The second amendment clearly states that the "right of people to keep and read gay books shall not be infringed"
Unexpected plot twist of the year.
Ironically South East Asia and the middle east would like you to respect the lady boys hehehe
Correct, in the same way that guns are not inherently evil and require someone with bad intentions to use them in a bad way. Both are correct, but sadly the folks who believe a certain way (books are bad or guns are bad) will not be convinced to change their point of view by a snarky sign.
Ofc guns aren't evil. They're objects. A chair can't be evil. And yes, you can bash someone over the head with a chair, yet there is a glaring difference. A gun is made for the sole purpose to shoot someone. You can't really use it for anything else. It's absolutely it's intended purpose and what it's used for. So, if we were to assign 'good' or 'evil' to inanimate objects, guns would certainly lean way more into the evil side.
A gun can shoot someTHING, not only someONE. I've shot guns many times and have never shot someone. People forget competitive shooting is a thing (and very fun). I know I'll be downvoted, but just trying to show people there is another side.
I don't think anybody ever forgets that they are essentially toys to some people. But look at drones. People love to fly them, they are very fun, but those things weilded irresponsibly are a fucking menace to people and there are some laws with hefty penalties for using them in ways that endanger the public incur hefty fines because they are dangerous.
Yet guns don't get the same treatment in the US.
Quite frankly the fun factor isn't really pursuant to the discussion. When you are talking about wide ranging public health issues that make a lot of people more likely to die due to making suicides more successful and escalate your personal conflicts into highly deadly senarios people do not want to take the time to entertain discussion about how fun they are to shoot because it turns one into the adult trying to deal with a maddened six year old trying to make a case for buying lawn darts.
Yes, there are secondary uses that have risen in popularity because people want excuses to have more guns.
That does not mean their primary use has changed. You can use them to hammer nails if you really want to. That doesn't mean that's what they're made for.
You need armor piercing rounds to hit a target? How about am ankle holster? What about a silencer? What about a concealed carry permit?
If every civilian who owned a gun owned it specifically to have fun at the range things would be a lot different. Pointing out the one tiny use of a subcategory of it is just a distraction. I could use the air conditioner in my car to cool down my cup of coffee but that is in no way shape or form the primary reason for owning a car.
I don't remember being turned, and neither does anybody I know. To the contrary, there was so much constant pressure to be straight from a very young age and you can guess how well that worked.
My comment wasn't intended to suggest gay people can be (or should be) convinced to be straight, I apologize if it came off like that. I don't believe sexual orientation is something that should be forced on to someone. You be you.
Sorry, just the sentence that said "both are correct" sounded to me like you're agreeing that people kill people and that gay people gay people, but I probably misunderstood. lol
Correct, the same way that someone with good intentions can use a car the wrong way. I know you are not going to be convinced, but I'm just trying to provide another point of view.
•
Cars are a good example because they're dangerous and therefore heavily regulated. (Not heavily enough if you ask me, but nobody asked me lol).
... guns are not inherently evil and require someone with bad intentions to use them in a bad way.
You've reversed yourself. Which is it? Do guns require bad intentions to be misused or not?
Also, cars are more strictly regulated than guns in most parts of the US. If you're pro gun then you might want to think of a better comparison.
Also, cars are more strictly regulated than guns in most parts of the US. If you’re pro gun then you might want to think of a better comparison.
For every person killed in the US by homicide in a year, about 1.65 are killed in motor vehicle accidents (~26k vs ~43k). About half of those homicides are with guns, so cars are around 3.3 times as deadly as guns. To go in on the "assault weapon" laws from this angle, those laws tend to target rifles, rifles are ~10% of homicides, so cars are ~16 times as deadly as rifles.
Seriously, motor vehicles are one of the most deadly things out there that people routinely interact with, and driving is one of the most dangerous things people routinely do.
Just set the speed limit to 10mph and make everyone put a fin on their shifter and we should be good. Common sense.
There is no need to attack me for bringing up a point of view that's different from yours. To answer your question, no, guns don't require bad intentions to be misused. If someone causes harm but did not intend to, that scenario is called an accident. Have a nice day.
The responses to your comment are mind-blowingly stupid and small-minded. And that's not even to mention the ones that totally misrepresent what you said. It's very disappointing and disheartening.
Thank you. I really like the Lemmy community, but most are extremely anti-gun. I've been able to show multiple people IRL how much fun guns can be when used responsibly, but it's much harder to do online.
But you absolutely don't need to own a gun to have fun with one. You can go to a shooting range, they'll give you one, you have your fun and go home. No everyday citizen owns a gun in that scenario, but fun was had. (This is how it works in the EU mostly.) I have had my fair share of fun with guns and I agree with you: they are indeed great fun! But I've never felt the need to own a gun because of that.
No gun ranges where I live. Very rural, tons of space. If I want to shoot a gun, the most practical way is - by far - simply owning it myself. I also trust myself to take care of it and keep it safe. Considering how far I'd have to drive to get to a gun range, and how unsafe driving is statistically... I'd say it's also safest to take out that variable.
Not needing something is never a good argument to not have something. I don't need the vast majority of the things I own, but I do have them.
I'll be honest, Lemmy has some of the worst showings of good faith discussion I've ever seen. I'm glad you like the community, but be careful not to spend too much time here. It's already unwelcoming to many people, and I certainly see more and more extremist rhetoric on it every time I log in.
I grew up around guns and totally agree with you as far as that goes, but my larger point, the source of my disappointment where this discussion is concerned, is that people are misrepresenting what you actually said in the first place.
It's one thing to disagree with an argument, but it's an entirely different thing to disagree with an argument that no one actually made.
My complaint here is that most of the comments in opposition to your initial comment were made on the basis of bad-faith or idiot misunderstanding of your original point.
In other words, my complaint is not about anyone's position so much as it is about how they use rational (or irrational) thoughts to arrive at said conclusions.
Guns do not require someone with bad intentions use them in a bad way. A 4 year old near me blew her head off while her family was in the next room. Plenty of other people with no bad intentions have liked themselves and others with guns.
Thing is, I'm only half joking. Driving really is about the single most dangerous thing most of us do regularly, people don't take it seriously enough. I'd much rather have viable public transportation options, but I live in the suburbs of Phoenix so that's not going to happen in my lifetime.
A 2 year old is not going to kill themselves operating a vehicle, unlike a gun. Even left unattended, they maybe put it in neutral.
