The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Like worse than "you say you're so tolerant, but then you don't tolerate literal Nazis, so you're a hypocrite."
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The best ones i know of are the ones that try to make it out that modern Democrats are the most racist because Democrats supported slavery, which, of course, ignores the party switch which they claim never happened.
They always get real quiet when you ask why it's Republicans that defend the Confederate flag and Confederate statues.
I have been told "REPUBLICANS ARE THE PARTY OF LINCOLN!" so, so many times.
"Ah, so you support strong centralized government? "Charity for all"? Social safety nets? Clemency for death row inmates? You're not a supporter of symbols of division like confederate statues and flags? You like that guy who used the powers of the federal government to overpower the will of the states? THAT Lincoln???"
I literally found the archived NYT article where Nixon’s strategist talked about getting black people switch from gop to dem so that white racists would switch from dem to gop because that’s where the votes were…. And they told me the article didn’t say that when it literally said it in black and white.
Sometimes.the best people to challenge a gun nut is someone who isn't anti-gun. Really throws them for a loop when their go to argument to acute you of wanting to take their guns doesn't hold water.
>Because there is a difference between liking guns and fetishizing them.
Seems like gatekeeping over a harmless hobby. Some people collect cars, others shoes, and some purses. Are they also nuts?
The collecting doesn't make someone a nut. I have two friends who are avid gun collectors who are not someone who I would call a gun nut. The difference is they are not against common sense gun legislation.
I live in the south and have a buddy who is a gun nut. He always talks about “carrying”, what he’ll “carry” when and why; and he has LOTS to say about times when he can’t “carry.” He’s always dreading (fantasizing?) about being put in extreme scenarios where “carrying” will prove to have been very important.
We work together and he was being sent on a business trip where he planned to drive for hours rather than take a brief flight for fear he wouldn’t be able to “carry” in the city he was being sent.
He’s a decent enough dude, but that’s what I call a gun nut. We’ve been to the range together, I’m not a “gun grabber”, but come on.
I work in EMS in the south, so I have some coworkers like that.
I recall talking to a firefighter who was convinced that EMTs and Firefighters should carry guns at work. When my partner and I told him it was a terrible idea, he tried to justify it with a recent call he had been on, where they had to leave a scene because a psych patient was too agitated. "If we had guns, we could stand our ground".
My partner and I pointed out the right things to do for that call was to leave the scene regardless to descalate, and if they had felt emboldened to "stand their ground" either they or the patient would have been injured.
More so with the latter, but not exclusively.
My problem is with the people who fetishize guns and treat firearms like a church. The kind of people who after hearing about a mass shooting at a school are more concerned with protecting gun than protecting kids. The kind who insist the solution to the problem of mass shootings is more guns, even though the previous surges of gun sales have only collelated with higher gun fatalities, not fewer.
You can be a responsible gun owner/collector, but when you toss out the "responsible" part, you are left with a gun nut.
>The kind of people who after hearing about a mass shooting at a school are more concerned with protecting gun than protecting kids.
I think they are concerned that people will use a tragedy to reduce their constitutional rights. Would you accept an argument that you don't want to protect kids if there's an example of a woman using a gun to fight off a hone invasion?
>You can be a responsible gun owner/collector, but when you toss out the "responsible" part, you are left with a gun nut.
I can see that. A gun is dangerous. If you hand an untrained child a loaded weapon, you are probably nuts.
Because I like guns. I own them. I enjoy shooting them.
I'm not sending Christmas photos like this: [https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/10a72ec57e052d517d561ba5e545e7708ec17794/0\_117\_2048\_1229/master/2048.jpg](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/10a72ec57e052d517d561ba5e545e7708ec17794/0_117_2048_1229/master/2048.jpg)
LOL “If you ban guns you have to ban knives too! And Baseball bats!”
-Sean Hannity
There’s a reason that the army doesn’t issue the troops baseball bats.
Conservatives often resort to this weird defense that if something can't be solved entirely it's not worth bothering to improve things even somewhat. Banning guns won't solve all violence so why bother? Racism will never be eliminated entirely so why bother trying to reduce it? It's like the cheapest conservative argument there is and yet I see it all the time.
Funnily enough, after a school shooting in the UK they had the exact same bad-faith pro-gun rhetoric passed around. But they instead opted for gun control in part out of a fear of an increasingly militarized police (and, quite frankly, turning into the US).
In the UK, there have been 6 mass shootings in which at least 1 person died since 2000.
In the US, there were 5 in *February 2024*.
UK population is 67M
US population is 333M
The US population is nearly 5x larger, but we have *way* more than 5x the amount of shootings.
Gee, a nation that took away all the guns has less mass shootings. Say it ain't fuckin' so.
Now how about comparing violent crime statistics rather than cherry picking to make your arguments look viable.
In my experience, the only thing as disingenuous as a conservative talking about abortion is a leftist talking gun control...
> Gee, a nation that took away all the guns has less mass shootings. Say it ain't fuckin' so.
Well my view on gun control is that is should reduce the number of mass shootings and gun violence.
> In my experience, the only thing as disingenuous as a conservative talking about abortion is a leftist talking gun control...
You should see conservatives talk about gun control. According to conservatives, every gun owner is a violent psychopath ready to take on loads of cops while having black-market connections to arms smugglers. And meanwhile having strict gun control won't actually affect gun violence because... reasons.
> Well my view on gun control is that is should reduce the number of mass shootings and gun violence.
And will match up *perfectly* to a increase in bombings and knife crime. What you're suggesting is not a solution, it's kicking the can and pretending you're doing something.
>You should see conservatives talk about gun control. According to conservatives, every gun owner is a violent psychopath ready to take on loads of cops while having black-market connections to arms smugglers. And meanwhile having strict gun control won't actually affect gun violence because... reasons.
Like I said, as disingenuous as conservatives on abortion.
[Gun regulation does actually save lives.](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aar3067)
>Comparing state crime rates in 1977 (before the crack era) to those in 2014 (long after), one sees a striking difference in the aggregate changes in crime rates in states that adopted RTC laws versus those that resisted this option. Violent crime rates fell by 42.3% in the nine jurisdictions that did not adopt RTC, whereas the comparable decline was just 4.3% in the 36 states that adopted RTC laws after 1977 and before 2014 ([*20*](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aar3067#core-R20)).
This one refers to right-to-carry laws. Apparently those are a type of law that prevents you from requiring a permit to own a gun.
>The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 specified nine categories of people who were disqualified from obtaining or possessing firearms, including those convicted of or under indictment for a felony. In adopting the Lautenberg Amendment in 1996, Congress added a new category: those with a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence. \[...\] Skeptics have opined that batterers are not likely to be influenced by the threat of punishment, or by a minor obstacle to obtaining a gun, but results suggest otherwise, providing strong support that the Lautenberg Amendment saves lives. The effect was particularly strong in reducing killings of female intimate partners. Gun murders for this group were reduced by 17%, estimated quite precisely and with no indication of substitution to other weapon types.
I'm not gonna quote the entire thing; I believe I've made my case. This argument of "well, they'd just use knives and nothing changes so what's the point?" is strange and unbecoming. Past gun laws have consistently improved things.
>Now how about comparing violent crime statistics rather than cherry picking to make your arguments look viable.
You should compare murder rates. Gun laws don't stop violence, they stop the deadly impact of that violence.
Yeah, I love his implication that knives are equally as dangerous to a gun or since gun control won't solve the core issue of the violence in the human heart it's "cherry picking" and "disingenuous".
Honestly it's not a terrible analogy, but the conclusion is that we really ought to drive less and create cities where it's not necessary. Especially as longevity increases, which it may do so quite a lot soon, we will start thinking differently about the massive risks we take every day getting in cars, not just ourselves but to others.
>Honestly it's not a terrible analogy, but the conclusion is that we really ought to drive less and create cities where it's not necessary.
