this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
1113 points (97.6% liked)
People Twitter
5371 readers
1601 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Would you think the same if it was a comment about taking women's conception rights/bodily autonomy? The whole "handmaid's tale" thing is exactly this. Everything is the handmaid's tale when it comes to women's rights, but these rights are just problematic. I want women to have rights, and Americans to have gun rights. Rights for everyone, tyranny for no one.
When did women's right shoot up a school the last time?
Ironically it's probably because of all the unwanted children due to legal or cultural prohibitions on abortion that cause the misery needed to lead to school shootings. Aside from that, people sucking does not mean I lose my rights. Tell the media to stop reporting gang shootings near schools as school shootings and drive-bys as mass shootings. Tell the media to stop publicizing the shooters and making them "interesting" to the public. Lots of that shit is copycats.
You don't have the right to make a nuclear bomb in your backyard, either.
When they passed laws against drinking and driving, people complained that the government was taking away their rights. Same with requiring you to wear a seatbelt.
When a nuclear bomb becomes something a regular person can make without a nation-state worth of backing let me know them we can worry about that.
As far as driving goes it has never been a right guaranteed by the constitution. Maybe they'd have a point if it was.
Where is it written in the Constitution again? The 2nd Amendment? So it's only in there because the Constitution can be changed?
And? Then change it then. If the 2nd Amendment is still there and not repealed then it's a moot argument. Stop trying to whittle more and more of the right guaranteed by the 2nd by couching it in "common sense" bullshit.
And when it was written militaries where standing in lines firing round shot out of inaccurate tubes en-masse hoping that they might hit something. A single person with a modern SAW could have taken out an entire company unaided. You're suggesting that there should be no adjustment based on changes to society and technology because it's written on a specific piece of paper.
Grapeshot. Pickleguns. There were many advancements in weaponry during the lives of the founding fathers but I don't remember them writing all about how they were wrong because weapons are too dangerous for mere mortal civilians to own.
No, because Women's right are good. Taking away some of them is bad. The point your missing is I don't want you to have guns. Any argument you make about "taking away some rights is a step towards taking away more rights" is going to be met with me saying "Good."
None of this is an argument that it is good for you to have guns. I find it interesting that the comic equates guns to cake, something that is a luxury that serves no purpose other than the users enjoyment. If someone takes away all your cake your not suddenly living in some hellscape, you're just not as happy as you would be with cake. If you own guns just because it makes you happy, you are exactly the type of person who should not be allowed to own guns.
That's what we call mask off. If the gun grabbers wouldn't be so sneaky and two-faced we'd have a real outcome based on what the public wants, not "won't someone PLEASE think of the children" emotional arguments hiding the real goal.
I think most of the public doesn't want to worry about being shot.
If you actually look at the statistics you wouldn't. Just like you're extremely unlikely to get measles but we do innoculate ourselves. The innoculation to gun crime is a lead innoculation for those commiting it. Criminals don't stop commiting crime because it's illegal you know.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country
The only country with more gun deaths than the US is Brazil. The US is 4% of the world's population and 14.85% of the World's Gun Deaths. I wonder what could possibly be the reason for that.
"There's no way to prevent this from happening" say the only Country where this regularly happens...
Suicide and gang wars are the source of you're actually interested.
Look at your source and sort by per capita statistics, because no shit a 350 million population country will have high total stats in any number of things while having lower per capita.
More than 3 times one would expect if there wasn't an issue.
Okay, let's try to keep guns out of the hands of people in gangs or with mental health issues.
My dude, it's already illegal for criminals to use guns and crime, so what is another law going to do? Felons cannot own guns and many criminals are felons but a lot of them still find guns. What is a law going to change about that? Death by suicide is a primarily male problem. Are we going to ban men? Just because somebody used a gun to kill themselves doesn't mean they were not going to do it in some other way.
My Dude, gun crime is higher in states that have less restrictive gun control laws, and the cities that neighbour them. If it's harder for criminals to buy guns then there will be fewer criminal with guns. It's not complicated.
"Gun crime is caused by gang!"
"Okay, let's try to stop gangs getting guns."
"IMPOSSIBLE!"
It's really not, you just don't want a solution because the problem excuses your big pew pew toy.
"IMPOSSIBLE" yes. Without killing a fundamental right which built the nation it is impossible. If there's the political will to do it then ces't la vie, but my job, and the job of others who care and understand the situation is to call out the politicians hiding their goal of banning guns behind euphemisms and dog whistles. If they can repeal the 2nd then fucking do it. If not then fuck off on more gun control. That's the only thing I don't like about most Democrat candidates. I agree with most everything else. It still makes it difficult to support them though.
I just wanted to thank you for bringing this perspective to the conversation even though you're getting absolutely blasted for it. That's a great comic too - I'm saving that for later.
So you're fine with them repealing the 2nd?
I wouldn't like it, but that's the only path for it to be legal. Every other gun control is unconstitutional.
Is this what we call a mask off moment? If the people with their toy guns weren't trying to be sneaky a two-faced about it we’d have a real outcome based on what the public wants, not "ItS iN tHe CoNsTiTuTiOn!" emotional arguments hiding their desire to not talk about it, not discuss it, and not come up with a solution because any solution might mean they have fewer toys to play with.
