Running out of reality to blame, they got to make stories.
Do you know what a metaphor is?
is it where you make up a fake scenario
Yes, that’s generally how metaphors work, making a difficult concept easier for people to understand by explaining it in different terms with a hypothetical. I’m glad I could help you learn this.
and then get outrage from it?
Are you talking about the guy you’re responding to? He doesn’t seem very outraged, to me. Or do you mean the guy posting the screenshot on reddit – you got “rage” from ‘gun control in a nutshell’ – how, exactly? That doesn’t sound like frothing at the mouth to me, that sounds like someone making a point.
What a strange comment.
A metaphor is like healthcare here in the US. Not everybody gets it, and even if you do you’ll often find out it’s not great.
It must be nice up there on your high horse, all educated and sober.
Seriously, you’re absolutely right and I’m very surprised I wasn’t called out for that sooner. I had several very stupid replies that were very funny to me after a bunch of whisky, and I thought this one was funnier than “No, what’s it for?”
That’s essentially how gun control works though.
Maybe the biggest workout your AR-15 gets is the monthly 2-gun PCSL match. But your state has decided that a mass murder in a different state is a good enough reason to ban semi-automatic rifles with box magazines, and now you’re a felon for simply possessing something that was legal when you bought it.
And there’s not really an end point, because all the bans in the world don’t change human nature. Germany is cracking down on people carrying pocket knives because stabbings are up sharply. In England you can’t carry a screwdriver without good cause. Banning tools doesn’t change the material circumstances that lead to violence. (Not that either Republicans or Democrats want to do that; Dems want to ban guns, Republicans want to ban anyone that isn’t a straight white christian from owning them.)
Or, you could weld a ten round magazine into place and go about your business as not a criminal. There’s always the choice to be responsible.
How, exactly, are you going to load a Glock that has a magazine welded into place?
Very painfully. Laws usually allow pistols to operate with removable magazines still. If they want to brick your weapon they should buy it off you.
If you are a responsible gun owner who would only ever need a gun for self defense, then you will never need to reload.
Slippery slope fallacy, huh? How about we start the conversation with agreeing that we want to reduce deaths and injuries from firearms, and figure out a sensible way to do that?
Sure. And I can happily give you some great ideas that don’t infringe on fundamental civil rights.
Most violent crime is a result of material circumstances, so change the circumstances. Make income and wealth more equal through tax policy so that there’s less disparity between the worst-off and the best. (Yes, I think even a single billionaire is a failure.) Adequately fund public education, and stop letting conservatives steer money towards charter and magnet school. Reform the criminal justice system to focus on reform instead of punishment. Create a single-payer health system so that no one has to drown in medical debt, and start seriously funding public mental health systems. (My first therapist in Chicago had been in public mental health until the city slashed the budget–again–and he lost his job. He went from working with severely mentally ill homeless people–people who desperately needed the help–to high-functioning autistic people like me that just kind of suck at being human.) Build and adequately fund high-density public housing so that no one has to live in a ghetto. And, maybe most importantly, start funding community programs, like sports leagues, gardening groups, and the like, all on the public dime, so that people can start building real-life connections.
Fucks sake, we’re nearly the richest country in the world, we can do this shit.
possessing something that was legal when you bought it
I’m there ATM, yet the first thing I ever learned about the law in school was the notion of “grandfathering”.
Germany is cracking down on people carrying pocket knives because stabbings are up sharply. In England you can’t carry a screwdriver without good cause.
And all of that is true, read it right here in lemmy, and far beyond weird to my sensibilities.
I’m there ATM, yet the first thing I ever learned about the law in school was the notion of “grandfathering”.
Supposed to be a thing, and yet isn’t, not really. You can talk about the ‘takings’ clause, too. What states may do is ban a thing, and require you to turn it in, and then give you what the state thinks is a just compensation. Or insist that, while you can own it, you can never sell or otherwise transfer it, which undercuts the idea of ownership of a thing in the first place.
The takings clause applies only to real property. If you’re talking about personal property, it is never a taking.
Things can be outlawed. It’s called contraband. You’re not entitled to anything.
Banning tools doesn’t change the material circumstances that lead to violence.
I agree, however some tools can bring about a lot more violence in a much shorter time than others. I’d rather try to escape someone with a knife than someone with a gun.
I think I’d have an even easier time avoiding someone trying to attack me with a pressure cooker than someone trying to attack me with a knife.
The 2nd amendment literally doesn’t provide them the right to a weapon.
If it did, particularly for the reason they say, literally killing a politician would be legal if you could prove “their tyranny”. That’s the biggest load of bullshit.
It’s a simple provision that provides the States with the right to arm their own militias.
So many chode Americans believe “theyre the miltia!!!”. The government also defines that, though, and it’s … not everyone. Its only males 18-45, and women in the Guard. That’s it. So the only people the 2nd amendment could even begin to logically and legally allow a weapon are healthy, able bodied males 18-45 and trained women. And they don’t really need to prove theyre able bodied, so every fat guy with a gun is breaking constitutional law
Almost everything you said is correct, but you forgot that a militia is not a military organization, they are paramilitary and are still civilians. Legal definition of a militia does not mention requirements of age or health. National Guard is a military organization that is funded by public tax dollars and mandates specific ages and health.
Because of this fact, militia are only mandated by the US Constitution to be “well regulated” so that when a state governor calls them to action, they need to form and follow a chain-of-command, which requires the ability to train with their firearms on their own personal time and their own dime (they are legally not allowed to be a burden to the taxpayers in any way, unlike the state National Guard).
So this means unrestricted access to commercial firearms and the freedom to train on federal land or private property with their own personally owned (not government issue) weapons.
Originalists, yet they stretch the definition of “at war” and “tyranny” to meaning at all times for everyone.
Its straight up propaganda, its illogical, and its not what’s written.
Uvalde
Sandy Hook
How many more
I hope you catch one if you really believe the people should have the right to unfettered firearm access
I like the implication that guns are equal to cars in terms of necessity. Some people can’t leave their homes without driving, and some people (cowards) can’t leave their suburban house without their emotional support weapon.
I see this sentiment parroted in every post about guns, and I get it: Some people have never been in a situation that required one, and they don’t understand why people would need one.
What I don’t get is what it’s contributing to the conversation.
I’ll certainly buy that there are some people and situations where a weapon is a necessary tool, And some people who can use them responsibly. however the problem is the majority of careless or frightened weapons holders who are a deadly threat to everyone around them. Most talk about guns rights doesn’t account for that and completely ignores the rights of the potential victims to not be killed
As long as you’re treating gun control as all or nothing, I’ll have to side with all the victims rather than the few responsible gun holders. Meet us someplace in between to try to reduce the harm caused by your tool and protect all the innocent victims
The problem is for every responsible gun owner there are dozens of irresponsible ones who are a danger to themselves and others.
Look at all the damn cases of kids killing themselves playing with guns left out by their owners.
Anyone who argues against the idea of gun control shows a distinct lack of empathy at best and is one of the those irresponsible and dangerous users at worst.
Who’s arguing against the idea of gun control in this thread? Again, parroting.
Some people have never been in a situation that required one, and they don’t understand why people would need one.
Realistically such situations come about because of easy access to guns. Make it more work to buy and keep a firearm, use red flag laws to prevent those who cannot safely own and maintain a firearm from having them, provide easy gun buyback & disposal, and eventually the gun population will dwindle and fewer people will have actual needs for guns. Overtime with such programs firearm ownership should eventually find itself at a reasonable level where only responsible gun owners have them