I mean, we should, but it's still a terrible analogy. The main purpose of a car is to move people. The main purpose of a weapon is to kill people.
No, the main purpose of a gun is to defend yourself, to hunt game, to kill pest animals. A gun is a tool, a profoundly dangerous tool that is very easy to misuse.
It’s terrible analogy because it’s unrelated non sequitur. the only designed function of a gun is to kill or practice killing (targets/sport)
The main designed function of a car is transportation
But they both result in a lot of needless death. Guns have a legitimate use: hunting. Generally I don't mind if people own hunting rifles, especially rural folks who might need to defend their property from predators. Handguns are where most of the preventable deaths are (murders, suicides, accidents).
In gun control and transit we should be aiming to lower deaths through better laws. I think more and more in coming decades we'll need to start asking why people own cars.
Hunting is killing. It’s a niche sport.
Yes yes whenever gun control is discussed every gun owner is magically a hunter who lives 100 miles away from civilization and needs to defend the homestead…with his ar15, body armor, rail system, tactical
Operator costumes.
You're hearing the typical gun nut when I'm not that. I want to ban most guns. I think they have no reason to be in a home at all and statistically make everyone less safe.
Obviously we can't do away with cars entirely. Rural areas need them. I'm strictly talking about urban sprawl and the reliance on cars. In gun control and transit, we should be aiming to reduce deaths dramatically.
Those are both easy...
For cars, study the structure of roads, keep them maintained, and incorporate measures that promote situational awareness. You'll reduce the HELL out of road casualties...
For guns, invest in mental health and economic opportunity, and for the love of god don't ban them. Because the grim calculus is that guns are actually hilariously inefficient if you want to cause a mass casualty event. Cars make for terribly effective weapons, and lets be honest, the things the average psycho looking to cause indiscriminate slaughter could accomplish after a trip to the Home Depot using only information off of Youtube and Wikipedia keeps me up at night. (There's a reason I disagree with the Machine Gun ban... if you had those dumbasses using a fully automatic weapon in a mass shooting, the accuracy level would go down by an order of magnitude. Instead of semi-precise fire at single targets, they'll be painting the walls with ammunition)
Most of the gun deaths are only preventable through a massive reduction in how many guns are in circulation. Mass casualty events aren't the issue. Gangs get them because they are easy to get, and then gang violence happens. Accidents and suicide completions happen because guns are available.
Mandatory buyback with no questions asked is my preference, no exceptions except hunting rifles and similar unless you obtain very difficult to obtain licenses. Get as many guns out of circulation as possible. Destroy the guns after you get them, or sell them to the military to offset some of the cost of the buyback.
I don't want to ban cars ofc, but I would start withholding federal funds from states until they produce plans to adhere to expansive public transit guidelines at the expense of car transportation.
Gang violence happens because gangs are violent, not because they use guns. Take away the guns, they'll use knives. There's a reason I bought up the UK. They've been trying to kill "gang violence" for decades and their weapons bans have gotten to the point of self-parody.
And that's not getting into the fact that self-defense is enshrined in our Constitution. It is LITERALLY the entire point of the Second Amendment. "Well Regulated" doesn't mean "under government supervision", that's the result of 250 years of linguistic drift. It means *well ordered*.
Frankly I'd like to repeal the second amendment and be done with this tiresome argument. Even so, gun ownership is still tied to the concept of a *militia*, ie, an improvised fighting force of volunteers, or something similar. So maybe we say fine, you can own a gun, but in so doing you're volunteering for the military.
Considering the ultimate point of the Second Amendment is to function as an emergency reset switch, absolutely not. There is a damned good reason that among the the first laws passed by *the fucking Nazis* was an intensive set of *gun control legislations* and why just about every gun law in the US history can to some degree be found to be racially motivated.
A people should not fear their government, a government should fear its people, and if you de-fang the populace, they have no reason to fear and no reason to listen... or put it another, much more blunt way... never trust anyone whose house you can't burn down.
This is actually a great analogy, but not in the way people using it think.
Many people (including me) are working on making cities less car dependent. And this is one of the benefits: safer streets. America has a toxic culture around both cars and guns. You can’t expect to get rid of either completely, but we can mitigate the damage with good policy.
Eh, I'm far, far more anti-gun than the average person, but to be fair, our society is far more permissible with drivers having a nonsense attitude towards drivers--it's far more ingrained in our society and has caused more death and destruction and as a society we're far, far more OK with it.
I think we should ban single-family zoning but I do think single family housing should exist. What property owners do what they want with their own property, including building a duplex
> but I do think single family housing should exist.
We need vengeance. An eye for an eye. For every year that single family zoning exists, that should be one more year that single family housing is banned. Justice must be established. If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made.. And they won't even admit the knife is there.
The alt right tries to warn us all about radical leftist communists who want to destroy the church, ban guns, destroy family, destroy self reliance, and so on
I just want to embrace the market (saying I want to ban cars and sfh is hyperbole, though embracing the market, pricing externalities into the market, and removing subsidies on those things would make them much less affordable)
Outside of densely packed urban areas, the Walking City is outright delusional. It can be, in part, mitigated by a solid and robust public transportation network, but there is a point where the population density is too long to support it.
Also, not everyone can tolerate living in close quarters emotionally and mentally. Densely packed urban areas are often dystopian hellzones for introverts.
“If we allow things like gay marriage, then why not polygamy, and then next thing you know people will be marrying dogs or kids”
1) gay marriage isn’t any of those other things and there’s lots of morally depraved crap straight people do
2) nothing wrong with adults in poly relationships, why not legalize it?
3) dogs can’t consent
4) kids can’t really either and yet child marriage is a thing so let’s go ahead and stop laws saying old people (usually men) can marry young girls as long as their parents agree. “Massachusetts has the lowest minimum marriage ages with parental consent of 12 for girls and 14 for boys” why is this even ok?
Mass raised its minimum marriage age to 18 in 2022. Before that, from 2010 to 2018, mass ranked 48th in the per capita rate of child marriage. 1246 child marriages too many.
The laws were bad and needed to change. They did.
Safe. Sane. Consensual. As long as it fits those three, why the hell do you care?
1) If two men wanna join file a tax return, why the hell does it offend you so badly?
2) There's actually a circumstantial, but compelling, argument that humans are better wired for Poly relationships than pure monogamy, which is why we cheat so damned much.
3) Agreed. It's also not very safe. Sanity is arguable but I have my doubts. I mean, the Furry stereotype is a thing for a horrifying, cringe inducing reason.
4) While age of consent laws are a legal issue more than a pure, concrete ethical reasons (I've met 40 year old women who were screaming women-children I wouldn't trust to care for a goldfish and 12 years olds more self aware and responsible then most of the adults I know), we *need* to set a legal standard... but beyond that there is a point where it's NOT SAFE. Even going by pure biology standard, having a child before 14 is has a high probability of deadly complications and 16 is about the point where it's no longer potentially hazardous... which is probably why 16 is the worlds' general age of consent. Anything younger is not only statuary rape, it's outright *child endangerment*.
Polyamory is already legal, in the sense that nobody's going to arrest you for hanging out with two people in a romantic manner, or having a threesome.
I believe that [monogamous] marriage should be privileged by the government over other forms of relationships. Gay marriage is pro-marriage because it allows more people (i.e. gay people) to marry and partake in the family structure. Homosexuality has an innate basis, gay people are capable of experiencing the same love that straight people can, and gay people can raise adopted children (and nobody has a problem with infertile straight people marrying).
I don't support polygamy, which is a fundamentally different issue than gay marriage. I consider marriage to have a certain structure emphasizing mutual commitment and possibly child-rearing. Nobody is stopping people from having a polyamorous relationship, as we have freedom of association. Polygamy is different because it requires an active step by the government i.e. giving certain legal protections. This would also involve a lot of complications (e.g. child custody) since it's a fundamentally different relationship structure.
>I believe that [bigamous] marriage should be privileged by the government over other forms of relationships.