Pretty sure I've heard of at least a couple cases where small children accidentally knocked a car into drive and caused serious damage, but that's not really the point I was making...
Guns do not require someone with bad intentions use them in a bad way.
Let's rephrase - someone with bad intentions or terrible safety practices.
I mean… they have two modes of operation. The default mode is to save millions of lives, the other mode is to delete humanity.
So they do and don’t kill people.
It’s Schrodinger’s nuke
I am proud to be pro gun and pro lgbtq+ ✊Black Panthers in California were famously armed, until Ronald Reagan signed the NRA-supported "Mulford Act" which prohibited them from carrying loaded weapons.
There were similar racial motivation behind the wave of legal prohibitions on concealment in the late 19th century. The thinking was that only "criminals" needed to hide the fact that they were armed; "honest" and "law abiding" people had no need to hide their weapons from other "honest" and "law abiding" citizens or the police. The supporters of these laws didn't make it a secret that their intentions were to disarm former slaves, who would certainly draw unwanted attention from racists if they attempted to carry openly as the law allowed.
Before the emancipation proclamation, the only restrictions on guns were based on criminal conviction and race, specifically, the disarmament of "Negroes" and "Indians".
There's "gun control" and then there's "gun control". Disarming people because you're afraid of them and disarming people that have a criminal record and mental health issues are not the same thing.
disarming people that have a criminal record
This is already the law.
mental health issues
As NAMI says:
The truth is that the vast majority of violence is not perpetrated by people with mental illness — in fact, they are more likely to be victims of violent crime or self-inflicted injury. The myth that people with mental illness are violent perpetuates stigma and distracts from the real issues.
NRA-Supported
That's a bit reductive, the NRA was a casual gun club when that happened. In response to them supporting the Mulford Act, the membership overthrew the leadership and turned it into the very political organization
The NRA post the 1977 Revolt at Cincinnati would never support the Mulford Act. It's the same as when modern Republicans claim to be the party of Lincoln
The NRA post the 1977 Revolt at Cincinnati would never support the Mulford Act.
There was a presidential race three years after the "Revolt". The NRA chose to endorse a candidate in that race. Given what we discussed so far, (and knowing I involuntarily rolled my eyes so hard that I sprained them after reading your quoted claim above), can you tell me which presidential candidate the NRA endorsed in 1980?
That's right, sports fans, the Mulford Act supposedly had gun owners revolting against NRA leaders in '77, but by '80, they were endorsing the asshole who had signed it.
In 2012, there was exactly one presidential candidate in the race who had previously signed a gun ban. That candidate was the one who somehow "earned" NRA endorsement.
The NRA is a Republican front that occasionally masquerades as a gun rights organization, and its members are suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome, repeatedly going back to their abuser.
Before 1977, the NRA supported Reagan's Mulford Act.
After 1977, the NRA supported Reagan's presidency.
You do understand that these aren't two people who both happened to be named Reagan, right? You are aware that both of these Reagans are actually the same person?
"Well, I know he fucked us over in 1967, but he can change! And if we don't support him now, he might not be there when we need him!"
It was despicable for the NRA to support him in 1980. It was despicable for the NRA to support Romney in 2012. The Revolt in '77 was the membership calling the police against an abusive husband, then refusing to press charges.
That it happened? No, not a matter of opinion.
But post-revolt NRA still backed the Governor who signed the Mullford Act when he ran for President just 3 years after the Revolt at Cincinnati. So clearly the supposed goals of post-revolt NRA weren't so important as to not support any and every Republican to follow.
What I've always thought would make an interesting alternative-history story would be if the Native Americans (or aboriginals in any place really) had something akin to a modern compound bow.
I've been shooting bows since I was six. I've also fired matchlock smoothbore guns. The matchlock is more powerful, but less accurate, slower to fire, noisy, it takes some setup before you can fire it the first time. Compound bows are crazy accurate in the right hands, and some can launch an arrow weighing 40-50 grams at 100 meters per second. Add a sharpened tip and it will penetrate a lot of armor, too.
Same! I actually volunteer with an organization called Operation Blazing Sword where we teach LGBTQ+ folks how to safely use firearms by taking them to the gun range and providing ammunition for practice.
Banning guns keeps the people who most need to protect themselves from being able to do so.
Gun control was started in the US as a racist measure to make it difficult for black Americans to protect themselves.
Hey! Nicely done I have my own private range and have been wanting to volunteer for blazing sword. Especially in this rural ass area I'm in.
Self defense with a firearm is exceedingly rare in the US. People who claim that guns are used for self-protection haven't done any research to back it up and don't realize that more guns in people's hands just leads to more danger for everyone.
https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/self-defense-gun-use/
https://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf
And often, firearms in the home cause more danger for domestic violence victims than protection because abusers escalate to homicide using the weapons available to them.
Here's the thing though, I'm me. Statistics aren't convincing because I'm exceptional. Are most people less safe with guns around? Maybe, but most people are a lot shorter than I am too.
Sorry if you're being sarcastic, but why then do the workers with the guns have the least rights?
The bourgeoisie takes rights away from the proletariat. The bourgeoisie have outlived there usefulness and the proletariat should rise up against them.
Yeah but how come workers in Europe, who don't have guns, have 100X the rights of workers in the US, who do have guns?
Is it because people with guns are scared little pussies?
Because, to be honest, that's how it looks!
In the US the bourgeoisie is so powerful and have brain washed the people so much that the bourgeoisie feels comfortable letting the proletariat fuck around with guns. All the gun owners are so caught up with being scared of the people the bourgeoisie told them to be scared of that they don't realize that lgbtq+ community and other races are still more or less in the same bloat and that the bourgeoisie harms them all. One day the tools of the oppressors will be used by the oppressed to gain control.
One day
I'll be honest mate, I'm old and I've been hearing this for forty years.
All that's happened is that public shootings have increased, dramatically
I unfortunately agree with this take. Blips of independence here and there get crushed by inexorable legal/monetary punishment of those who disagree with the system.
I wait quietly for the right opportunity, but am concerned I'll be waiting for a long time.
That's a national issue, not a worker's rights issue, unless you're saying that employment is required for you to have healthcare. All citizens should have healthcare, regardless of their employment status.