At no point is the existence of the 2nd amendment an argument that people should be allowed unrestricted access to guns (Appeal to Authority), and the fact that it is illegal for convicted felons to own guns means having reasonable restrictions is not a violation of the constitution.
What? I think you might be confused. The only ones hiding their true intent are those trying to ban all guns while claiming "reasonable restrictions". The Second Amendment is historically significant to the founding of the US and is based in the ability of a nation to defend itself with or without a standing army. Human nature has remained the same. Recent failures in "catch and release" or soft on crime prosecutors has shown that despite trying to be progressive and change the way we treat criminals the criminals haven't changed. They're still the same as they've always been.
Human nature being what it is, until we have perfect mass surveillance and zero freedoms we will continue to have a need to protect ourselves from bad actors.
I'm also of the belief that once a person has served their sentence and been released there shouldn't be any additional future punishments stemming from prior convictions. They should have all their rights restored. It certainly could be kept as a record to affect their future criminal punishments were they to reoffend, but if the punishment they received wasn't enough and they have to be punished more then it should have been a part of the initial conviction sentencing.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/
The standing army isn't going anywhere.
If the US army suddenly disbanded what are your guns going to do against missles and jets?
Your just showing that the 2nd Amendment is out dated as the reason for its existence is no longer valid.
"The justice system is bad" is an argument to reform the justice system, not vigilantism.
"The justice system is bad" is an excellent argument to make gun less accessible.
Again, 4% of the world's population is responsible for 14% of the worlds guns deaths. Other countries have figured this out without "mass surveillance and zero freedoms".
I don't disagree, I just want to point out that you just said the justice system is too lenient, and now you're saying it should be more lenient.
Honestly, if you're interested in how guns are effective against missiles and jet planes, look at Vietnam or Afghanistan. Then again I think privately owned jet fighters and missiles isn't out of the bounds of reality.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/26/politics/cnn-poll-gun-laws/index.html
That's difficult to say because they don't say what the question is. It could be as simple as "do you think common sense laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals/children/immigrants are a good idea" or it could be even more weasely. Without knowing the actual question the survey results are meaningless.
The survey is directly linked. If you were actually interested in "What the public wants" you could have easily clicked the link and found out for yourself what the question is, the results, and what the results have been in previous years. Seeing as actually informing yourself seems like too much effort, here is the question asked:
People were free to interpret that however they want, and 64% of people said they were in favor.
Didn't see the link. Well, people are getting more and more brainwashed, so I'm not surprised. Honestly, when the news calls every shooting near a school a school shooting and goes on and on about how there's hundreds a year it's not a surprise the ignorant masses are fooled.
So you're concerned about what the public wants, until it is shown that the public very much does NOT want the thing you want, and which point you immediately know what the public REALLY wants better than they do.
I'm concerned (reasonably) that mass media and constant misinformation/disinformation campaigns on social media and other platforms are changing peoples' minds not with facts but with lies and deception. I don't think this is controversial.
So am I, that's why a third of people oppose stricter gun control laws. Without the constant misinformation/disinformation campaigns on social media and other platforms it would be over 90% in favour of stricter gun control laws.
You see how that works? You didn't actually present an argument, you just assumed you are correct without any need of supporting your claims, and the argument goes nowhere.
The fact that the media reports shootings in the vicinity of schools as school shootings to pump up the numbers is evidence on my side.
Evidence for what? That people don't want what they want? You have provided no evidence that people don't actually want what they say they want, and no arguments as to why they shouldn't want that. For someone that was previously so concerned about "what the public wants" you are pretty quick to dismiss what the public wants.
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/08/27/640323347/the-school-shootings-that-werent
And what does that have to do with you claiming people don’t actually want what they say they want, or why they shouldn't want it?
You don't listen. I never argued against your claims that school shootings were over reported, but that is the argument you have primed so you ignore what's actually being said.
Also: "It's okay guys, there were 11 school shootings 2015!" Is a bizarre argument for why there shouldn't be more strict gun control laws in place.
It was just an example of highly exaggerated "news" pushing anti-gun opinions. It's also extremely obvious so I thought it was a good thing to point out. It's all part of the won't someone please think of the children angle to try and convince people to give up their rights. Don't get me wrong Fox News is absolute shit but that doesn't excuse the other side telling lies.
What mask? I never claimed otherwise.
What do you think is the reason for the "real goal"?
The mask is used by politicians trying to hide banning all guns as sensible gun control. I'm just stating that you are telling the truth the politicians will not.
I don't know if you've ever watched The Simpsons but that is a quote from a reactionary trying to get what they want with no real reason so they say it's for the kids. It has been a very successful political tool. Just think of cispa and other various internet censorship and spying tools.
Politicians probably realize banning guns is not going to happen, so putting some reasonable gun control laws in place is a good middle ground. You're talking about a slippery slope fallacy, which does not address if a proposed measure is actually bad in and of itself.
It's literally for the safety of the general public (kids included). How many school shootings does there have to be before it's reasonable to point out "This will help protect children."
Children in the US literally have drills on what to do if there is a school shooting FFS.