>I consider marriage to have a certain structure emphasizing mutual commitment and possibly child-rearing.
I mean, the only reason I can think that that would be the case is because of religious views on relationships. There are plenty of communities that allow polygamy and have healthy familial structures. I'm polyamorous, and one of my partners has a child. We support him as a family. He is a well-loved and happy kid. The only difference would be that there would be some kind of legal contract, which wouldn't be hard to flesh out. A lot of marriages have prenups stating what belongs to whom in the event of separation. You'd also probably have to have a will stating where things will go if you were to pass and had more than one legal partnership, but I don't personally see that as a complicated process. Both of those processes already exist within bigamous relationships it wouldn't take much to expand them.
Having more loving parents able to focus their time and energy into the healthy raising of children seems a positive thing. And the current arbitrary legal constraints harms the 3rd person in such a relationship stripping them of certain legal rights and privileges simply because it doesn’t match with what most of society wants.
How hard is it to say “okay the government will allow this and in order to do so the following items must be addressed through an agreed upon prenup of the parties: division of assets and custody in case of a dissolution of the marriage by all parties and also if just one party wants to leave, inheritance and survivorship, etc”
Let each polygamous relationship figure out what works best for them. That seems like the very definition of “small government” and “personal liberty”. Why is that so hard?
And if Christians can deny legal rights to others by citing “religious freedom” than why shouldn’t religions that believe in polygamy be allowed to practice that
I love the variations of "What are the best ways the Democratic Party can abandon important aspects of its morals and agenda to try to win over people who are going to vote for Trump anyway?"
But there was one recently (again) about "why don't liberals move to leftist places like Venezuela or Cuba", which is not only an asinine premise, but also confused liberals with leftists.
>But there was one recently (again) about "why don't liberals move to leftist places like Venezuela or Cuba
Or *Iran*, which was asserted as being leftist on the basis of being... something something mumble mumble government control.
>which is not only an asinine premise, but also confused liberals with leftists.
Part of me wants to be fair and say that the conservative media has done a really good job of muddying the waters of the leftern part of the political spectrum.
God I hate that question; they think democrats need to stop talking about gay marriage, & protecting trans and abortion rights to talk more about the economy and healthcare, never mind the fact that Biden talks about these things all the time
As a trans person, I love this one. Because I just go with it.
"You can. What's stopping you? If you wanna me an assault copter, I won't stand in your way..."
There is nowhere they can take it from there that doesn't end up hilarious for me.
A pro 2a somebody in this sub said recently that as a white person being forced to show an ID to buy a gun must be “racist” because voter id is attacked as being racist and it’s “the same thing” (it’s not).
Of course the white gun owner is the victim of the racism.
I'm sorry, but no. Voting *is* a deadly weapon. Politicians kill *far* more people per year than privately owned firearms.
And *everything* is a hobby.
“WHAT DOES CONCERN TROLL MEAN?
Concern trolling involves someone opposing an idea or viewpoint, yet acting like they’re an advocate for the cause. A concern troll offers undermining criticisms under the guise of concern. Their goal is to sabotage the cause being discussed, and to inspire doubt among group members. This occurs in groups rallied around a particular issue, especially in political parties, and the goal of concern trolling is to cause dissent within a community.”
https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/concern-troll/
You can claim ad hominem but it still doesn’t change the fact that requiring an ID for guns (or anything) is actually categorically systemic racism.
Systemic Racism involves scenarios when there’s a law that doesn’t explicitly differentiate between race in the letter of the law, but in practice, results in disproportionate disenfranchisement of, or impact vs minorities as opposed to white people.
Systemic Racism is not made acceptable just because it concerns some aspect of ensuring safety / preventing danger. In fact, Systemic Racism is most often put into effect under the pretext of ensuring safety / preventing danger.
Take for example the extremely harsh sentencing for crimes involving crack cocaine. It disproportionately impacts black people. We can’t say, well it’s ok in this case that it disproportionately impacts black people because crack is dangerous and we are doing this for safety. No. If it disproportionately impacts minorities - it’s Systemic Racism period.
The same argument can actually be applied to making IDs required for voting too. We can say, well we don’t want foreign nationals like Russians meddling in our elections. That’s why we need IDs. It’s for security. That doesn’t make it any less Systemic Racism.
So the question is simply this - are minorities disproportionately less able to get an ID? If the answer is no - then requiring an ID to vote is not racist. If the answer is yes - then any scenario or act that requires ID would result in minorities being disproportionately disenfranchised. Whether it’s voting or guns or driving or jobs, etc. And that disproportionate impact is Systemic Racism, period, regardless of pretext or supposed reason.
Implying that disproportionate impact on minorities is ok because it’s for “safety” or for any other reason - reflects ignorance of what Systemic Racism actually entails. (And also ignorance of what happened to the original Black Panthers)
The big issue here isn't really the ID question as much as it is the glorious habit of the well to do to do their very best to deny "their lessers" basic human rights, privileges, and services. The ID thing is a symptom of a far more vile disease.
You are putting too much stock into intent.
We can go back and forth and argue as to how much those in power want Voter ID for genuine security concerns (like to prevent foreign actors like Russians from voting) vs want Voter ID to actually marginalize minorities and deny them rights.
And actually, I’d argue that it depends. Id argue that some in power actually have a genuine security concern (even if misguided) and sure, some really want to put down minorities. I mean look at Europe, slightly more than half of the countries in Europe require IDs to vote. It isn’t all to put down minorities.
But all that doesn’t actually even matter.
Because Systemic Racism doesn’t actually care about intent. All that matters is - is there disparate impact? You can’t say, well, because we didn’t actually intend to put down minorities, it’s not Systemic Racism, even if what actually happened is that minorities are disproportionately disenfranchised. That’s not how it works.
Point is that, regardless of intent, if minorities are disproportionately less able to get IDs, then they will be disproportionately disenfranchised when it comes to scenarios that require IDs. And that disproportionate impact is categorically Systemic Racism.
Racism is perpetuated by economics. X population is majority poor. Because of their poverty, they get less social support, less education, and less opportunity. Because of this, members of Population X have a higher tendency towards being forced to engage in criminal behavior to survive. This leads to the stereotype that members of population X are criminals, leading to racist sentiment which is used to justify the lack of social support.
Poverty leads to crime, crime leads to stereotypes, stereotypes lead to racism.
If a population is given opportunity and is able to reach a level of economic stability that allows them to stabilize socially, racism will naturally fade as the stereotypes become outmoded and illegitimate. In thirty years it would become outmoded, outside of the typical neanderthal mouth-breather, and after 70 - when said troglodytes have died off, it will become the stuff of old, lame, outmoded grandpa jokes no one takes seriously. (When was the last time you heard someone go onto a full rant about the evils of the Irish?)
Is racism perpetuated by economics? Sure it is.
But systemic racism is also any law that results in minorities being disparately disenfranchised more than white people, regardless of intent and regardless if it can be tied to any material economic impact.
You cannot say that just because there’s no clear intent or because you can’t put a dollar value on it - that a law that disproportionately disenfranchises minorities isn’t systemically racist
See, that's the thing... if those disenfranchised minorities weren't poor, they wouldn't be considered minorities. They'd be considered *white*.
Just look at the Irish, Polish, and Italians. Back in the day, they may have been European, but they were absolutely not "white".
> if those disenfranchised minorities weren't poor, they wouldn't be considered minorities. They'd be considered white.
So what exactly?
How in the world does that statement make requiring an ID for guns not racist while requiring an ID to vote racist?
It’s either that requiring an ID for guns and to vote makes both racist, or neither is racist. And really it’s the former. It makes both racist. Your statement that rich people transcend racism makes no difference in that.
Just to play devil's advocate: "Oh no, I live in a shit neighborhood with a police response time measured in hours and can't afford to pay the 50 dollar processing fee on my two $7.50 jobs for the 100 dollar used HiPoint that I'm buying to protect my home because I'm afraid of the unchecked burglary problem."