Vacation, illness/disability benefits that pay you for sick days regardless of your job, livable retirement benefits which don’t require investment…
livable retirement benefits which don’t require investment
I wasn't aware that Europe has such a thing. Which European countries? All of them? Certainly it's being paid for somehow. Americans get retirement in the form of social security. That does require that you pay into it, but I'm assuming the European version does as well, just as a general tax instead of a specific charge. Is the European version based on how much you made while working? What is the program called?
I said livable. Social security is not livable.
It’s paid for in Germany through a tax, but not personal investment in a retirement account (maybe my phrasing was unclear). The level of retirement pay is dependent on the time you worked and your pay, but it’s complicated. Someone who works full time for minimum wage will still get enough for healthful survival into old age. Each European country handles things differently.
Also, parental leave, I don’t know how I missed that one.
What rights do you think we don't have in the USA? I can do whatever I want, and I do every day in the USA.
I can do whatever I want, and I do every day in the USA.
Get hurt and get treated at a hospital without paying.
I actually have done that in the USA. Emergency departments have to provide medical treatment to anyone who needs it regardless of their ability to pay.
Additionally, when I was in poverty I was able to get very discounted health services at the county health department. They provide healthcare with an income-based rate, so that poor people can afford it.
Your attempt has been debunked, good day.
•
Yup, I guess all those people with medical debt are just fuckin liars, and we actually do have free healthcare
The problem is that both are telling the truth. Some hospitals have discounts for low income people and others don't. Some medical emergencies are easy to write off while others aren't. If you don't have decent insurance in the US it becomes kind of a lottery system, which in the end makes it harder to change voters opinions.
•
Or if you do have decent insurance and also have cancer.
Medical needs extend far beyond the occasional emergency
•
Just waiting for the day when my Dr hands me a screen and tells me it's gonna ask me a question before looking away like a dip shit right before writing a prescription
I have always had access to good healthcare in the poorest part of the USA actually. My health needs have all been taken care of well, as have the health needs of every member of my family.
I don't understand why all you people think we don't have good healthcare in the USA. We literally have the top doctors in the world here, and the best medical technology that exists.
Kinda funny how some Americans always confuse "having" and "having access". But I guess you're the one person in the whole country who gets good healthcare, because pretty much everyone else tells a different story. Good for you I suppose.
Depending on which state your in, determines your individual freedoms.
In Michigan:
I can light up a joint on my porch and wave to the passing cop car.
I cannot legally operate an unlicensed vehicle on city streets.
I cannot launch my own aircraft.
I cannot turn Right on Red.
I'm fairly certain that you do not have the freedumb to cook meth in your kitchen.
I will concede the "I can do whatever I want; once." argument. Kind of like how I could go outside and fire off a few rounds into the air. Sure, I CAN do it, but it's illegal for me to do so for public safety reasons.
Also, you cannot strike a member of Congress regardless of the state.
You may be right about some of that but I'm downvoting you for saying "freedumb" because I hate that dumb malapropism.
Freedom is never dumb. Dumb is being against freedom.
Abortion is legal in the USA actually. It might require a drive to a neighboring state for some states' residents but it is still something that Americans have the right to do.
Although many Americans do not have the means to do so. Also some states are trying to (already have?) outlaw this.
•
I was of the opinion that less guns resulted in less murders, based on data from Australia. Before I read this I thought banning books didn't affect quantity of gay people, now I'm doubtful...🤔
Less gun ownership is correlated with fewer murders, but it's a complicated equation.
Part of it is what gun control measures are in place. Having 100 guns in safe hands may not be safer than 10 guns in random hands, but it is safer than 75 guns in random hands.
Part of it is the ownership culture. Some parts of the US may have the laxest gun laws in the world, but not enough to account for the sheer quantity of guns available. Most people can get guns in most European countries. They just choose not to, or choose to get fewer.
So do less guns result in less murders? Or do we get less murders by not having a toxic relationship with firearms and not letting dangerous people buy a gun at the liquor store along with a handle of vodka?
It's as "complicated" with gay people and books. But the "toxic relationship" in that case are people who are closeted gay because they think it's horribly unacceptable and nobody will tell them better.
•
Banning books affects the quantity of happy, self-assured gay people. By how much? Fuck if I know, the general culture is probably way more important. But, books affect culture and culture affects books and their availability.
The difference between being a murderer and being gay is that, generally speaking, murderers are made and gay people are born.
Dude talks about bringing the big guns out, unzips and an actual pistol falls out! Anyone would be shitting themselves at the balls
I saw this on Facebook. The dumb typical reply was "the only people who say this are people who want to show children porn" or something else insane
The far-right accuses the LGBT+ community (and anyone who supports them) of being child predators because child predators are the last remaining group of people you can openly advocate violence against.
They want to say "lets kill all the gay people" but they need to maintain a shred of plausible deniability.
No, the only people that say this are people that don't realize that anarchists and leftists in general (tankies are not leftists) support the right of the people to be armed, and also support your right to read books that you want to, as long as you don't fuck with other people over their choices.
“Beneath the rule of men entirely great, the pen is mightier than the sword.”
Republicans are really going back in time for their policies.
That takes me back to SNL Celebrity Jeopardy! One of the best recurring sketches in their entire 48-year history IMO!
As a side note, it's not every day you get to share a clip that starts with "I hate you" 😂
That sign won't stop me because I can't read!
Or
If those kids could read they'd be very upset.
Especially religious books. Not going along with some religious book definitely holds the record for most people killed.
That's why my buddy Mike Johnson and I use CovenentEyes (tm) to protect us from all the hot gayness that just absolutely LEAPS out of the computer screens at us, too bad I can't get an analogue version for all the books with hot gayness that tries to attack us!
edit: 1 downvote? I didn't know my boi MJ was on lemmy! Yo whaddup ya fucking theocratic loon
Being from a very rural area: guns are tools. They provide self defense against wildlife and crazy humans when you're miles outside of law enforcement coverage, they are pest control, and they are a humane way of euthanasia when a farm animal is suffering.
And like most other tools, such as drills, post hole augers, machine lathes, tractors, cars, etc... they can maim and kill indiscriminately when used incorrectly or maliciously. But you cannot simply ban or remove the tool from everywhere because it is still serves a very important purpose. Can they be more controlled, education made mandatory, more stringent confiscation rules in the case of people with mental illness? Yes, and probably should. But you will never eliminate the firearm completely.
I am prepared to recieve the hate and downvotes for providing a measured, reasonable response.
