is not possible, however, that there is any constitutionally protected individual right to bear arms outside of a militia. To read the Amendment in this manner would require not that the right is broader than the justification but that the right is broader than itself. Thus, Volokh’s argument collapses for failure to identify the militia as belonging to the operative clause of the Amendment.
Wow, you don’t often see an argument from a scholar as widely respected as Volohk–with whom you must be familiar as a fan of law review articles (he wrote the book on how to write them)–be absolutely torn apart with irrefutable logic.
…
It is also undisputed that the Bill of Rights created no new rights. That there was no right of individual possession of arms for private purposes before this document voids any pretension that such a right existed after the document. The Bill of Rights was meaningful because it guaranteed that Protestants would not be treated unequally compared to Catholics in terms of possession of arms. It also transferred control of weapons law to the Parliament so that the English militia would never again be the tool of royal machinations. But the document also codified the central features of possession of arms in the country: arms were primarily important as tools of collective safety, and they were within reach of the law to regulate. The subsequent history of England shows beyond peradventure that there was no private right to firearms. The American colonies put great emphasis on the militia. This was primarily a function of the strong historic aversion against standing armies. The aversion intensified during British occupation of the colonies. But in again the historical record is devoid of any suggestion of an individual right to bear arms outside a military function. This is shown in the original state constitutions, not one of which unambiguously recognizes such an individual right.
…
The last refuge of the gun proponent pertains to the issue of self-defense. This is certainly a major perceived reason for the private ownership of guns. In a 1979 survey, when asked why they possessed a gun, 20% of all gun owners and 40% of handgun owners cited self-defense as the reason. It is unfortunate that these people may be operating under a delusion, having subjected themselves and their families to great danger in the guise of self-protection. One study examined the number of times a gun is used in self-defense against the risk of having a gun in the home in King County, Washington. The risks measured by the authors were the cumulation of “death from unintentional gunshot wounds, homicide during domestic quarrels, and the ready availability of an immediate, highly lethal means of suicide.” The authors conclude that for every instance of a death resulting from defensive use of a gun, there were 43 gun deaths resulting from domestic fights, accidents, or suicides.
One researcher, commenting on the study, noted that "the justifiable use of firearms for self-protection is a rare occurrence and carries with it much greater associated risks of the death of someone other than the perpetrator. The same approximate result obtains on a nationwide scale. In 1992, there were 308 justifiable firearm homicides in self-defensive compared to 15,377 total firearm homicides. Surely, no public policy can be sustained when the negative consequences occur 50 times more often than the positive consequences.
…
There was never a single mention at the Constitutional convention about an individual right to bear arms.
during the ratification hearings on the Bill of Rights in Congress, a draft of the Second Amendment was originally introduced which set forth an individual right to bear arms (that is, which did not attach a qualifying militia clause to the clause setting forth the right to bear arms). However, this version, which would clearly have set forth an individual right to bear arms was soundly defeated, and anew version, written by Madison, and which qualified the right to bear arms to its use in the service of a militia, was subsequently adopted and incorporated in to the Bill of Rights.
Wow we could have had it written right in there, but that version was soundly defeated because everyone there agreed it would be idiotic to allow any random person to buy whatever guns they want.
…
The U.S. Supreme Court in Miller stated that “The Second Amendment guarantees no rights to keep and bear a firearm that does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” There are two possible interpretation of this language. The first is that the Second Amendment gives every citizen a right to possess a weapon which might conceivable be used for military purposes. The problem with this interpretation is twofold: first, it leads to the remarkable conclusion that citizens have a right to possess such military weapons as machine-guns; bazookas, and perhaps even suitcase-sized nuclear weapons, but no right to carry a weapon such as a Saturday night special, which no branch of the military has ever issued to its troops. (Even the gun lobby has never suggested that there is no right under the Second Amendment to carry small handguns such as Saturday night specials). The second problem with this interpretation is that every circuit court since Miller, without exception, has rejected this interpretation of Miler.
Hey, until we got some illegitimate Supreme Court justices who were willing to pedal the same lies that you got tricked by. Now anyone can have any gun anyone wants and all gun laws are unconstitutional because “reasons.”