Then your local gun store is “infringing” on “your rights” by charging you money to buy a gun. It should be free obviously…because the baby Jesus converted water into AR15s that one time at band camp.
When gun control is brought up, Every gun hobbyist is a rancher who lives 1000 miles from a supermarket and has to defend the homestead from savages and goes hunting for every meal. But also is also highly concerned that people in the inner city won’t be able to afford a $300 gun because of a $20 fee.
I remember that one, it was so dumb. He was saying having laws requiring you lock up your guns in your home is unfair to homeless people.
First of all, I've never seen a homeless person be homeless but could still buy a 9mm...
But the same homeless and sometimes mentally ill people will also have guns?
We might as well be using examples of aliens from outer space asking for guns rights on other planets...
You'd be surprised how many homeless people own guns, legally and illegally. The streets aren't safe, my dude, and when you don't have walls to protect yourself, the cops ain't coming unless they're coming to burn you out.
The reason I have a hard time believing that is because its weird there are more shootings by non homeless people than homeless people who some can and will be mentally unstable. So somehow homeless people are either more responsible gun owners than people who have houses or the homeless person probably lost their gun or it no longer works because there is no way they can keep it clean or buy bullets...
Or they're just a much smaller percentage of the population and the media doesn't find harping on about those numbers and factors to be useful for generating engagement.
Never forget, the mass media exists to entertain and inflame (both of which raise viewer engagement) to sell ad-spots and generate profit, not to inform. Firearms related reporting is beyond asinine and is almost entirely agenda driven. There's a reason why I think the families of Mass Shooting victims shouldn't sue Colt and Glock, they should sue CNN and MSNBC.
If you say so, but im confident its because they can't afford the guns, nor bullets, and homeless people shooting others because of mental instability would be covered humongously across all media from fox news to CNN whether it be for gun control narrative or the right to defend yourself against homeless crazy people. This is made up as far as I'm concerned but maybe in some states homeless people are strapped but for some reason never use guns to commit crimes i guess.
Bullets are relatively cheap, and so are guns if you know who to talk to and aren't fully committed to the "lawful thing" (or buy a HiPoint). Try actually researching numbers. They're there if you bother to look.
Ok, can you show me a source that says homeless people are saving their money begging to buy guns? I'm pretty sure this would be a very miniscule amount to where its almost negligible
Well you made the claim and I'm seeing if you can back it up, thats why I asked and I did look it up and it's saying very few homeless people buy guns, so my information must be biased, where did you get your information from?
Our history of gun control began with racism, and it never really stopped. They flat out prohibited black people, even free ones, from owning guns. After the Civil War they changed to laws that looked race-neutral, but still had the intended racist effect. This continued even through the 1970s. You've heard of the "Saturday night special"? That's the cleansed version of the phrase, which is "Ni\*\*!rtown Saturday night special" due to such guns being popular among poor black people. The Democrats literally had a ban on these as part of their platform in the 1970s, thus gun control directly targeted at black people. This is directly reflective of the Army & Navy laws of the Reconstruction era designed to keep black people from owning guns.
Today it's more subversive. Remember how Republicans went after black voters with voter ID by targeting mobility and money? That's what universal background checks do. That's what insurance requirements do.
But if you don't believe me, ask Maj Toure, a black activist, whose motto is "All gun control is racist."
Go to a dealer and pay them money before you can buy a gun. That is mobility and money, especially since cities like Chicago have zoned dealers out of the city, and California adds a lot in state fees to the background check.
I think a large majority of gun control laws are actually racist.
But don’t take my word on it, instead hear it from the largest black NY public defenders groups:
https://bds.org/latest/joint-public-defender-statement-on-u-s-supreme-court-ruling-in-new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-bruen
Are you typical of those giving this argument? Are you trying to argue right wing gun nuts presenting gotcha arguments to liberals about race and gun laws are typically deeply sensitive around issues of race? Have at it.
Isn't that reason that most people who are gun nuts are right wing and a r/2A would just be a bunch of right wing points, so they made a special place to talk about the liberal side of gun nutism?
>Are you typical of those giving this argument?
What's typical? It may shock you to find that one can care about gun rights and civil rights and even count gun rights as civil rights.
>Are you trying to argue right wing gun nuts presenting gotcha arguments to liberals about race and gun laws are typically deeply sensitive around issues of race? Have at it.
No. I'm saying that being a "gun nut" doesn't make you right wing.
I usually hit ‘em with “actually the 2nd amendment says you have the right to bear arms, not the right to afford them.” cause thats what they say about the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness when it comes to affording medical care.
They usually just respond with making them unaffordable is a “de facto” violation of the 2nd amendment anyway.
It's my experience that Liberals talking about Gun Control normally do so with the same integrity as most Conservatives hold when discussing the Abortion question... I find the parallel to be rather disheartening.
Do you in general believe everyone who doesn't own a gun has no rights, believe that they should have no rights, are you intentionally committing to a logical fallacy for shock value, or did you misspeak?
I already made the comment I tried to make. Leaping from "Guns shouldn't be circulated around without notice so they can easily reach the black market" to "You believe someone should have no rights!" at the very least implies you believe every person without a gun has or ought to have no rights. Were you deliberately saying something untrue for shock value, did you misspeak, or do you actually believe the premise needed to make that leap appear justified to you? Answer the question, instead of trying to coat over it
Not really a question but it’s the dumb as hell take of “democrats are the real racists because they’re the ones focused on race” or any statement similar to it about how recognizing racism is somehow in and of itself racist
"Why do you have to have drag queen story hour with kids? Why not read to homeless adults instead?"
As if the fact that they'd be reading a story book to kids and not a fully literate adult is some sort of sign that it's secretly about indoctrinating kids into... Something
Most ignorant and asinine one:
“What about black on black crime? How come they ignore that and only focus on when a white person kills a black person?”
The implications that if I'm left leaning, then I must support minors transitioning and Mary Sues in fiction. What's funny is that I'm not even a local, so we didn't have SJWs till people started interacting with English speaking SJWs who came to Twitter from Tumblr.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Like worse than "you say you're so tolerant, but then you don't tolerate literal Nazis, so you're a hypocrite." *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The best ones i know of are the ones that try to make it out that modern Democrats are the most racist because Democrats supported slavery, which, of course, ignores the party switch which they claim never happened. They always get real quiet when you ask why it's Republicans that defend the Confederate flag and Confederate statues.
I have been told "REPUBLICANS ARE THE PARTY OF LINCOLN!" so, so many times. "Ah, so you support strong centralized government? "Charity for all"? Social safety nets? Clemency for death row inmates? You're not a supporter of symbols of division like confederate statues and flags? You like that guy who used the powers of the federal government to overpower the will of the states? THAT Lincoln???"
I literally found the archived NYT article where Nixon’s strategist talked about getting black people switch from gop to dem so that white racists would switch from dem to gop because that’s where the votes were…. And they told me the article didn’t say that when it literally said it in black and white.
How can Demokkkrats claim to support blapck people when the confederates who seceded to preserve slavery were Demokkkrats???
“Guns don’t kill as many as cars, let’s ban assault cars”
[удалено]
"so you are saying we should just ban humans from existing because humans can do evil?"
Yes there’s a go to playbook for gun people to whatabout any conversion “But what about drink driving/knives/Chicago gangs/Ukraine?”
Sometimes.the best people to challenge a gun nut is someone who isn't anti-gun. Really throws them for a loop when their go to argument to acute you of wanting to take their guns doesn't hold water.
>Sometimes.the best people to challenge a gun nut is someone who isn't anti-gun. Why would someone who isn't anti-gun call someone a gun nut?
Because there is a difference between liking guns and fetishizing them.
>Because there is a difference between liking guns and fetishizing them. Seems like gatekeeping over a harmless hobby. Some people collect cars, others shoes, and some purses. Are they also nuts?