What I always find hilarious is that the people who claim to be very well versed in firearms safety are the ones who oppose the idea of making people get a license to use one. They'll tell you that you shouldn't even talk about gun laws unless you can tell a .45 from a 9 mm in the dark, but feel that anyone, no matter how drunk or crazy, should be able to buy a gun.
Gunowners don't like licenses because if the goverment can decide who owns guns, then they'll use it to keep guns out of the hands of people they don't like.
New York City abuses its may-issue system to prevent anyone from obtaining a license to carry concealed, unless you pay high bribes to the police (or are police).
Most gun laws disproportionately affect the poor. Polities such as New York State require people undergo a certified training course before they can purchase a handgun (police excepted of course). I see people complaining that a single day of voting is insufficent, that their hourly job doesn't leave them a window to go vote. This is much worse with a carry course, where you have to perfectly attend multiple classes that you're paying hundreds of dollars to attend. It's a steep cost to exercise a right.
These are addressable problems: all handgun licenses should be shall-issue if you meet the requirements, mandated training courses should be free and people should be compensated for their time like jury duty.
As for the "you shouldn't even talk about gun laws unless you can tell a .45 from a 9 mm in the dark" part/is that really so unreasonable, minus the hyperbole? When Republicans use phrases like "If it's a legitimate rape, the body has ways of shutting it down" and then try to claim that life starts when the heart does, is it OK that they are wildly wrong about the human body and are trying to legislate it?
You can buy a car and own it and operate it on private property without a license. A more direct comparison would be a driver's license would be like a concealed carry license, licensing it to be possessed/operated in public.
Ok. That's a good comparison.
So would making gun classes more common and emcouraged like driver's ed. You wouldn't have to take the class to pass the test.
There is no legal or philosophical right to a modern firearm in the Constitution, either. The founders couldn't have predicted the ease with which a single individual could commit mass murder just 50 years later when the firearms of their time took half a minute to reload. One person alone can kill as many people in a minute with a single semi-auto rifle and sufficient ammo as over a dozen militiamen of the day. To suggest the founders intended to include modern weapons is a stretch well beyond the breaking point of reason or logic.
And this doesn't take away your right to have a gun. Anyone could get a license, but just needs to prove a basic knowledge of gun safety.
I mean, high schools could have gun safety classes and then you're good to go if you pass. If not, study and try again.
Just need to prove a basic knowledge of gun safety
So you would have no problem with the government requiring proof of literacy before you can vote? After all, every child is taught how to read in school, so it's just a basic check to see if a person can comprehend the ballot.
I don't agree with a literacy test the way it was given in the past. But that is an excellent point.
I don't care so much about gun ownership as I do the fact guns can now kill dozens of people in less than a minute, and that guns like that are available to the public. The chance of being gunned down by an ill person using a gun is definitely not zero in the United States. If the only guns available could only shoot a bullet every other second or so, rather than multiple per second, the amount of damage to a crowd will be less.
What are your thoughts on that part?
. It’s a steep cost to exercise a right.
So, where you live, guns are handed out for free?
In your opinion, what new benefits would requiring a license to own guns have? How will requiring this license supplement existing laws? Specifically, how would this change improve the gun "problem?"
Maybe the people you talk to who claim to be well versed in firearm safety oppose licensing requirements like this because they're well versed in existing gun laws and the culture war against ownership? Not because "muh guns!"
Your grandparents could've mail-ordered machine guns to their doorstep, no background check required. Hell, when they were kids, they could've walked into a corner store and bought a rifle with their saved up lunch money. That's what my grandpa did.
If gun laws have only gotten stricter over this time, then why are mass shootings essentially a new thing? What changed between now and then that could explain it? Living conditions have plummeted, people are poorer, breaking the poverty cycle is basically impossible, our public schools aren't getting proper funding, prisons are cruel and don't reform, college tuition has skyrocketed, healthcare has become inaccessible, women are losing bodily rights, etc.
Unfucking our society in all the ways our corporate and political elite have fucked it would do more to curb violence than anything else. Why would anyone mindlessly kill others if society's worth living in?
You funny. It's like you've never heard of children dying because the parents left guns out, or insane people buying guns.
What an intelligent and nuanced response. You even managed to answer my questions, good job.
The difference between a gun and tractor is that a gun is a tool designed to kill. Don't conflate farming equipment with killing machines
Is that supposed to be some kind of gotcha? How exactly does not owning gun or working on a farm negate the fact that a gun is a singular purpose tool?
How does a gun being a singular purpose tool exclude it from being farm equipment? Do you think a thresher does anything else but thresh?
A thresher is a labor saving tool, it replaces the physical labor of separating wheat from chaff. Without a thresher a farmer can still accomplish the task.
A gun is made specifically and solely to move a projectile down range with lethal velocity. What labor is a gun saving?
Guns are useful on farms for pest control, euthanizing livestock, and self defense.
All of those could be accomplished through other means, therefore guns are ok, according to your logic
All you're saying is that a gun is used to kill/maim, which is exactly my point, which is why the "hurr durr a gun is just another tool" argument doesn't hold water.
Beating your attacker to death with a rock is a lot harder. Especially the four legged kind of attacker
The NZ gun laws are largely based on this idea, at least in terms of being a tool for use against animals, less so personal defense against other people.
The implication of this is that some types of gun have few/no practical use as a tool other than for personal defense/offense.
Rifles and shotguns are useful for hunting. Fully automatic & select fire weapons are not, or are at least excessive. They're only useful if you intend to attack people.
Same goes for handguns.
The US doesn’t have a problem with fully automatic or select fire weapons. They exist, sure. But given they’ve been banned since 1986 and are prohibitively expensive to own, requiring multiple tax stamps and hoops to jump through, they are almost assuredly not used in violent crime. Or for anything other than hobbyist activities.
What seems to garner the most attention here are semi-automatic rifles with removable magazines. There is almost nothing mechanical differentiating an AR-15 or similar rifle from a common hunting or farming rifle like the Ruger American Rifle. They’re often mislabeled an “assault weapon”, a term without a concrete definition, or worse an “assault rifle” which does have a concrete definition that aligns to the very guns you call out as not having practical use. Namely, to qualify as an assault rifle, it must be capable of select fire or fully automatic fire.