The comprehensive nature of [digital] archives can give scholars a high degree of certainty that keyword searches accurately reflect common usage since they contain most of the surviving printed material from the colonies and early Republic. The Early American Imprints series contains over 15,500 documents from 1763 to 1791 alone, 273 of which use the phrase “bear arms.”" If we discard the many reprints of the Bill of Rights, all quotations of the text of the Second Amendment in congressional debate, irrele- vant foreign news, reprints of the Declaration of Independence, and all repeated or similar articles, 111 hits remain, of which only two do not use the phrase to connote a military meaning.’ Using the same method of sorting results from the 132 papers published from 1763 to 1791, the Early American Newspapers database returns 115 relevant hits, with all but five using a military construction of “bear arms.” A search of the exact phrase “bear arms” in the Library of Congress da- tabase (which includes Letters of Delegates to Congress,Journals of the Continental Congress, Elliot’s Debates, and the House and Senate Journals of the First Congress) between 1775 and 1791 returns forty-one relevant hits, of which only four do not use the phrase “bear arms” in an ex-plicitly collective or military context. The sources prove that Americans consistently employed “bear arms” in a military sense, both in times of peace and in times of war, showing that the overwhelming use of “bear arms” had a military meaning. [W]hile not every sin- gle source uncovered from these digital archives uses “bear arms” in an explicitly military sense, the handful that do not are merely ambiguous; at most, they tend to show that “bear arms,” on rare occasion, was paired with additional language to mean, idiosyncratically, “carry guns.”
The historical record of usage clearly shows that, before 1791, “bear arms” was used in its idiomatic sense to denote military service and the like, and that usage to denote non-military conduct was rare and idiosyncratic.
Bud the reason I didn’t reply with sources at first is honestly because you are a joke to me. Linking a law review article to me, you don’t know shit about law review. The scholarship on this is clear and overwhelming.
Bud the reason I didn’t reply with sources at first is honestly because you are a joke to me. Linking a law review article to me, you don’t know shit about law review. The scholarship on this is clear and overwhelming.
Right - it has nothing to do with your having negligible awareness of the issue, getting caught blatantly shitposting, and scrambling to try and shore up your position with such scholarship as to apparently have not even read what you’ve posted.
Ah - I see you’ve dropped an entire article in lieu of any actual argument. If we’re going by average liberal quantity of articles dropped, regardless of content strategy, you’re still losing. If we’re going by more mature content matters strategy, you’ve woefully failed and approach a gish gallop. There’s some irony in that your article was titled THE INCONVENIENT MILITIA CLAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: WHY THE SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO RESOLVE THE DEBATE OVER THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS - it seems not to have aged well.
Out of an abundance of undeserved good-will, I’ll overlook that you’ve yet to address either source provided and - in lieu of actually making an argument - you drop an article you seem to not have actually read and understood. With any source, one must consider what it is and what it says.
For example, I have provided a linguistic analysis of what the framers intended regarding the right to bear arms which references the works of the framers themselves, culture of the time, and events of the time to answer myriad questions from an objective point of view - clarifying the right to bear arms, defining what arms are protected, elaborating on the validity of licensing on registration, and arriving at its conclusion from the information shared.
You, however, have shared a persuasive essay which makes no attempt to hide its bias. Indeed, its opening quote makes its interests quite clear. Its entire introduction repeatedly highlights - rather than actual definitions, historical references, etc. - attempts to disambiguate as related to what the authors believe should have happened. It is, at best, a lengthy “rah but the conservatives” mud-slinging display. The best to be said is there exists a reference to previous legal understanding - one, we should all hope, is expected to clarify over time rather than stay stagnant with poor understanding. Heck, WLU highlights in an analysis of the concept of that A legal answer that is emphatically correct, and therefore settled, for decades or even centuries might eventually lose that status in light of sociocultural progress, as the debate about the death penalty illustrates.
As your article finally delves into its analyses, it fundamentally pins its interpretation of the American right to bear arms on English history, on a comparison of the legislated acts of the colonies and its own interpretation of them, on a commentary about militias rather than arms, etc. It seems to reference everything except the actual direct commentary on the matter, the culture of the time, etc… and it does so in only the most tangential ways even there.
To summarize, your persuasive essay starts with its flawed conclusion, seeks to shore it up with anything at-hand, specifically neglects the things that directly contradict it (no worries, my first source covers that), and hopes you weren’t paying enough attention to notice. There’s a bit more irony in that this is exactly how you’ve participated in this discussion.
But hey, once you’ve gone back and done your part, we can continue this discussion.