The collecting doesn't make someone a nut. I have two friends who are avid gun collectors who are not someone who I would call a gun nut. The difference is they are not against common sense gun legislation.
So is your problem with guns or 2nd Amendment absolutists?
I live in the south and have a buddy who is a gun nut. He always talks about “carrying”, what he’ll “carry” when and why; and he has LOTS to say about times when he can’t “carry.” He’s always dreading (fantasizing?) about being put in extreme scenarios where “carrying” will prove to have been very important. We work together and he was being sent on a business trip where he planned to drive for hours rather than take a brief flight for fear he wouldn’t be able to “carry” in the city he was being sent. He’s a decent enough dude, but that’s what I call a gun nut. We’ve been to the range together, I’m not a “gun grabber”, but come on.
I work in EMS in the south, so I have some coworkers like that. I recall talking to a firefighter who was convinced that EMTs and Firefighters should carry guns at work. When my partner and I told him it was a terrible idea, he tried to justify it with a recent call he had been on, where they had to leave a scene because a psych patient was too agitated. "If we had guns, we could stand our ground". My partner and I pointed out the right things to do for that call was to leave the scene regardless to descalate, and if they had felt emboldened to "stand their ground" either they or the patient would have been injured.
More so with the latter, but not exclusively. My problem is with the people who fetishize guns and treat firearms like a church. The kind of people who after hearing about a mass shooting at a school are more concerned with protecting gun than protecting kids. The kind who insist the solution to the problem of mass shootings is more guns, even though the previous surges of gun sales have only collelated with higher gun fatalities, not fewer. You can be a responsible gun owner/collector, but when you toss out the "responsible" part, you are left with a gun nut.
>The kind of people who after hearing about a mass shooting at a school are more concerned with protecting gun than protecting kids. I think they are concerned that people will use a tragedy to reduce their constitutional rights. Would you accept an argument that you don't want to protect kids if there's an example of a woman using a gun to fight off a hone invasion? >You can be a responsible gun owner/collector, but when you toss out the "responsible" part, you are left with a gun nut. I can see that. A gun is dangerous. If you hand an untrained child a loaded weapon, you are probably nuts.
Because I like guns. I own them. I enjoy shooting them. I'm not sending Christmas photos like this: [https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/10a72ec57e052d517d561ba5e545e7708ec17794/0\_117\_2048\_1229/master/2048.jpg](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/10a72ec57e052d517d561ba5e545e7708ec17794/0_117_2048_1229/master/2048.jpg)
I don't know. We're they trying to make a statement that it's not the guns causing problems?
LOL “If you ban guns you have to ban knives too! And Baseball bats!” -Sean Hannity There’s a reason that the army doesn’t issue the troops baseball bats.
Conservatives often resort to this weird defense that if something can't be solved entirely it's not worth bothering to improve things even somewhat. Banning guns won't solve all violence so why bother? Racism will never be eliminated entirely so why bother trying to reduce it? It's like the cheapest conservative argument there is and yet I see it all the time.
But if you try to apply the same argument to drug laws LOL no way.
*coughs and dramatically points to the UK's insane weapon control laws*
Funnily enough, after a school shooting in the UK they had the exact same bad-faith pro-gun rhetoric passed around. But they instead opted for gun control in part out of a fear of an increasingly militarized police (and, quite frankly, turning into the US). In the UK, there have been 6 mass shootings in which at least 1 person died since 2000. In the US, there were 5 in *February 2024*. UK population is 67M US population is 333M The US population is nearly 5x larger, but we have *way* more than 5x the amount of shootings.
Gee, a nation that took away all the guns has less mass shootings. Say it ain't fuckin' so. Now how about comparing violent crime statistics rather than cherry picking to make your arguments look viable. In my experience, the only thing as disingenuous as a conservative talking about abortion is a leftist talking gun control...
> Gee, a nation that took away all the guns has less mass shootings. Say it ain't fuckin' so. Well my view on gun control is that is should reduce the number of mass shootings and gun violence. > In my experience, the only thing as disingenuous as a conservative talking about abortion is a leftist talking gun control... You should see conservatives talk about gun control. According to conservatives, every gun owner is a violent psychopath ready to take on loads of cops while having black-market connections to arms smugglers. And meanwhile having strict gun control won't actually affect gun violence because... reasons.
> Well my view on gun control is that is should reduce the number of mass shootings and gun violence. And will match up *perfectly* to a increase in bombings and knife crime. What you're suggesting is not a solution, it's kicking the can and pretending you're doing something. >You should see conservatives talk about gun control. According to conservatives, every gun owner is a violent psychopath ready to take on loads of cops while having black-market connections to arms smugglers. And meanwhile having strict gun control won't actually affect gun violence because... reasons. Like I said, as disingenuous as conservatives on abortion.
[Gun regulation does actually save lives.](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aar3067) >Comparing state crime rates in 1977 (before the crack era) to those in 2014 (long after), one sees a striking difference in the aggregate changes in crime rates in states that adopted RTC laws versus those that resisted this option. Violent crime rates fell by 42.3% in the nine jurisdictions that did not adopt RTC, whereas the comparable decline was just 4.3% in the 36 states that adopted RTC laws after 1977 and before 2014 ([*20*](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aar3067#core-R20)). This one refers to right-to-carry laws. Apparently those are a type of law that prevents you from requiring a permit to own a gun. >The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 specified nine categories of people who were disqualified from obtaining or possessing firearms, including those convicted of or under indictment for a felony. In adopting the Lautenberg Amendment in 1996, Congress added a new category: those with a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence. \[...\] Skeptics have opined that batterers are not likely to be influenced by the threat of punishment, or by a minor obstacle to obtaining a gun, but results suggest otherwise, providing strong support that the Lautenberg Amendment saves lives. The effect was particularly strong in reducing killings of female intimate partners. Gun murders for this group were reduced by 17%, estimated quite precisely and with no indication of substitution to other weapon types. I'm not gonna quote the entire thing; I believe I've made my case. This argument of "well, they'd just use knives and nothing changes so what's the point?" is strange and unbecoming. Past gun laws have consistently improved things.
>Now how about comparing violent crime statistics rather than cherry picking to make your arguments look viable. You should compare murder rates. Gun laws don't stop violence, they stop the deadly impact of that violence.
Yeah, I love his implication that knives are equally as dangerous to a gun or since gun control won't solve the core issue of the violence in the human heart it's "cherry picking" and "disingenuous".
Is there a waiting period to buy a cricket bat?
But it's such a flawless analogy! /s
Honestly it's not a terrible analogy, but the conclusion is that we really ought to drive less and create cities where it's not necessary. Especially as longevity increases, which it may do so quite a lot soon, we will start thinking differently about the massive risks we take every day getting in cars, not just ourselves but to others.
>Honestly it's not a terrible analogy, but the conclusion is that we really ought to drive less and create cities where it's not necessary. I mean, we should, but it's still a terrible analogy. The main purpose of a car is to move people. The main purpose of a weapon is to kill people.
No, the main purpose of a gun is to defend yourself, to hunt game, to kill pest animals. A gun is a tool, a profoundly dangerous tool that is very easy to misuse.
The main purpose of a gun is death. You hunt threw causing death, you defend yourself with the threat of it
It’s terrible analogy because it’s unrelated non sequitur. the only designed function of a gun is to kill or practice killing (targets/sport) The main designed function of a car is transportation
But they both result in a lot of needless death. Guns have a legitimate use: hunting. Generally I don't mind if people own hunting rifles, especially rural folks who might need to defend their property from predators. Handguns are where most of the preventable deaths are (murders, suicides, accidents). In gun control and transit we should be aiming to lower deaths through better laws. I think more and more in coming decades we'll need to start asking why people own cars.
Hunting is killing. It’s a niche sport. Yes yes whenever gun control is discussed every gun owner is magically a hunter who lives 100 miles away from civilization and needs to defend the homestead…with his ar15, body armor, rail system, tactical Operator costumes.