Ironically, most acts of violence committed using a firearm are done with pistols, which outside of demonstrably ineffective magazine limitations have gone widely untouched by proposed or enacted gun control efforts. Which is especially ironic considering that the NFA was enacted in 1934 primarily focused on handguns - this is why the US has restrictions on ownership of short barreled rifles and shotguns, because the impetus was to focus on weapons which could be easily concealed. By the time the law was passed, however, pistols had been exempted, but the weird language around SBRs and SBSs was left intact.
Broadly, though, gun control in the US has been primarily motivated by class and racial division. Most of the FUD you hear about guns is directly the result of Reagan’s gun control policies as Governor of California in response to not wanting the Black Panthers to have legal access to firearms - which they were using to protect their neighborhoods from violent crime that police wouldn’t respond to. Criminalizing certain weapons gave police the ability to profile and discriminate against minorities under the guise of public safety, and we’ve been treading that water ever since.
The solution to America’s perceived gun problem is universal basic income and universal healthcare. Ending the war on drugs would help too. Without the stress of being impoverished and without having to worry about being able to afford medical care, people tend not to commit crimes. Most gun violence in the US is gang related, and US policies today systemically and disproportionately see the incarceration of people of color for violent and non-violent crime alike. Our penal system is geared for punishment, not rehabilitation, so a person who is now a felon is left with very few options to make an honest living. People turn to gangs to make money, because without income you cannot live in this country.
Eliminate the poverty, decouple healthcare from employers, and stop criminalizing drugs - subsequently arresting and incarcerating so many people for non-violent offenses - and you dramatically reduce the likelihood of a person being left in desperation with few options outside of a life of crime. In turn, gang violence and gun crime overall will plummet.
We’re just too busy picking a team and rooting for the other team’s destruction to actually attack the root of the problem, because doing that might make people realize that it’s all been set up like this to keep us from looking at the class division more closely.
It's a breath of fresh air seeing a nuanced and thought-out response like yours, so thank you.
I thought I'd see better discussion about this topic when I ditched reddit, but some people here still can't think past "black guns = dead children = evil"
Yanks seem to think that in countries with gun control, you can't get a gun. I could get one if I want. If I needed a shotgun or a deer rifle, I could easily acquire one.
Literally nobody needs an automatic rifle or a pistol, other than to kill another human.
It's that simple, but I think the decades of leaded petrol makes it a bit difficult for them to comprehend
Handguns are excellent for self defense especially while hiking. My sister wouldn't be here today if she didn't carry a .45 everywhere when outdoors. Not all of us live in places where humans have exterminated the dangerous wildlife
The issue here is that it is perceived as a right and not a privilege.
Because of that, anything restricting that "right" at all is perceived as an infringement on the personality of the gun user.
With cars most people are on board with the concept that being caught while DUI leads to a ban on driving.
The same is not true for people handling guns while drunk or in an irresponsible way.
It's also totally understood by people that there are areas where you don't drive (e.g. inside a shopping mall). Again, the same is not true with guns.
And that's the issue here.
The "right" needs to be made into a privilege that is allowed under certain circumstances (e.g. if you need it for work or live in a very remote area). This does not contradict with banning guns in cities, schools, towns or other areas where guns serve no positive purpose.
Your use case is valid, but also many gun owners aren't in your situation.
It's not "perceived" as a right, it literally IS a right, enumerated in the Constitution and confirmed excessively by precedents set in the highest court. There will be no change to that right without an Amendment ratified by 75% of the 50 US states.
You are right that the right to keep and bear arms is a legal right outlined by our constitution. However, just because the constitution says it is a right doesn't make it so. Legal rights are based upon social conventions. If a society agrees that carrying guns in schools is unacceptable, then the constitution(some document wrote 200 years ago) won't change that.
Another example is the 4th amendment. We, as a society, have apparently decided that the government logging,recording, and surveilling our texts and calls is acceptable. Even though the practice is clearly against the intention of the 4th amendment.
TLDR: Legal rights are only rights when a society(or government) agrees to continually enforce them.
That’s not even correct (it being a right):
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The right of the people is a dependent clause on the whole “well regulated militia” part.
The idea that everyone can just have whatever guns they want is a farce, but don’t listen to me take it from the Burg Man:
This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.
Interesting that 2008 was the first time the supreme court ruled that individuals have a right to a gun for self protection. The article argues that historically the right to keep bear arms was only applicable to those who were called to military service. That seems plausible to me though I can see how it could be interpreted either way as far as whether it only applies in the context of a militia.
I also find it fascinating that one of the most prominent examples of gun control was targeting what could arguably be called a citizens militia. California passed the Mulford act, that banned loaded weapons in public without a permit. The bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther's (aka Black Panther Party for Self-Defense) who were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods according to wikipedia.
Tbh I think that the intention was pretty clear, especially given the time in which it was written. Fledgling colonies building their own government weren't worried about their government turning to tyranny, they were worried about what they perceived as the tyrannical government in their time, the Brits. Basically, stay ready soldiers, those tea-drinking queen-loving bastards might come for us any time now.
As for the Panthers, this is also wholly unsurprising. Pretty obviously racist, and obviously a selective interpretation of 2a. Like pretty much any modern interpretation of 2a (see also, the 2008 ruling you cite.) Like, why can't I own a rocket launcher or some grenades or maybe a low-yield nuclear warhead? Can I not arm myself against a tyrannical government? Many of those would be as foreign an idea to the framers as would be many of the totally legal guns you can buy today.
Well actually the Supreme Court had the final say on that already. It doesn't matter what society says, when the gun owners say "no, I'm keeping the guns" and the Supreme Court backs them up then society is shit out of luck on that. All of our military swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, so you're not going to get those guys to take those rights from Americans.
I just wish we had as solid protections on those 4th Amendment rights too. Those are too easy to violate without repercussion. "Persons, papers, and effects" should definitely apply to digital communications in the 21st century.
Definitely agree, especially that our 4th amendment rights should be stronger. On paper should be little difference between the 2nd and 4th amendments when applied. But because the 2nd amendment has vastly more organized support than the 4th amendment, it is defended while the fourth is forgotten.
It doesn’t matter what society says, when the gun owners say “no, I’m keeping the guns” and the Supreme Court backs them up then society is shit out of luck on that.
It clearly does, since non state-sanctioned people aren't carrying guns in schools and in governmental buildings for the most part. However, there is a difference between what the state says and what society says is acceptable. Usually society just decides to blindly follow what the state decides as if it is infallible. But as you touched on with your gun example people can decide to ignore the state's rules if they decide its in their interests.