Wow, you don’t often see an argument from a scholar as widely respected as Volohk–with whom you must be familiar as a fan of law review articles (he wrote the book on how to write them)–be absolutely torn apart with irrefutable logic.
I’m not sure you actually read what you quoted. In zero ways was he torn apart with irrefutable logic - that paragraph, at best, says - paraphrased - “if we’re right, he’s wrong, and we’re pretty sure we’re right”.
Wow we could have had it written right in there, but that version was soundly defeated because everyone there agreed it would be idiotic to allow any random person to buy whatever guns they want.
Did they? I’m not sure how anything in those paragraphs supports such an assertion, even aside from how they’re once more already corrected by the other source I’d provided.
You… aren’t good at this reading comprehension thing, are you?
Hey, until we got some illegitimate Supreme Court justices who were willing to pedal the same lies that you got tricked by. Now anyone can have any gun anyone wants and all gun laws are unconstitutional because “reasons.”
Ahh, I see - it’s all a conspiracy theory to you. Nifty.
You are ridiculous. Try responding to any of the arguments I quoted and put in bold.
It was you that threw up a linked and said “Duke says,” no context, no quotes, no arguments.
My article contains undisputed facts.
Fact: there was no individual right before the bill of rights, in any state constitution, or in any system of English law, so how could there be one after the Bill of Rights?
Fact: for a few decades before the second amendment was written, there is no surviving text in which the usage of “bear arms” clearly refers to an individual right, and in 95% of the usage it refers expressly to the context of regimented military.
Fact: the self defense and home defense argument are utterly delusional in light of the actual statistics that offensive and suicide uses to defensive usage is 50 to 1.
Fact: the placement of the phrase “well regulated military” evidence a clear original intent for the second amendment to exist to serve the purpose of protecting state government, a purpose that does not suggest an individual right.
You are trying to revise actual history as this and the weight of all law review articles on the subject demonstrate.
You find me one instance of the phrase “bear arms” prior to 1776 suggesting clearly an individual right, and you might have a leg to stand on. You cannot.
You are ridiculous. Try responding to any of the arguments I quoted and put in bold.
We’re still waiting for your responses to the arguments raised. You don’t get to ignore the arguments made and then complain waaah respond to the arguments - out of an abundance of good will, I’ve addressed your source itself and highlighted its myriad flaws.
It was you that threw up a linked and said “Duke says,” no context, no quotes, no arguments.
I see you haven’t bothered to glance it over. That, at least, confirms the suspicions regarding your failure to do so.
My article contains undisputed facts.
See the previous comment regarding what these actually say. You seem to have just skipped right over that - perhaps continuing your trend of either not reading or failing to comprehend what one has read.
Your source does not seem to support your position in any way.
You are trying to revise actual history as this and the weight of all law review articles on the subject demonstrate.
You find my one instance of the “phrase bear arms” prior to 1776 suggesting clearly an individual right, and you might have a leg to stand on. You cannot.
Both of which were quite clearly addressed by the previous comment - the one you seem to have not actually read.
“Well regulated” in the context of the constitution clearly meant "well-trained/mobilized/deployed, in an efficient and orderly manner, and should be adequately capable.
So not your average Joe who just wants to own a gun then?
Then there is also the other issue that the other drafted forms of the amendment don’t even include that clause, indicating more clearly the main point, that they didn’t want the government to be able to restrict citizens’ right to bear arms, after the episode they just had with the British government trying to limit arms to prevent an armed resistance in favor of colonial independence - said conflict having been kicked off specifically by an attempt to seize arms.
You can think one way or the other about how the state should treat guns, but people have this inclination to try to rewrite history about what it says and why. It’s pretty clear if you take the blinders off, regardless of what you think about the issue.
It’s ironic that your best argument is to suggest one read history - with mindless disparaging insult - in response to actual history and analysis, with citations.
As long as you are allowed to have a flintlock pistol, your constitution is not violated
‘As long as you have a quill and paper, your right to free speech is not violated’
Your argument is not how the Bill of Rights works. I for one am happy about that, I enjoy having free speech on the internet, and presumably you do too.
Like slavery, but not bodily autonomy or the right to representative government or the right to not be discriminated against, or the right against infringement of property rights or …
The jail sentence has nothing to do with this happening.
This will keep happening while people are forced to bear kids they don’t want in financial situations, where nothing can be afforded and everything is shit.