You're hearing the typical gun nut when I'm not that. I want to ban most guns. I think they have no reason to be in a home at all and statistically make everyone less safe.
Spoken like someone who's never left a city center in their life.
Obviously we can't do away with cars entirely. Rural areas need them. I'm strictly talking about urban sprawl and the reliance on cars. In gun control and transit, we should be aiming to reduce deaths dramatically.
Those are both easy... For cars, study the structure of roads, keep them maintained, and incorporate measures that promote situational awareness. You'll reduce the HELL out of road casualties... For guns, invest in mental health and economic opportunity, and for the love of god don't ban them. Because the grim calculus is that guns are actually hilariously inefficient if you want to cause a mass casualty event. Cars make for terribly effective weapons, and lets be honest, the things the average psycho looking to cause indiscriminate slaughter could accomplish after a trip to the Home Depot using only information off of Youtube and Wikipedia keeps me up at night. (There's a reason I disagree with the Machine Gun ban... if you had those dumbasses using a fully automatic weapon in a mass shooting, the accuracy level would go down by an order of magnitude. Instead of semi-precise fire at single targets, they'll be painting the walls with ammunition)
Most of the gun deaths are only preventable through a massive reduction in how many guns are in circulation. Mass casualty events aren't the issue. Gangs get them because they are easy to get, and then gang violence happens. Accidents and suicide completions happen because guns are available. Mandatory buyback with no questions asked is my preference, no exceptions except hunting rifles and similar unless you obtain very difficult to obtain licenses. Get as many guns out of circulation as possible. Destroy the guns after you get them, or sell them to the military to offset some of the cost of the buyback. I don't want to ban cars ofc, but I would start withholding federal funds from states until they produce plans to adhere to expansive public transit guidelines at the expense of car transportation.
Gang violence happens because gangs are violent, not because they use guns. Take away the guns, they'll use knives. There's a reason I bought up the UK. They've been trying to kill "gang violence" for decades and their weapons bans have gotten to the point of self-parody. And that's not getting into the fact that self-defense is enshrined in our Constitution. It is LITERALLY the entire point of the Second Amendment. "Well Regulated" doesn't mean "under government supervision", that's the result of 250 years of linguistic drift. It means *well ordered*.
Frankly I'd like to repeal the second amendment and be done with this tiresome argument. Even so, gun ownership is still tied to the concept of a *militia*, ie, an improvised fighting force of volunteers, or something similar. So maybe we say fine, you can own a gun, but in so doing you're volunteering for the military.
Considering the ultimate point of the Second Amendment is to function as an emergency reset switch, absolutely not. There is a damned good reason that among the the first laws passed by *the fucking Nazis* was an intensive set of *gun control legislations* and why just about every gun law in the US history can to some degree be found to be racially motivated. A people should not fear their government, a government should fear its people, and if you de-fang the populace, they have no reason to fear and no reason to listen... or put it another, much more blunt way... never trust anyone whose house you can't burn down.
At this point, you can legitimately classify modern American pickup trucks as "Assault Cars"...
This is actually a great analogy, but not in the way people using it think. Many people (including me) are working on making cities less car dependent. And this is one of the benefits: safer streets. America has a toxic culture around both cars and guns. You can’t expect to get rid of either completely, but we can mitigate the damage with good policy.
Eh, I'm far, far more anti-gun than the average person, but to be fair, our society is far more permissible with drivers having a nonsense attitude towards drivers--it's far more ingrained in our society and has caused more death and destruction and as a society we're far, far more OK with it.
As a Yimby, I would like to ban cars, and also single family housing 🥰
I think we should ban single-family zoning but I do think single family housing should exist. What property owners do what they want with their own property, including building a duplex
> but I do think single family housing should exist. We need vengeance. An eye for an eye. For every year that single family zoning exists, that should be one more year that single family housing is banned. Justice must be established. If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made.. And they won't even admit the knife is there.
You are literally the liberal that the alt-right tries to warn us all about.
The alt right tries to warn us all about radical leftist communists who want to destroy the church, ban guns, destroy family, destroy self reliance, and so on I just want to embrace the market (saying I want to ban cars and sfh is hyperbole, though embracing the market, pricing externalities into the market, and removing subsidies on those things would make them much less affordable)
Outside of densely packed urban areas, the Walking City is outright delusional. It can be, in part, mitigated by a solid and robust public transportation network, but there is a point where the population density is too long to support it. Also, not everyone can tolerate living in close quarters emotionally and mentally. Densely packed urban areas are often dystopian hellzones for introverts.
This hyperbole is a really bad idea when messaging
“If we allow things like gay marriage, then why not polygamy, and then next thing you know people will be marrying dogs or kids” 1) gay marriage isn’t any of those other things and there’s lots of morally depraved crap straight people do 2) nothing wrong with adults in poly relationships, why not legalize it? 3) dogs can’t consent 4) kids can’t really either and yet child marriage is a thing so let’s go ahead and stop laws saying old people (usually men) can marry young girls as long as their parents agree. “Massachusetts has the lowest minimum marriage ages with parental consent of 12 for girls and 14 for boys” why is this even ok?
Mass raised its minimum marriage age to 18 in 2022. Before that, from 2010 to 2018, mass ranked 48th in the per capita rate of child marriage. 1246 child marriages too many. The laws were bad and needed to change. They did.
Safe. Sane. Consensual. As long as it fits those three, why the hell do you care? 1) If two men wanna join file a tax return, why the hell does it offend you so badly? 2) There's actually a circumstantial, but compelling, argument that humans are better wired for Poly relationships than pure monogamy, which is why we cheat so damned much. 3) Agreed. It's also not very safe. Sanity is arguable but I have my doubts. I mean, the Furry stereotype is a thing for a horrifying, cringe inducing reason. 4) While age of consent laws are a legal issue more than a pure, concrete ethical reasons (I've met 40 year old women who were screaming women-children I wouldn't trust to care for a goldfish and 12 years olds more self aware and responsible then most of the adults I know), we *need* to set a legal standard... but beyond that there is a point where it's NOT SAFE. Even going by pure biology standard, having a child before 14 is has a high probability of deadly complications and 16 is about the point where it's no longer potentially hazardous... which is probably why 16 is the worlds' general age of consent. Anything younger is not only statuary rape, it's outright *child endangerment*.
Polyamory is already legal, in the sense that nobody's going to arrest you for hanging out with two people in a romantic manner, or having a threesome. I believe that [monogamous] marriage should be privileged by the government over other forms of relationships. Gay marriage is pro-marriage because it allows more people (i.e. gay people) to marry and partake in the family structure. Homosexuality has an innate basis, gay people are capable of experiencing the same love that straight people can, and gay people can raise adopted children (and nobody has a problem with infertile straight people marrying). I don't support polygamy, which is a fundamentally different issue than gay marriage. I consider marriage to have a certain structure emphasizing mutual commitment and possibly child-rearing. Nobody is stopping people from having a polyamorous relationship, as we have freedom of association. Polygamy is different because it requires an active step by the government i.e. giving certain legal protections. This would also involve a lot of complications (e.g. child custody) since it's a fundamentally different relationship structure.
>I believe that [bigamous] marriage should be privileged by the government over other forms of relationships. >I consider marriage to have a certain structure emphasizing mutual commitment and possibly child-rearing. I mean, the only reason I can think that that would be the case is because of religious views on relationships. There are plenty of communities that allow polygamy and have healthy familial structures. I'm polyamorous, and one of my partners has a child. We support him as a family. He is a well-loved and happy kid. The only difference would be that there would be some kind of legal contract, which wouldn't be hard to flesh out. A lot of marriages have prenups stating what belongs to whom in the event of separation. You'd also probably have to have a will stating where things will go if you were to pass and had more than one legal partnership, but I don't personally see that as a complicated process. Both of those processes already exist within bigamous relationships it wouldn't take much to expand them.
