this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
1307 points (96.3% liked)
Memes
45195 readers
2233 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Democrats don't oppose guns. Democrats are for base-level gun control. Republicans are insane, NRA-supporting fools who would rather 5 year old children get massacred weekly instead of have any potential gun controls.
We have lots of gun controls. Are you satisfied with the gun controls we have in place?
Gun control is for the quiet majority to disarm the minority through things like false charges and disqualifying their opposition.
So just your average gun nut willing to keep stacking the corpses of children.
Really? Yeah, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with, you know, actually keeping kids safe. No, that actually makes sense, and even worse, isn't about "me"!
For the record, even if there's anything to your absurd statement, I'm all for gun control. I care more about kids' lives than yours.
You’re not making a very good case. Historically speaking, American gun laws have universally been about disarmament as opposed to harm reduction.
If, for example, the awb had included free publicly accessible classes on gun safety and massive funding for mental health services then you’d be able to make the connection between gun control laws and an effort to lower child mortality.
Are you aware of this little place called "The entirety of Earth except 'murica" ? Gun control seems to work pretty well, there.
Well not so much in Myanmar. Or Nanking. Or Germany. Or Gaza.
But sure. All the places the government isn’t massacring unarmed civilian populations, gun control is working out great.
What does that have to do with whether Americas gun laws are intended to reduce harm or disarm different segments of the populace?
R always deflect to mental health. But Reagan dismantled our mental health infrastructure, and R consistently votes against spending in that area. (Probably because they won't ever seem to vote for anything that helps people, only for taking things from people.)
So R needs to support gun control, OR support funding mental health services, OR come clean and admit that school shootings are a price they are willing to pay as long as they get to keep their weapons and do as they will with them.
(They did like the mulford act, but we all know what that was really about. The one thing more important that guns to that crowd.)
I see mass shootings and individual murder the price we pay to prevent the government from massacring civilians like they did in Myanmar recently.
If we really want a gun-free society we need to make sure the government doesn’t have guns. Given that’s impossible, the next best thing is letting citizens have guns.
I hope you at least vote for candidates who support mental health initiatives. (Though that would rule out Republicans.)
But anyway hey, at least you are honest. (Kinda. Aside from assuming I'm pushing for gun-free just because I wish republicans would even talk about gun control.)
It's the price the victims pay. You see that price, that those dead people have paid, as something that you are willing for them to pay. Let's not mince words. It's your value judgement that it's worth it for them to have died. I wonder if they and their families felt it was.
It’s always one political party’s fault, never the clear result of what a system of government was designed to do.
The nfa was bipartisan, gca was bipartisan, fopa was bipartisan, the Brady bill was bipartisan.
The majority of child gun deaths are accidental or suicide.
If the point was ever to reduce child deaths from firearms then the gun control legislation would have mental health funding and safety education funding attached.
At some point you gotta look at two hundred years of extremely well documented history and recognize this system is working as intended.
First, I don't how that could be your response to my comment about the current state of mental health. So R is magically going to vote for two things they never (in recent history - say since school shootings became the big issue they are now - or even say since death by gun became the top cause of childhood death) vote for as long as we put those things together?
It seems kind of ridiculous to argue here over the content of the regulations when there is literally no possibility that half of our legislature will vote for it anyhow.
Hmm. Yep, everything stemming from our system of government is just peachy. We don't still have problems rippling through our culture due to slavery and civil rights issues, one political party that has sold their soul to Trump and his cronies (oh and let's not forget how they've welcomed the white supremacists into their midst) and is just itching for an excuse to go full secession, unsustainable wealth inequality, a large percentage of families living paycheck to paycheck, a healthcare system that routinely makes people choose between paying for food and shelter or healthcare and medicine and etc etc etc.
Clearly with two hundred years of extremely well documented history of all these problems and our ineptitude and lack of will to solve many of them, we should conclude that the system is working as intended.
I don’t think you’re giving our congresspeople enough credit. Neither half of our legislature would vote a bill containing gun safety education and mental health services into law. Their aim with gun control laws is not to prevent child death from firearms.
I disagree that it’s just peachy that we live in the prototype fascist state, still going strong, but the rest of what you said is true.
I certainly didn't think I'd ever be Daffy Duck in the "wabbit season/duck season" gag, but here we are. While I (now) understand the point you are trying to make, I do not agree that this is the future envisioned by those who created our nation and system of government, and thus I must disagree that this is functioning as intended.
Which version of that bit are you referencing? I know of three and they all end differently…
You’re right though, the framers of our constitution would be appalled that women, the unlanded and blacks were extended the franchise.
Well, none of them end in Daffy's favor. 😀
On the contrary! The one which shines brightest in my memory winds up with “Elmer season”!
Be vewwy vewwy quiet, weow hunting ewected officiaws.
Oh I had completely forgotten that one!
You mean what used to be taught in high schools? But slowly over time was removed from every school in the whole nation?
We had archery in our high school. Years prior to mine had classes on guns... Years after mine, not even archery.
I can't help but notice that you are simply making the argument that we've done it wrong before, therefore I want it done wrong again.
Okay, sure. What a strong case you made. You win, or whatever.
No, and clearly you didn't bother to read. My point was that WE DID do public education on the matter. For some reason we decided to stop doing it. And now people like you are claiming that we should be freely and publicly conducting classes.
I made no case for anything other than outlining that we used to teach this shit in schools.
Clearly schools have failed to teach you reading comprehension.
It's as much for keeping kids safe as the kids online safety act. You think the police keep them safe? Watch out for fireworks.