The mother was torturing her child because she needed to vent and her kid seemed like the root of all her problems, not because there were only 30 days of jail sentence.
I think that’s only been a recent thing they’ve mentioned; mostly they seem to come out with the ‘moar guns’ line, or the good guys with guns statement, but that’s coming from an outsider so it may well be different from your actual experience.
Exactly. Then they’ll take that and turn it into fear. Then they’ll take that fear and blame the Democrats for it. Then their base with their room temperature IQ will eat that shit up and show up on voting day and vote for hatred and projection while being completely oblivious to the fact it’s their party’s fault nothing is being done about it.
It is a justification. Still abhorrent and unforgiven, but it is still better than just seeing this as a singular incident with no corralation to any other such occurrence. Highlighting this as a systemic problem would really help all involved.
Shunning those who point these errors out will not help however.
People like you have had their impact on our justice system which is part of why it’s such shit show. You just want to react and punish even if putting aside emotions and reaching for understanding could prevent it in the first place.
We should be rehabilitating people and getting support systems in place. This act was horrendous, but there’s already laws against what she did and punishments for it so why is your answer to just keep banging our heads against the wall doing the same shit? Justice shouldn’t just be about revenge. Our views and treatment of mental health in this country is abysmal, to say the least. Our prisons are just slave labor that don’t do anything but chew people up and spit them out to fail and go back in again. Even if you’re the type to get raging justice boners you gotta be able to see that our legal system is bullshit all the way down.
Holy crap! Did you hurt yourself whipping so fast to understand exactly the point?
Of course a broken person shouldn’t be punished for being broken! Fuckin duh! dipshit
Should such a person be prevented from harming others? Absolutely.
Is the right move to lock this person away for 30 days of to lock them away for the rest of their life? No. Neither of these is an option even a four year old would expect to prevent this person and others in similar situations from performing similar crimes. I am confident, in fact, that even you could think of a better solution if you thought about it for about twelve seconds. Is that solution, or any solution, likely to be the perfect solution? Absolutely Not. A solution that’s dog shit would be more effective than the one implemented here.
Do you have evidence this woman was forced to bear this child? I didn’t read that in the article. And since you provided your opinion of why the mother did this to the child, I know for a fact you didn’t read the article.
Do you have evidence this woman was forced to bear this child?
I do not, but I also rather meant my text as generalization for parents harming their children this much.
Okay, let’s look into the article to see if a jail sentence would help.
Authorities said while the officer was taking McDonald to jail, she said that her actions were done as a test to see if the child’s father “gave a f–k at all,” adding she waterboarded her baby to try and make Neal come back to the apartment.
She allegedly admitted her actions were done “out of spite.”
I would argue, this crime has nothing to do with the sentence and everything to do with the circumstances I and others have mentioned.
And maybe she didn’t want to abort, but also maybe she would have chosen to, if it were more accepted and education in that matter was better.
A lot of maybes and speculation. Sure, education is never a bad thing, but you’re trying to use this horrible situation to push your beliefs. This woman hurt her own child to spite the child’s father.
I made no mention of the jail sentence. You made a claim that was false. I responded to it with facts from the article. You responded with some “maybes” and speculation.
I think it’s pretty messed up to use this situation to push your opinion how having access to abortion (being “forced” to bear this child) might have prevented this. There’s a time and a place for such an argument.
Haha just had to get one insult in, didn’t you? The sign of a petty personality. Just couldn’t agree to disagree, could you? Nope. Just haaaaaad to drop an insult. Feels like reddit all over again.
But Oregon has had widely available abortion for decades, since the late 60s/early 70s.
This lady also lives in Multnomah County, home of Portland, one of the most progressive cities in the US. She had access to many resources although it so kind like she didn’t use them.
Okay, but do you think, that maybe her life was so shitty, that she didn’t even care for her kid and that this is maybe even a systemic problem and she has no way of solving that herself?
Yes, I wrote this somewhere else, but my point still stands. The kid seemed as the root of all her problems and the jail sentence did never occur to her.
This is not an excuse (as some people said) it is still a horrible thing to do. I just want to make people aware, that these thing point to systemic problems and not necessarily evil people.
Jail sentences were never detracting anyone from crimes. Crimes are either planned so the criminal does not think they will be caught or done out of emotion so the criminal does not think about possible punishment
The severity of the punishment is not an effective deterrent. This has been known since a UN study from the 1980s, yet people still cling to the belief that a long prison sentence or the death penalty is a good deterrent.