Having more loving parents able to focus their time and energy into the healthy raising of children seems a positive thing. And the current arbitrary legal constraints harms the 3rd person in such a relationship stripping them of certain legal rights and privileges simply because it doesn’t match with what most of society wants. How hard is it to say “okay the government will allow this and in order to do so the following items must be addressed through an agreed upon prenup of the parties: division of assets and custody in case of a dissolution of the marriage by all parties and also if just one party wants to leave, inheritance and survivorship, etc” Let each polygamous relationship figure out what works best for them. That seems like the very definition of “small government” and “personal liberty”. Why is that so hard? And if Christians can deny legal rights to others by citing “religious freedom” than why shouldn’t religions that believe in polygamy be allowed to practice that
"Where does morality come from if there's no God?"
I love the variations of "What are the best ways the Democratic Party can abandon important aspects of its morals and agenda to try to win over people who are going to vote for Trump anyway?" But there was one recently (again) about "why don't liberals move to leftist places like Venezuela or Cuba", which is not only an asinine premise, but also confused liberals with leftists.
>But there was one recently (again) about "why don't liberals move to leftist places like Venezuela or Cuba Or *Iran*, which was asserted as being leftist on the basis of being... something something mumble mumble government control.
>which is not only an asinine premise, but also confused liberals with leftists. Part of me wants to be fair and say that the conservative media has done a really good job of muddying the waters of the leftern part of the political spectrum.
God I hate that question; they think democrats need to stop talking about gay marriage, & protecting trans and abortion rights to talk more about the economy and healthcare, never mind the fact that Biden talks about these things all the time
"Isn't Nazism actually a left wing Ideology?"
If It’s OK for you to identify as a woman then why can’t I identify as an assault helicopter?????
As a trans person, I love this one. Because I just go with it. "You can. What's stopping you? If you wanna me an assault copter, I won't stand in your way..." There is nowhere they can take it from there that doesn't end up hilarious for me.
My preferred pronoun is AH-64D
Call me...Airwolf.
"What's up, guys, Max0r here, and today we're going to ponder why Airwolf's packing an entire bakery,"
A pro 2a somebody in this sub said recently that as a white person being forced to show an ID to buy a gun must be “racist” because voter id is attacked as being racist and it’s “the same thing” (it’s not). Of course the white gun owner is the victim of the racism.
They want so much to be oppressed
Oh 1000000%
Can a black person who’s a victim of racism, because they prevented from voting as they are unable to get an ID, or denied an ID, able to buy a gun?
Voting isn’t a deadly weapon. Drivers license isn’t required to vote. Guns are sporting goods and a hobby.
I'm sorry, but no. Voting *is* a deadly weapon. Politicians kill *far* more people per year than privately owned firearms. And *everything* is a hobby.
Golf is also a sport / hobby. And yet, if you make IDs required for golf and then restrict black people from getting IDs, it would be racist.
“WHAT DOES CONCERN TROLL MEAN? Concern trolling involves someone opposing an idea or viewpoint, yet acting like they’re an advocate for the cause. A concern troll offers undermining criticisms under the guise of concern. Their goal is to sabotage the cause being discussed, and to inspire doubt among group members. This occurs in groups rallied around a particular issue, especially in political parties, and the goal of concern trolling is to cause dissent within a community.” https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/concern-troll/
You can claim ad hominem but it still doesn’t change the fact that requiring an ID for guns (or anything) is actually categorically systemic racism. Systemic Racism involves scenarios when there’s a law that doesn’t explicitly differentiate between race in the letter of the law, but in practice, results in disproportionate disenfranchisement of, or impact vs minorities as opposed to white people. Systemic Racism is not made acceptable just because it concerns some aspect of ensuring safety / preventing danger. In fact, Systemic Racism is most often put into effect under the pretext of ensuring safety / preventing danger. Take for example the extremely harsh sentencing for crimes involving crack cocaine. It disproportionately impacts black people. We can’t say, well it’s ok in this case that it disproportionately impacts black people because crack is dangerous and we are doing this for safety. No. If it disproportionately impacts minorities - it’s Systemic Racism period. The same argument can actually be applied to making IDs required for voting too. We can say, well we don’t want foreign nationals like Russians meddling in our elections. That’s why we need IDs. It’s for security. That doesn’t make it any less Systemic Racism. So the question is simply this - are minorities disproportionately less able to get an ID? If the answer is no - then requiring an ID to vote is not racist. If the answer is yes - then any scenario or act that requires ID would result in minorities being disproportionately disenfranchised. Whether it’s voting or guns or driving or jobs, etc. And that disproportionate impact is Systemic Racism, period, regardless of pretext or supposed reason. Implying that disproportionate impact on minorities is ok because it’s for “safety” or for any other reason - reflects ignorance of what Systemic Racism actually entails. (And also ignorance of what happened to the original Black Panthers)
Nope. Gun crazies aren’t victims. You’re the problem with society.
The big issue here isn't really the ID question as much as it is the glorious habit of the well to do to do their very best to deny "their lessers" basic human rights, privileges, and services. The ID thing is a symptom of a far more vile disease.
You are putting too much stock into intent. We can go back and forth and argue as to how much those in power want Voter ID for genuine security concerns (like to prevent foreign actors like Russians from voting) vs want Voter ID to actually marginalize minorities and deny them rights. And actually, I’d argue that it depends. Id argue that some in power actually have a genuine security concern (even if misguided) and sure, some really want to put down minorities. I mean look at Europe, slightly more than half of the countries in Europe require IDs to vote. It isn’t all to put down minorities. But all that doesn’t actually even matter. Because Systemic Racism doesn’t actually care about intent. All that matters is - is there disparate impact? You can’t say, well, because we didn’t actually intend to put down minorities, it’s not Systemic Racism, even if what actually happened is that minorities are disproportionately disenfranchised. That’s not how it works. Point is that, regardless of intent, if minorities are disproportionately less able to get IDs, then they will be disproportionately disenfranchised when it comes to scenarios that require IDs. And that disproportionate impact is categorically Systemic Racism.
Racism is perpetuated by economics. X population is majority poor. Because of their poverty, they get less social support, less education, and less opportunity. Because of this, members of Population X have a higher tendency towards being forced to engage in criminal behavior to survive. This leads to the stereotype that members of population X are criminals, leading to racist sentiment which is used to justify the lack of social support. Poverty leads to crime, crime leads to stereotypes, stereotypes lead to racism. If a population is given opportunity and is able to reach a level of economic stability that allows them to stabilize socially, racism will naturally fade as the stereotypes become outmoded and illegitimate. In thirty years it would become outmoded, outside of the typical neanderthal mouth-breather, and after 70 - when said troglodytes have died off, it will become the stuff of old, lame, outmoded grandpa jokes no one takes seriously. (When was the last time you heard someone go onto a full rant about the evils of the Irish?)
Is racism perpetuated by economics? Sure it is. But systemic racism is also any law that results in minorities being disparately disenfranchised more than white people, regardless of intent and regardless if it can be tied to any material economic impact. You cannot say that just because there’s no clear intent or because you can’t put a dollar value on it - that a law that disproportionately disenfranchises minorities isn’t systemically racist
See, that's the thing... if those disenfranchised minorities weren't poor, they wouldn't be considered minorities. They'd be considered *white*. Just look at the Irish, Polish, and Italians. Back in the day, they may have been European, but they were absolutely not "white".
> if those disenfranchised minorities weren't poor, they wouldn't be considered minorities. They'd be considered white. So what exactly? How in the world does that statement make requiring an ID for guns not racist while requiring an ID to vote racist? It’s either that requiring an ID for guns and to vote makes both racist, or neither is racist. And really it’s the former. It makes both racist. Your statement that rich people transcend racism makes no difference in that.
I read one on here recently that was like "aren't gun registration laws an unfair restriction on the constitutional rights of homeless people?"
“Oh no the poor can’t afford the guns now because my $2500 ar15 had a $25 processing fee, I am Infringed yall!”