All of our military swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, so you’re not going to get those guys to take those rights from Americans.
Umm, I think that's a little far reaching. Remember when the Japanese were put in concentration(internment) camps? Or when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus? People tend to follow authority and if those in authority ignore the constitution so will everyone else. A relevant example is Nazi Germany.
Well the Joint Chiefs of the military stood up against President Trump 2 times to support the Rights of Americans during the 2020 bullshit, so you are wrong about the military.
The military defied the president to stand in support of Americans' 1st Amendment rights twice by stating support for BLM protests, and stating support for voting rights in confirming that Biden won the 2020 election.
We have seen this in action already to have historical precedent on the military supporting the Constitutional rights of Americans against domestic enemies (Trump).
Sure, the military might sometimes defend the constitution over following orders from a president but it is certainly not guaranteed. In my previous comment, I already listed 2 examples of the military breaching the constitution. They did so at the direction of the the President. So even though they do swear to uphold the constitution, in some cases they will break that oath to follow orders from the president. But that is in general, in the specific case of gun rights I don't see the military taking those rights away anytime soon.
when you’re miles outside of law enforcement coverage,
See, this might be the problem. Now I know America is a big place, But you can drone strike a wedding anywhere on the planet, it feels like your nation should have the ability to enforce it's laws on it's own ground without having to rely on individuals wielding firearms. And it's not like there is a shortage of police funding. They just don't care about your area in particular. Other places the polices get's to drive literal tanks/apcs.
I don't think you comprehend the vastness and remoteness of the American West.
There are places where the law enforcement response time is over an hour simply because it takes that long for the one deputy working the county to drive from one side of the country to the other. There's no point in having more deputies working a county where there are only 2 people living per square mile. Nor is there the finances to hire additional police protection.
Most of the USA that is not the case, but it is a reality for some places in the lower 48 states. Alaska is that to another level.
Police funding is a function of city or county, and sometimes state population. Metro area have the funding. Rural places just can't afford to employ enough police to reduce response time to under 30 minutes.
Yes, I alluded to that in the previous comment. But is that really a good argument for everyone to have a firearm? You can make exceptions for specific places. Like, all firearms have to be registered and licenced but in rural areas you can get the required training for free.
The ultimate issue is the American constitution says Americans get to own guns. In order to change that requires 2/3rds of the states to want to change that.
As in California with their 39.5 million citizens has the same power to change it as Alaska with their 600,000 citizens.
The supreme Court of the USA has said the constitutional rights are fairly broad for gun ownership. In theory that's mostly settled case law so that won't change short of a miracle.
We can debate if it's prudent or not, but it's unlikely to change here.
Fwiw, I'm in favor of some reasonable reforms. There's just no point in pursuing them since it's in the constitution here.
There's no point in having more deputies working a county where there are only 2 people living per square mile.
How much crime is there in areas with 2 people per 5.17998 square kilometers that you need an AR-15 for self defense? Does the US have bands of roving marauders? Are we talking a Mad Max like scenario?
If you happen to live in such a place, how many gun fights do you get into in an average week?
I don't recall mentioning AR-15s in my response.
Does the US have bands of roving marauders?
Not that I'm aware of.
Are we talking a Mad Max like scenario?
Nope, anyways that is set in Australia.
Fortunately an unmanned air strike is still considered an unacceptable response to a police assistance request.
There's a saying "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away". That's a best case scenario and usually only true if you're in a good neighborhood in the suburbs. The police can take hours to respond to a call, and that's when you don't live in the boonies. Rural people need to be able to take care of themselves for the most part.
You cannot simply ban or remove the tool from everywhere because it is still serves a very important purpose.
I've never actually encountered someone either online or in person who things we can or should ban all guns in the US. I don't think this person exists in any significant capacity, except in the imaginations of paranoid gun owners. There's definitely nothing in the image above to imply that, either.
I have certainly met them, both online and in person. One of my best friends is one of them. He thinks all guns everywhere should be banned. He gets angry that one of my hobbies is target shooting. He can't comprehend that I'm enjoying it for the challenge it is, and not training to mass murder people with my single shot, bolt action rifle.
I'm sure there are individuals who think that way, but I don't think it's a significant number at all - certainly not among elected representatives, political commentators, or anyone else with a significant amount of power to actually affect gun legislation.
It's odd to me that so often when someone refers to gun control of any sort, people like the commenter I responded to immediately respond with "Well you can't just ban all guns." The vast majority of the time, nobody is actually proposing that we do so. It's over-defensiveness at best and strawmanning at worst.
I personally know LOTS of people who feel that way. My best friend feels that way. And although I do not feel that way, I do empathise with that position. To suggest no one feels that way seems out of touch to me.
Do you think we don't have guns outside of USA??? I don't think your point is very well measured if you think rural population in Canada do not have guns. Also, books are tools too.
I am prepared to recieve the hate and downvotes for providing a measured, reasonable response.
You didn't so much provide a measured reasonable response as you compared actual labor saving tools to a machine designed specifically to kill/maim. Then you patted yourself on the back for being brave enough to make such a comparison while preemptively disregarding any discussions to the contrary.
So many other countries run without guns though. Like i guess canada and russia have bears too but they and us dont get into thr newspapers about gun violence.
About as dumb as yours, considering you haven't bothered to comment anything in opposition besides name calling.
Pot, kettle, black.
I consider my take reasonable, and if you can't understand the nuance of someone who's been raised with a significantly different life experience than your own, then that's on you. Have a nice rest of your day.
"I cannot cope with someone politely expressing an opinion I disagree with, so I'm going to block them"
🤡
I don't know if I've ever seen something sadder
So I guess you're in favor of getting those "crazy humans" the help they need to stop being crazy, and to only allow guns with special permits for things like farm work, hunting and shooting ranges, right?
Because it's a bit of a straw man argument otherwise. People using guns responsibility for their work is not the problem.
Books don't make people gay. Attractive people of the same sex make you gay.
Well, that, and what I assume is a brain development process before or during puberty that I don't completely understand but I know has to exist, because I don't remember making a concious effort to be attracted to legs and striking eyes, but I sure am. I bet there is a rabbit hole where I could learn about all this.
You mention before puberty, but the research is quite fascinating. There is strong evidence a hormone imbalance in your mother when your are still a fetus can have a dramatic effect on your sexual orientation as an adult. But also on a negative side sexual abuse of adolescents can also have a significant effect on adult sexuality. Human sexual orientation and the factors at play are very diverse and interesting.