So long as the punishment is significant enough that it cannot be dismissed (eg a small fine is meaningless to someone wealthy), then the only effective deterrent is the certainty of being caught.
It was mentioned at the end of this Amnesty International fact sheet (pdf) that it was first published in 1988 then updated, I think there was also a fifth edition in 2015 so maybe there’s an even another new one now. I’m not sure if this is exactly the same source I saw previously, but that could be because of the various revisions.
If she’s in jail she can’t waterboard her kid and put it in the freezer again… Do you motherfuckers even think about what you’re saying before you spout off with these tired arguments?
Not really, there’s still a baby freezing psychopath on the loose in that case. Who knows what she’ll do to the next person she blames all her problems on.
This comment chain is in response to that sentence not being long enough. I’d gamble on the foster system over the known lady that puts the kid in the freezer.
Do you remember when the Las Vegas shooter killed 60 people and and injured over 400 more (not counting the hundreds more injured while fleeing)?
You should, since it was the most deadly mass shooting in the history of America.
Anyway, he fired over 1000 rounds in the process but even with the record death toll, it still wasn’t enough to make the pro-gun community agree to ban bump stocks, despite them insisting they were just a range toy anyway.
So who needs your hypothetical shooter that’s impossible to measure when we have so many actual dead people just piling up because you repeatedly defend them.
I always love when people highlight an outlier as some sort of justification for sweeping change while also refusing to consider any sweeping change that isn’t the one they want.
Lol no they are not. They’re just plastic rifles, they function the same as any other semi-auto rifle. Lol you anti-2a people are hilarious, you’re so ignorant of firearms and even statistics you end up looking like those idiots who want to ban abortion.
A hot take from the “it’s because of video games, rap music and buildings having too many doors” crowd.
You don’t need to be an expert at sexually abusing children to make child abuse laws and you don’t need to know the calibre and capacity of 100 guns to see that the current laws are dogshit and can’t keep guns out of the hands of even the reddest of flags.
Lol you’re really going to go with “FUDD represents all firearm owners”? If I recall correctly tipper gore is the one who got the labels slapped on CDs…
You’re arguing with a liberal gun owner, you absolutely should know about weapons you’re trying to ban, because you clearly don’t understand the difference between a plastic semi auto rifle and one with a wood stock… they’re literally the same thing.
You don’t need to be an expert at sexually abusing children to make child abuse laws and you don’t need to know the calibre and capacity of 100 guns to see that the current laws are dogshit and can’t keep guns out of the hands of even the reddest of flags.
Speaking of red flags, have you gone through your own comment history and tallied up the number of times you’ve talked about sexually abusing children?
Oh, wow - I’ll have to let my hunting group know our AR-15s chambered in .350 Legend complete with standard magazines just aren’t any good for deer because this rando on the Internet said so.
It is very much different in my state; my understanding is that such restrictions are only prevalent in states which are already overly-restrictive on such matters.
Iowa’s general restrictions are effectively that the caliber must be between .350 and .500 caliber barring the special population management season which additionally allows .223/5.56x45mm. That’s it.
The hunting season may come with additional restrictions, but they’re generally of the “primitive” aka bow/muzzle-loader, “long-gun”, etc. categories.
So Iowa doesn’t allow 30-30 or 30-06 rifles for deer? That seems crazy as those are some of the most popular rifles. I believe the round limit is more about encouraging people to take better shots and prevent wounding deer/other game with spray and pray styles.
Actually “self defense” also falls under that umbrella.
Honestly, for mass shootings, you don’t need the standard capacity mags because you can reload quickly when you don’t have the pressure of return fire. I’d argue you don’t need them for mass shootings but do for self defense against armed targets. Also hog hunting, idpa, uspsa, etc.
Who is behind them? Um… Conservatives. All of them.
Conservatism is hate. Nearly every act of domestic terrorism in North American history has been committed by conservatives. Nearly every act of racism, bigotry, misogyny, transphobia, homophobia, xenophobia and anti-semitism ever committed in our planet’s history has been committed by conservatives.
Teach your children why it is inappropriate to make friends with, keep relationships with or do business with conservatives. Marginalize hate by marginalizing the hate group.
