OK, and? Democracy isn't some god to worship. If democracy can't achieve good results, is it not reasonable to view alternative systems as a next choice?
No1RivenFucker
joined 1 year ago
By definition, fucking yes. Why are you people so caught up on finding some way of wiggling out of calling it a kill switch on some petty technicality of definitions? At least fucking own up to it and honestly proclaim your support if you agree with the policy.
Wow, really? You want a fucking gold star for figuring out that a category solely defined by the use of guns is correlated with guns?
The real question that you idiots refuse to answer is why you care about gun violence specifically when all available data shows that targeting it has no actual impact on violence as a whole.
The only thing you're making clear is your total lack of competence.
Lmao you have an extremely peculiar definition of "quoting"
Did you ask chatgpt to give you the most worthless list of buzzwords possible and just copy paste the results?
This is a 45 minute long video. Post a tldw
Nobody wanted you anyway
If the enemy thinks your ship is already sunk, they're less likely to try and sink it
This is a repost
The latter is mocking a moronic journalist who claimed he got ptsd just from shooting a gun once.
Nobody says we must maintain some "pure" system. For an already existing example, passing a constitutional amendment is far, far more difficult than regular legislation. Is that undemocratic? By the most "pure" definition, yes. It's far from just letting everything be decided by 50+1 popular vote. Or hell, even the fact that we have representatives we elect instead of using direct democracy for everything.
Limiting democracy doesn't mean just installing a dictator or something. It can be as simple as placing some issues beyond the reach of majoritatian whims. I never see any of the people crying about democracy upset that their free speech isn't under question of majoritatian will.