Human sexual orientation and the factors at play are very diverse and interesting.
I know! So interesting, but some people make you feel like a pervert for being interested in it. I just want to know how it works, like literally everything else.
My theory is that everyone is becoming more attractive so it's less inappropriate or irrational to think of having sex with said person anymore
Acknowledging the existence of gay people is grooming kids for rape, I'm told.
This isn't even the quiet part for these dumb monsters.
I mean, if they actually cared about kids being raped they might not be so bad, but show them actual evidence of children being raped, i.e. by priests or coaches, and all of a sudden they're a skeptic...
Yes. Republicans are banning books left right and center that have LGBTQ content in them because they consider it "grooming" and "propaganda".
It's the motte and bailey fallacy. Take one hot issue, then downplay it as far as possible to make it seem the other side is nuts.
Some of these "banned" books have sexual content, from how to masturbate to the use of sex toys, etc. People take to reading them at school board meetings, YouTube on the street interviews, etc to point out how graphic they are. Should they be in a 3rd grade (age 8) or lower public school library? They aren't banned from all stores. A parent that wishes to teach their kids these topics are free to buy them for the kids. How much should public schools cover in sex ed, and how young do you start? Those are questions we should discuss.
But no, they will just say these books teach that "gay people exist." As if blow jobs and anal sex are for the gays only?
Here's a list of my personal favorite books that were banned by Frisco school board in Texas:
1984 (allowed in hs)
20,000 leagues under the sea (allowed in ms)
All of A Song of Ice and Fire (never allowed)
The adventures of Tom Sawyer (allowed in ms)
American gods (never allowed)
Brown v board of education: a fight for justice (allowed in ms)
Fahrenheit 451 (allowed in hs)
Jane Eyre (allowed in hs)
MLK: journey of a king (allowed in ms)
Pride and prejudice (allowed in hs)
Queer: the ultimate LGBTQ guide for teens (never allowed) this might be my absolute favorite because there's no claim of obscene content. The reason for banning is "does not align with curriculum".
The fellowship of the ring (allowed in ms)
The hobbit (allowed in ms)
The lovely bones (never allowed)
The other two LOTR books (allowed in ms)
Trans mission: my quest to a beard (never allowed) also no claim of sexual content, "does not align with curriculum"
The full list of books banned in Frisco can be found here: https://www.friscoisd.org/departments/library-media-services/library-collection-review-project/materials-removed
For a full list of every book banned in a Texas school district: https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/list-of-texas-banned-books-shows-state-has-most-in-us-17480532
I think that I've made my point, but I do want to also make mention of the fact that this does not affect children who have parents that are wealthy enough to buy them books or those who have enough time to take their kids to the public library. This targets exclusively under privileged students, and those who do not want their parents to know that they are reading LGBTQ literature.
Also because I assume somebody is going to claim this is cherry picking, I just googled "books banned in Texas 2023 list", and chose Frisco because it was the first one with such a long list.
This is the completely rational discussion that is entirely appropriate to be having.
However, this is decidedly not the discussion being had.
The voices making the rational arguments are either completely outnumbered, or intentionally squelched by corporate news because rational discussions do not sell adverts.
Personally, I'll always take the side of "burning books is bad."
I never hear that from anyone, much less from gun people in particular. I'm amazed that this sticker exists
People kill people and you've a genetic predisposition towards the sexuality you grow into, it's a nurture influences nature situation (i.e. how one is raised) that impacts what alleles become active or recessive and that impacts your sexuality (among a wide array of other things, physiological and psychological).
Just because one group of people can't live within reality doesn't mean you need to be as equally moronic to 'prove a point', especially when the point being presented as 'equal' is unabashedly fatuous.
Alleles becoming dominant or recessive based on upbringing? My brother, what publications have you been reading?
The heritability of sexuality is not a scientifically defensible claim at this point—let alone the other claims you just made.
If you read what I actually wrote down allele expression is INFLUENCED by the environment, regardless of what people want to think or want to believe the research supports the hypothesis that sexual identity is not simply a matter of genetic influence nor of just upbringing but a combination thereof.
At no point was heritability mentioned or posited.
Please read what people write and if you don't understand what is being said you should ask questions instead of exhibiting a clearly sciolist position.
Here's a couple of current research papers to get you started: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5033347/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6677266/
And here's research on genetic expression and how the environment can impact such expression:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9248887/
Once again, and to be extremely clear, heritability is not mentioned nor even involved in this discussion.
heritability is not mentioned nor even involved in this discussion.
Yep, my bad. Misunderstood the term, I should have said "genetic roots" or something.
allele expression is INFLUENCED by the environment
That claim is quite fair. Stating a relationship can exist is uncontroversial.
... you’ve a genetic predisposition towards the sexuality you grow into, it’s a nurture influences nature situation (i.e. how one is raised) that impacts what alleles become active or recessive and that impacts your sexuality (among a wide array of other things, physiological and psychological).
Frankly I see no other way, from cold context, to read this other than as a claim that there is a "gay gene," followed by a bit of hedging against the influence of other factors.
Apologies if I'm misinterpreting you. It could be you're just stringing together a bunch of broadly true claims about what types of relationships can exist between all these factors.
It's a bit of a "shovel, lye, and a hacksaw in the shopping cart" type scenario. Too many broadly true and relatively unoffensive claims in a particular order start to look suspiciously like a particular argument.
No idea what I just read but it sounds cringe and has loads of downvotes so I'm afraid I'll have to downvote you, too
You're reading into this too much. We're here to talk about the logical inconsistencies in conservative identity politics. You're here to have some kind of pedantic debate.
Not everyone who says "guns don't kill people" is a conservative. I say it, and I'm pretty far from conservative. Go far enough left, you get your guns back.
You seem to smart to be a gun nut (just saying). Maybe you're one of the few I would actually trust to own a gun and never misuse it. That is a very small percentage of folks on this planet.
I don't, believe me. I do not correlate being a gun nut with intelligence, I'm only saying in this one case this guy is smart enough to see through some of the fakery the right wing nuts are trying to foist on this country. I'm as anti-gun as anybody could be, I'd sooner have a rabid hyena running loose in my house than EVER own a gun, I even campaigned to have a neighbor's gun taken away as he would often wear it and wave it around. I think guns are horrible, and that there is something wrong with anyone who is attracted to them.