Teaching children to hate, especially dogmatic hate, is disgusting even when one’s stance is morally correct. If a stance is just, then by teaching children ethics and critical thinking they will come to the correct conclusion on their own. When one uses the exact same playbook as the worst parts of the group they hate, they become the worst part of the group they represent.
Since some people don’t seem to realize what a bigot actually is:
bigot - bĭg′ət - noun - One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Edit: Phrasing, mostly replacing the word “you” with generic pronouns.
You are mistaken. I am not espousing “intolerance of those who differ”. I am espousing intolerance of a group of deadly dangerous bigots who demonize anyone who is not in their group. Do not equivocate the haters and their victims who reject them. That is a tactic of the conservatives.
Biden is a neo-liberal. Neo-liberals are conservatives. They are better dressed and more intelligent, but they are conservatives by all international measures.
Not everyone is willing to do what’s necessary to cure the disease. I am willing. If that makes me a monster, then I am the monster they themselves created.
Conservatism is a plague of oppression and death.
You can pretend that you are not an intolerant bigot advocating for mass-murder, but your own words betray you.
Reading through the constant fountain of hate that you spew in your comments makes it clear just how big of a problem Lemmy has right now. The vast majority of you comments are pushing for at least two-thirds of society to be “extinguished”.
I have seen whole instances defederated for having a user say less violent and bigoted things than your comments do.
Is this the centrist part, where some violence is ok?
I am someone that believes that for a democracy or republic to function that sometimes we have to sit down with people that we rather punch than talk to and find the few things we both agree on.
It is bad enough to marginalize small groups, but any political view that is advocating marginalizing half of society is the real enemy and should be fought against by all free people.
Idgaf what you think. You’re of the opinion that people who can’t even agree that certain members of our society are human and deserve basic rights should be sat down with and talked to?
I have no time for their nonsense and no time for yours.
Look up the tolerance paradox and think hard about that.
There is a far cry between tolerance without limit and hating anyone that doesn’t agree with you. I can give you a hint as to which side you have been arguing for in case you got confused along the way.
Cute. You involved yourself in my dialogue, not the other way around. You could have stopped responding at any point.
It is hard being presented with logical reason that disagrees with our emotional beliefs. Look up cognitive dissonance. It might help you reconcile the pain.
No, it’s hard to have a conversation with someone who refuses to respond to what they are commenting to and instead responding to arguments spacecowboy didn’t make. Funny that.
SC lead with a false dichotomy and then when I gave them a genuine opinion anyways responded with “idgaf what you think”. At which point did you think I should have spent more time giving in-depth answers?
I don’t mind answering a question if you have one and are engaging in good faith. If however you lead with bad faith arguments, then twist and dismiss my opinions, I will have to apologize in advance because in that case I won’t spend much time on the responses either.
Was there something they asked that you wanted to know the answer to?
There’s no paradox in tolerance. Tolerance means you accept everyone existing within the societal contract - period. Doesn’t matter if they’re Republican, a racist, or anything else
Behavior out of bounds should be fought appropriately. If someone uses words to express racism, call them a disgusting asshole. If a bunch of neonazis organize for an act of violence, confront it with violence. Respond appropriately.
Conversely, if a racist can be around people of other races without acting racist, accept them in the group to reinforce their rehabilitation. If someone with braindead opinions bites their tongue and keeps it to themselves, tolerate them.
There’s no paradox - there’s acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior. If anyone, displays only acceptable behavior, you tolerate them - full stop. If anyone goes out of bounds, you respond appropriately to correct the behavior - full stop.
The “paradox of tolerance” is people justifying attacking people. This myth does nothing but ensure there’s no way back for people who have drifted out of bounds - it’s a recipe for radicalizing people.
I’m genuinely convinced the “paradox of tolerance” is a psyops designed to fracture society by breeding extremists… If there’s no tolerance when they behave and no way back, what do you think is going to happen? Either their beliefs that they’re under attack get constantly reinforced and they get further pushed out of bounds, or we kill them all before they destroy our society
There has to be a way back, or the only way forward is ideological purges
I’ve been saying it for a good while now, and almost never get much response -but it’s worth saying anyways.
Please help spread this idea… It’ll never be popular, but it’s important. Far too few people get that, but words that ring true tend to stick with people down the line
I have no time for their nonsense and no time for yours.
One person’s nonsense is another person’s importance.
None of these people on either side are going to just magically disappear because the other side doesn’t like them.
