CaptainProton @ CaptainProton @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

137

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's not censorship if it's words by people you dislike, silly! Everyone with a real education knows that!

(Edit: /s because I guess someone might say this unironically?)

Answer this: how do you work on legislation to ensure responsible gun ownership with someone who detests any form of civilian gun ownership and absolutely refuses to learn the intricacies? How do you collaborate with someone who thinks themselves to be above understanding what they're working on? Sensible things HAVE been proposed by people with a deep understanding of guns, but they get spit on because they're something other than another ban on an inconsequential feature or function or type of something.

Edit to add: I cannot count the number of times I've given someone a chance and nearly every time the answer to "are you open to the possibility of your side being wrong about anything at all" is along the lines of me being the one who needs to be schooled by someone with zero firearms experience about why banning some specific things will solve mass shootings. On the other hand, I've taken many anti gun people shooting, and taught them some basics, and that changed a lot about how they viewed what they'd previously been told. Internet scholars will say this invalidates their ability to be objective and so their opinion no longer counts.

The evidence, that is total intolerance to the actual ideas and proposals by gun owners, and pushing for more of the same that didn't work the first few times, shows that legislators actual objectives are total disarmament, not the safety and lives of good people.

Ah yes, the true test of what's right: how many people's preconceptions your words appeal to. Perhaps we should have have an AI stroke our egos instead of communicating with other humans.

Your gatekeeping credentials are?

You hang out with the wrong crowd. I've belonged to several gun clubs over the years, of the many hundreds of people I've gotten to know, I've met probably a dozen who fit the profile you describe. IMO the difference is socialization: if guns are a right but at the same time you make guns a taboo and actively discourage organized events and interest shooting sports, the people who do not go into it with a healthy mind and diverse social life end up dwelling on whatever someone feeds them for clicks and ad revenue (Fox News and similar shit, not even partisan just scary news gets clicks and trains fear into people). Shooting is fun if you do it right.

I only ever had two lucid dreams: one as a child, where I conjured a gun to play with, and my best dream, ever in my life, as an adult where I just turned the dream into an orgy. Read about training lucid dreaming and tried but could never actually get myself to lucid dream again.

No no no, calendar is stopping, so March 1 can be a day later. We're not jumping, we're waiting for some time to pass before resuming counting.

Thank God I thought I was making it up, but where did YOU learn to read 𐙋 ?

Lactose curious is a thing, one of my coworkers will have dairy on special occasions and plans for the aftermath

Your post implies that government is good by default.

There's hiding bad activity the government was elected to perform, like intelligence meddling in foreign affairs to protect the country's interests, and there's hiding activity to shield themselves from voter accountability, like using the apparatus to enrich other parts of government at a direct cost to its own citizens, or shield malicious actors from accountability.

They do lots of both, so why trust by default?

Had a dream the other day, with this exact scenario: woke up wet in the dream, then woke up for real totally dry. (Or did I wake up at all?)

Oh yes, improve security by mandating that everyone uses higher level languages that encourage importing libraries.

I hate to pull the AI card, but AI has a better chance of catching low level language type issues than forcing people to use tools they didn't want to has of accomplishing anything positive.

By supporting a different Republican, how hard is it? In many states you can even vote in the primary of a party you're not part of, people think it's beneath them to pick a candidate of the party they dislike whose agenda is least-unlikable. There's no law preventing you from switching parties on a whim.

As a Democrat since the 60's (assuming he had opinions before being in office), wouldn't he have been one of those segregationists? When exactly did the racists all flip over to the Republican party?

And fuck whoever decided these posts fall under the definition of "speech" too, right? Right?

Only when there's enough people that it's bordering revolution. Note how many national guard were not only deployed, but actually found themselves in gun battles (over civil rights), it was nuts by today's norms.

Not to mention both major parties are anti-drug, no matter that conservative originalism would have long ago recognized that the founding fathers were all stoners, but both parties packed the court with their own flavors of authoritarians.

I'm sure there's every kind of law being challenged, anyone with a conviction can challenge a law and any idiot city council can pass garbage statute. Don't let political rhetoric cloud judgement (can't say "common sense" because common sense actually ignores deep analysis). Magazine size ban is wildly different from California's implementation of a safe storage law. Magazine bans are as constitutional as would be a law limiting the number of words you may post online in one go.

Doubt SCOTUS ever touches this.

The language matters A LOT: Michigan's mirrors California's, which would absolutely hold up to any constitutional challenge because it requires negligence with an adverse outcome. Michigan's and California's basically say you're a criminal if two things are met: you had any plausible expectation of a child being around, AND something bad actually happens.

Every states are a little different, and at the other end of the intelligence spectrum are New Jerseys and New Yorks, and nobody even cared to challenge those yet. New Jerseys statute says you're a criminal, regardless of circumstances, if the guns are not locked up per some collection of criteria at all times when you're not actively accessing them. I do know that most of New Jerseys rare prosecutions are actual bullshit, for example a cop going door to door to gun owners because of some local crime, asking to see someone's gun to check it and not liking that the safe in the room he was in when they showed up was not completely locked (never mind he lives alone). Expect any challenge to arise there.

If SCOTUS does throw out all storage laws, it'll be because of politicians who care more about their resume than about writing really good laws.

PSA: the second amendment protects molotov cocktails.