Ar-15 rifle or any other weapon - there should be no reason any intelligent person would ever want to be around one. They are only designed to cause death in the most painful and gory way. That's all they are for. There is no other purpose to a gun.
So people who find that attractive are telling me they are batshit insane and willing to kill someone, and have no attack of conscience about it at all. And that truly is horrifying beyond the ability of the human language to express in mere words.
Owning a gun is horrible and people who want them are horrible. I have nothing more to say about this at all. What you think is not of any interest to me.
No it isn't sad, it's only sad to you because you dislike hearing the truth so much. And that's on you, not me. I'm all kinds of glad about my beliefs, and the first one to put myself on a higher horse than others. Only because you people put yourselves on such low ones. I see your need to label any argument you don't like as "illogical" as the real hallmark of sadness. But I suspect you're young and don't know much yet about what really matters in life.
Thank you. Rest assured, I understand that. Ignorance is just a lack of information. It's a symptom. It's more important to understand the root causes that propagate it, so we can counter them.
If a gun is a tool, why is there no right to bear tools? Because guns are actively deadly and used to kill people. In the 1700s, that would have had a different societal context, as the colonies were tumultuous and had a rocky relationship not only with Britain but with each other. But in the 2020s, they're just used to commit murder. You rarely ever hear about the so-called "good guy with a gun" and you hear a hell of a lot about entire classrooms of slain children. Rights are a man made invention and aren't actually real. "Giving up rights is never the answer to any problem" is a sentence you made up and could easily be debated.
Taking away guns does nothing for the anger people have when they want to kill another. They will just resort to other lethal tools.
What you hear about, comes from what you're listening to. Traditional news doesn't cover many defensive uses because it doesn't generate as many views as a mass shooting. "If it bleeds, it leads" has been the motto of news organizations for decades. Look to other spaces and you'll hear stories of people defending their home, business, etc. Colion Noir on YouTube has done some really interesting interviews with people doing that in the last couple of weeks. The FBI stats had something like 3-5 million defensive gun uses a year in the US. When seconds matter, the police are minutes away
Ban guns and who is left with them? The government and criminals. Do you trust them for all eternity?
You rarely ever hear about the so-called “good guy with a gun” and you hear a hell of a lot about entire classrooms of slain children.
Media bias. If it bleeds it leads, if it's scary it gets ratings, and tragedies involving children draw even more attention.
Hell let's try this, without looking it up: How many homicides do you think happen in a year in the US? How many of those do you think happen with rifles (since those tend to be the target of "assault weapon" legislation)?
How many people do you think have been killed in public mass shootings (defined as a shooting with more than three casualties, that did not wholly take place in a single private residence, and was not secondary to some other crime - aka Columbine/Aurora/Sandy Hook style shootings, as opposed to something like gang violence or robberies gone wrong), between August 1966 and May 2021?
If a gun is a tool, why is there no right to bear tools?
Because no one has historically tried to de-tool the populace, so one hasn't been needed. Assault the right to repair a bit harder and maybe we'll get there.
Why is it so important to have the rights to have guns? Have you seen any country got destroyed because the people aren't allowed to have guns?
Logical fallacy. Me vomiting doesnt kill classrooms full of children. Also, how does owning a gun protect you? The studies have been done. People who own guns are far more likely to kill themselves and their family than they are to kill an attacker.
Because, as a country that already has so many guns, it's not so simple to just say, "fuck it, no more guns". Just three days ago my neighbor lost his marbles and decided to shoot up his apartment at 2am. I share a wall with this psycho.
The cops didn't even bother to come out even though I had video proof of the incident.
I own a weapon for this exact reason. I have a family to protect and if I can't even depend on the resources that are supposed to be there to protect us from this, then I will continue to own a weapon.
I lived in Japan for almost a decade, guns are almost non-existent there. It was awesome.
I wish it could be like that here in the US but there would need to be a radical shift in public perception of the police and each other for that to ever happen.
Edit: corrected spelling from weapoon to weapon lol.
You just said it how awesome it is to live in a country without guns.. something has to be done. Stricter gun control is a step in the right way. Like you've said, it will need a long time to correct that. Years, even decades. But if nothing is changed, it will stay like that forever.
I absolutely agree. Mental evaluations or other processes or restrictions would be welcomed. I by no means feel that we should just leave things exactly as they are. However too many people just scream about banning weapons with no forethought into the subject.
It's the community's job to keep guns from dangerous people (like people who would be cops), not the state's. Giving up rights is never the answer to any problem.
Wait hold on can you go more in depth about what you mean by this? It's sounding like if I think someone is dangerous I should go and take their guns.
Why is the #1 cause of death for children in the US firearms then? Countries with stricter gun control don't have these issues.
It's true tools don't do things on their own. Cars don't run over people on their own, baseball bats don't bash people's heads in on their own. But the big difference between those tools and a gun are, those tools are not DESIGNED to be lethal or used as weapons against other humans.
And I'd point out, people have survived stabbings and car accidents - most never survive being shot by a gun.
People misuse inanimate objects, and sometimes death results. People weaponize knives, guns, bats, folding chairs etc etc - they drive under the influence, they don't buckle up, they text on their phones and thus thousands of people get killed by careless drivers every year.
And you want people like that - temperamental uncaring and who misuse NON-lethal items to kill people, to have GUNS??? Can you not see how ridiculous and asking for trouble such a scenario is going to be? It's everyone's job to keep guns out of human's hands - cops being the exception. And we can only do that with good gun control laws, which are (as I've illustrated above) both vital and necessary to our survival as a species.
Well that's the issue. We need to be going after everyone who owns a gun and going a thorough evaluation of their mental health and past history. We need to make it a felony offense to own a gun if you have any sort of criminal history - I agree we need to get guns out of the hands of all bad people for good.
No it isn't sarcasm at all, I'm 100 percent serious. And I've even had many neighbors express my same point of view so I know I'm not alone nor am I from Mars nor am I delusional. My opinions and self worth don't depend on anyone else's retorts.
No, we don't. We just don't want our kids exposed to pornography, gay, straight, other, doesn't matter.
I think everyone is onboard with not giving kids pornography, but that’s not what is in the books being banned.
The exact things being called porn are suspiciously given a wholesome pass when the exact behavior is done by straights. Sorry bro, you're just a bigot.
call me whatever you want. Parents control the content their children are exposed too and that includes school curriculum and libraries.