If you want them to respect you enough to hear what you’re saying (I’m assuming when you comment you actually want people to read it and consider what you’re saying) you should do the same in reverse, even if you disagree with what they’re saying.
And when their stance is ‘trans people shouldn’t have rights’ what’s the middle ground there exactly?
It should be obvious that I was not advocating for a middle ground between two disparate stances on a single issue. I was advocating for choosing issues that we already mostly agree on.
In general, in a democracy, laws should not be created relating to issues that there is little to no agreement on. Trans rights is obviously one of the issues where there is little agreement amongst the population and laws, particularly national laws, should be avoided until there is a strong consensus among the population.
I am someone that believes that for a democracy or republic to function that sometimes we have to sit down with people that we rather punch than talk to and find the few things we both agree on.
Realize you’re getting a lot more downvotes than upvotes, but I just wanted to let you know you’re not alone, in this way of thinking.
You don’t teach children to recognize hate by pointing at everyone right of middle and saying, those are bad people. That is how you teach hate itself.
It’s acceptable for the same reason we tell our kids to avoid violent and hurtful people. I wouldn’t befriend anyone who supports removing my rights for any reason, teaching kids to do the same promotes building healthy relationships with people who value and support each other.
Teaching kids to avoid violent and hurtful people is reasonable, but claiming the entire right side of the spectrum is equivalent to them is prejudicial bigotry. Teaching kids to do the same is teaching them the same prejudicial bigotry.
I wouldn’t befriend anyone who supports removing my rights
When you redefine a spectrum of beliefs as “removing my rights” then what you are removing is any ability to continue discourse. Without discourse there is no democracy. At best you end up with the tyranny of majority.
That’s a long walk and a slippery slope. Deciding not to involve detrimental people in my life is not removing someone’s right. It’s my right to choose the people I surround myself with, and it’s no one’s right to be coddled by their peers.
I learned at a young age that hating someone is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.
I feel the same disdain towards someone who would suggest we eradicate people because of their skin color or ethnic background as I do towards someone that would suggest that we eradicate people because of their political views.
The difference being, I have never encountered anyone in real life or on Lemmy who would openly admit to being a nazi, whereas I have never spent an hour on Lemmy without seeing someone who thinks its okay to unironically say, “kill conservatives” or “eat rich people” receive overwhelming positive votes.
I hate anyone who promotes genocide. It’s why I hate nazis.
Conservatism and wealth are neither immutable characteristics nor cultures. You have provided zero examples of leftists calling for genocide.
Then again, your definition of “bigotry” is selective enough that you only consider people to be bigots if they don’t like bigots. Who knows how bonkers and contrary to reality your definition of “genocide” is?
Then we should be on similar sides of this argument.
Does it really needed to be pointed out that Conservatism in the West is based on religious and cultural characteristics? Or are we just going to pretend that most Western conservatives aren’t Protestants?
your definition of “bigotry” is selective enough that you only consider people to be bigots if they don’t like bigots
How odd, that doesn’t sound anything like what I posted earlier. Not something I wrote mind you, just the first thing that came up when I web-searched “bigot”. It is almost like you are making up a fake argument, that is easy to defeat, and then pretending I said something like it. If only there was a name for that sort of thing. S…st…straw… I will give you hint, it isn’t strawberry.
Here is the exact quote I posted earlier:
bigot - bĭg′ət - noun - One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
If you are getting something significantly different than that when you look up bigot, you might try using something other than Google; it has a tendency to reinforce one’s own biases.
Does it really needed to be pointed out that Conservatism in the West is based on religious and cultural characteristics?
Conservatism itself is not a religion. There are plenty of conservative atheists and non-conservative religious institutions. Don’t try to co-opt religion just to pretend that your political views are a culture.
The only portion of the definition of “bigot” you care about is the portion you bolded. Which you’re using as a proxy for “people who hold political views that are rooted in bigotry.”
I’m glad lemmy is hostile to bigots. I hope that never changes.
I have no doubt that there are some conservative atheists, but let’s not pretend that they represent anything other than an extreme minority of self-identified conservatives.
Don’t try to co-opt religion just to pretend that your political views are a culture.
I will let Wikipedia do the talking here.
Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy that seeks to promote and to preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values.
the portion you bolded.
The bolded portion was the portion relevant to the conversation, and relevant to Lemmy in general. Even if what you are saying was true and that was all I cared about, it wouldn’t mean OC wasn’t being bigoted.