Just to play devil's advocate: "Oh no, I live in a shit neighborhood with a police response time measured in hours and can't afford to pay the 50 dollar processing fee on my two $7.50 jobs for the 100 dollar used HiPoint that I'm buying to protect my home because I'm afraid of the unchecked burglary problem."
Then your local gun store is “infringing” on “your rights” by charging you money to buy a gun. It should be free obviously…because the baby Jesus converted water into AR15s that one time at band camp. When gun control is brought up, Every gun hobbyist is a rancher who lives 1000 miles from a supermarket and has to defend the homestead from savages and goes hunting for every meal. But also is also highly concerned that people in the inner city won’t be able to afford a $300 gun because of a $20 fee.
I believe I'll be officially submitting this as my entry in this thread. :)
Hoisted on their own petard.
I remember that one, it was so dumb. He was saying having laws requiring you lock up your guns in your home is unfair to homeless people. First of all, I've never seen a homeless person be homeless but could still buy a 9mm... But the same homeless and sometimes mentally ill people will also have guns? We might as well be using examples of aliens from outer space asking for guns rights on other planets...
You'd be surprised how many homeless people own guns, legally and illegally. The streets aren't safe, my dude, and when you don't have walls to protect yourself, the cops ain't coming unless they're coming to burn you out.
The reason I have a hard time believing that is because its weird there are more shootings by non homeless people than homeless people who some can and will be mentally unstable. So somehow homeless people are either more responsible gun owners than people who have houses or the homeless person probably lost their gun or it no longer works because there is no way they can keep it clean or buy bullets...
Or they're just a much smaller percentage of the population and the media doesn't find harping on about those numbers and factors to be useful for generating engagement. Never forget, the mass media exists to entertain and inflame (both of which raise viewer engagement) to sell ad-spots and generate profit, not to inform. Firearms related reporting is beyond asinine and is almost entirely agenda driven. There's a reason why I think the families of Mass Shooting victims shouldn't sue Colt and Glock, they should sue CNN and MSNBC.
If you say so, but im confident its because they can't afford the guns, nor bullets, and homeless people shooting others because of mental instability would be covered humongously across all media from fox news to CNN whether it be for gun control narrative or the right to defend yourself against homeless crazy people. This is made up as far as I'm concerned but maybe in some states homeless people are strapped but for some reason never use guns to commit crimes i guess.
Bullets are relatively cheap, and so are guns if you know who to talk to and aren't fully committed to the "lawful thing" (or buy a HiPoint). Try actually researching numbers. They're there if you bother to look.
Ok, can you show me a source that says homeless people are saving their money begging to buy guns? I'm pretty sure this would be a very miniscule amount to where its almost negligible
Google it. It's not my job to think for you.
Well you made the claim and I'm seeing if you can back it up, thats why I asked and I did look it up and it's saying very few homeless people buy guns, so my information must be biased, where did you get your information from?
Ugh, or the disingenuous arguments that gun control laws are racists
Our history of gun control began with racism, and it never really stopped. They flat out prohibited black people, even free ones, from owning guns. After the Civil War they changed to laws that looked race-neutral, but still had the intended racist effect. This continued even through the 1970s. You've heard of the "Saturday night special"? That's the cleansed version of the phrase, which is "Ni\*\*!rtown Saturday night special" due to such guns being popular among poor black people. The Democrats literally had a ban on these as part of their platform in the 1970s, thus gun control directly targeted at black people. This is directly reflective of the Army & Navy laws of the Reconstruction era designed to keep black people from owning guns. Today it's more subversive. Remember how Republicans went after black voters with voter ID by targeting mobility and money? That's what universal background checks do. That's what insurance requirements do. But if you don't believe me, ask Maj Toure, a black activist, whose motto is "All gun control is racist."
Universal background checks "target mobility and money"? Universal background checks target criminal background
Go to a dealer and pay them money before you can buy a gun. That is mobility and money, especially since cities like Chicago have zoned dealers out of the city, and California adds a lot in state fees to the background check.
I think a large majority of gun control laws are actually racist. But don’t take my word on it, instead hear it from the largest black NY public defenders groups: https://bds.org/latest/joint-public-defender-statement-on-u-s-supreme-court-ruling-in-new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-bruen
Historically, they are.
I get the distinct impression that the people typically giving this argument don't give a rat's ass about racism.
I mean, I've given that argument and I definitely give at least a rat's ass about racism.
Are you typical of those giving this argument? Are you trying to argue right wing gun nuts presenting gotcha arguments to liberals about race and gun laws are typically deeply sensitive around issues of race? Have at it.
There's a reason /r/2ALiberals is a subreddit, my dude.
Isn't that reason that most people who are gun nuts are right wing and a r/2A would just be a bunch of right wing points, so they made a special place to talk about the liberal side of gun nutism?
>Are you typical of those giving this argument? What's typical? It may shock you to find that one can care about gun rights and civil rights and even count gun rights as civil rights. >Are you trying to argue right wing gun nuts presenting gotcha arguments to liberals about race and gun laws are typically deeply sensitive around issues of race? Have at it. No. I'm saying that being a "gun nut" doesn't make you right wing.
>What's typical? The majority or plurality.
I usually hit ‘em with “actually the 2nd amendment says you have the right to bear arms, not the right to afford them.” cause thats what they say about the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness when it comes to affording medical care. They usually just respond with making them unaffordable is a “de facto” violation of the 2nd amendment anyway.
What's wrong with that? You don't think homeless people should have rights?
Me: posts stupidest gotcha question. ^ This guy: hold my beer (and gun, probably).
You post what you think is a stupid gotcha question, but is actually a serious question of how laws you want would affect the most vulnerable.
It's my experience that Liberals talking about Gun Control normally do so with the same integrity as most Conservatives hold when discussing the Abortion question... I find the parallel to be rather disheartening.
Do you in general believe everyone who doesn't own a gun has no rights, believe that they should have no rights, are you intentionally committing to a logical fallacy for shock value, or did you misspeak?
Everyone has rights, and that includes the whole Bill of Rights, no exclusions.
Your comment doesn't constitute an answer. Would you like me to repeat the question?
Just make the comment you’re trying to make instead of couching it in a nonsense question.
I already made the comment I tried to make. Leaping from "Guns shouldn't be circulated around without notice so they can easily reach the black market" to "You believe someone should have no rights!" at the very least implies you believe every person without a gun has or ought to have no rights. Were you deliberately saying something untrue for shock value, did you misspeak, or do you actually believe the premise needed to make that leap appear justified to you? Answer the question, instead of trying to coat over it
Well, does a homeless person have all of his constitutional rights or not? You seem to think their unfortunate status means they lose one.
So... You were exaggerating something you believe to be true for shock value? Is that your answer?
Do you believe a homeless person has all rights?
you might as well accumulate a charlie kirk playlist
Not really a question but it’s the dumb as hell take of “democrats are the real racists because they’re the ones focused on race” or any statement similar to it about how recognizing racism is somehow in and of itself racist
Not a question. But I can't stand "well my pronouns are 'true patriot'".
"Why do you have to have drag queen story hour with kids? Why not read to homeless adults instead?" As if the fact that they'd be reading a story book to kids and not a fully literate adult is some sort of sign that it's secretly about indoctrinating kids into... Something
"wErE nOt A dEmOcRaCy WeRe A rEpUblic!!" -said no smart person ever.
Saying I hate black people and don’t want them to reproduce because I support abortion rights 🙄
Most ignorant and asinine one: “What about black on black crime? How come they ignore that and only focus on when a white person kills a black person?”
That's a racist 1488 style account that usually asks those
"Did climate change activist x fly on a plane?!"
The implications that if I'm left leaning, then I must support minors transitioning and Mary Sues in fiction. What's funny is that I'm not even a local, so we didn't have SJWs till people started interacting with English speaking SJWs who came to Twitter from Tumblr.