I’m glad lemmy is hostile to bigots.
If Lemmy was hostile to all bigots instead of just conservative bigots, someone else would have called out OC as a bigot. After picking my jaw up off the floor, I would have upvoted then moved on.
If we are going to have a conversation can we at least try to have a little intellectual integrity?
You wanted to accuse me of having weird definitions of words. I copied the very first link from a web-search regarding those words to confirm my statements, but I am the one playing semantics games and cherry-picking?
How about you respond to the actual stances laid out since we got all our definitions in order. Or would you rather continue to throw bright colored fish across the room instead?
Bigotry can be towards political stances other than your own, and OC was engaging in it. Agree or Disagree, if not then why?
Advocating for mass eradication of a group of people with shared ethnic, religious, and cultural values is abhorrent and could be called genocide. Agree or Disagree, if not then why?
Bigotry can be towards political stances other than your own, and OC was engaging in it. Agree or Disagree, if not then why?
Disagree entirely. You choose your political affiliation, and that choice says something about the person who makes it. For example, anyone who is still with the Republican party after January 6 does not consider an attempted coup to be a dealbreaker. They see people marching with swastika flags and shouting “Jews will not replace us” and don’t consider that to be a problem. They cheer when people call for the eradication of trans people.
Advocating for mass eradication of a group of people with shared ethnic, religious, and cultural values is abhorrent and could be called genocide. Agree or Disagree,
Advocating for it is not genocide. It’s advocating for genocide. I oppose genocide.
You point to any criticism of conservatives, up to and including nazis, announce that it’s genocide, and then pretend to oppose genocide in that narrowly defined circumstance only. You would be positively delighted of conservatives’ stated goal of wiping out trans people were accomplished, for example.
You are arguing on behalf of bigots in bad faith. I have better ways to waste a Sunday evening.
If we are going to say that most conservatives are white protestants then yes it sounds like a fair term to use.
Though even if we decide it is the wrong term, calling for the eradication of large parts of the population based on religious, cultural and a political affiliation is still abhorrent.
Like most centrists, many of my views are not really in the center but I think it is necessary in a democracy to find a middle ground between the extremes.
If you’ve never met someone on real life who is openly racist, calls themselves a nazi, openly supports bigoted policies and/or actively works to remove rights from people for who they are - you’re not paying attention. This is on a post about people organizing a march and politically strategizing to strip the rights away from other people.
I did not say that I had never met a racist or someone who supports bigoted policies, just that I had never met anyone that would admit to being a nazi. The difference being most nazis know they should keep their extremist views hidden.
I have met plenty or racists. For most of them it is subtle and they don’t recognize it for what it is. I have never heard any of them advocate for killing everyone on the other side of the political spectrum or eating humans.
remove rights from people for who they are
This is vague and politically loaded. I have definitely met TERFs, pro-lifers, and those that advocate against gender treatments for children, but that is not at all the same as advocating mass murder and cannibalism for those that disagree with their views.
I don’t know anything about the group behind those protests. I was vaguely curious about it when I clicked this post but made the mistake of reading the most upvoted comment in this thread.
In my mind there is a pretty big difference between what the article says is the groups stated viewpoint:
“Our primary concern is indoctrination of children in public schools,” the group says on its website. “This movement is mainly focused on protection of children against LGBTQIA+ ideology in school system and not to fight back against the LGBTQ community.”
and these excerpts from OCs own comment and history:
Teach your children why it is inappropriate to make friends with, keep relationships with or do business with conservatives.
Not everyone is willing to do what’s necessary to cure the disease. I am willing. If that makes me a monster, then I am the monster they themselves created.
I think you lost track of who you’re arguing with. But yeah, you admit people can be subtle about how they express their views and yet don’t understand why that makes conservatives in north america dangerous.
I paint them with broad strokes because calling yourself a conservative in this times is accepting the broad variety of beliefs that political party supports. People have a choice.
As a marginalized person who had no choice in how I was born and always felt the affects of conservative policies, to the extreme detriment of my health and well-being, I absolutely understand and support anyone who thinks they should be ostracized.
Left leaving people believe that every human is worth the same - right leaning people draw lines and exclude people from that equal group.
The more often they draw the line against a part of the population most people aren’t part of the more likely is it that they manage to convince one of those that it’s actually worth it for them to agree with those divisions
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.