PoliticalAgitator @ PoliticalAgitator @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

505

Joined

2 yr. ago

Do you know what 40% of 450+ million firearms

Yep, it's 60% less than 100% of 450+ million and every single one of them removed from circulation makes people safer.

Do you also want to start a civil war by telling the police, that kill 1k of us a year, to go forcefully into everyones homes to confiscate them?

That's the idiots view of how gun control works and you couldn't make it any clearer that your understanding of gun control comes straight from the gun lobby.

You can't even keep your idiocy straight in your own comment. Did Australia send police to "go forcefully into everyone's homes to confiscate them"?

No we need to fix our society

Off you go then. Let us know when you're all done fixing it and you can have your guns back, because all you're doing here is admitting that the current gun laws are incompatible with the America we live in today.

Cool, fuck the NRA, I really don't give a shit about that crap organization for FUDDs

Especially now you've got representation that's even more far-right and cultish.

Classic pro-gun propaganda. Everybody is a "responsible gun owner" (despite that responsibility being entirely optional) until they shoot someone, then they're instantly a "gang member" so they don't count. Nevermind that the word "gang" doesn't appear anywhere in the article and it easily could have been another generic conservative losing control of his emotions.

But even if they were criminals, there is no magic gun fairy supplying them with firearms. The existing laws completely fail to identify criminals and straw purchases, but we're forbidden from changing them because they'll inconvenience gun owners.

But don't worry if you won't pass a background check, gun owners still have you covered. Most states still allow private sales to happen without a background check, because the gun lobby staunchly opposes closing that loophole. But if your state isn't one of them, you still don't have to worry because "responsible gun owners" who irresponsibly store their firearms provide the black market with tens of thousands of stolen guns every year.

Stop letting the problem insist they're the solution.

And when one of those attacks -- that must be executed at exactly the same time and with 100% coverage, including submarines -- fails?

The only way to stop governments doing evil things is to make sure evil people never gain power in the first place because once they do, it's too late. Neither bombs nor overweight reactionaries with AR-15s are going to stop them.

Unfortunately there's no shortage of people eager to give scumbags power and with improvements in AI, it's only going to get worse. Trump voters eat up propaganda that doesn't even make sense, as long as it comes from the right mouth. They've got no chance when the internet is full of fake images and videos that have been created to target them personally.

I called you a sucker, a "personal attack" that you could literally have in a children's cartoon.

That's some pretty thin skin for a gun owner.

I doubt they were selling anything at a loss, given how notoriously greedy they are.

Does me buying ammo hurt your feelings?

Nope. Did you want it to?

A "well regulated militia" that can't even regulate their diet.

So in other words, they played you for a sucker.

literally saying people are worthless because they're disabled.

Oh well if I've literally said that, it should be easy enough for you to copy and paste a quote.

I'm skipping the middle paragraphs but I'm gonna assume you realized you Freudian slipped your way into showing you're an ableist cunt

You mean the part where I told you I'm disabled? That's certainly the most convenient part to skip if you want to keep calling a disabled person a cunt while pretending to not know the difference between "someone asked if this was my opinion" and "that is definitely what the person who asked thinks".

But you seem to think the cunt list is the same as the "okay to shoot" list, and that's on you again

Well I asked you to clarify who you deemed "valuable to society" and you threw a massive virtue-signalling tantrum instead, so maybe it's not on me at all.

Which is functionally identical to the last one you posted. Are you just doing the same joke in every format you can? Fuck the internet sucks now.

No you don't, you just want me to give you enough arguments to make your case. Which wouldn't be necessary if you had a case at all.

Gotta claw back that moral high ground after openly advocating that someone is killed huh? People should know what your opinions are before they agree with you on the internet.

I guess you've never of Stephen Hawking, Stevie Wonder or Michael J. Fox?

This is fantastic because you've actually just named 3 people with disabilities you find acceptable because they're famous, leaving out the millions of people who aren't -- one of whom is me, which makes your indignation at being asked even more delicious.

So we still don't actually know if there's a threshold of disability that you consider better off murdered rather than costing you your precious pennies. It's not like the 3 people you named were non-verbal and in need of constant state care, they're just 3 disabled people with more money than you.

Yeah, option 3 sounds like you. Cunt.

Oh shit sounds like I've made your "okay to shoot in the head" list.

It's more than they were making from third party apps, hence the ridiculous API fees.

And should we apply this same "your life is only tolerated if you're worth something to society" to, for example, the severely disabled? I just want to be absolutely clear about who you think it's better to murder.

No. It does nothing to prevent these crimes from happening (let alone undo the damage) and you can't say "this act is immoral and worthy of deliberately slow, cruel death... unless I do it then it's fine". It's nothing more than bloodlust, leaving you with more in common with people buying monkey torture videos than with a genuinely good person.

So to be clear, you want this person killed because, over the course of his life in prison, they might cost you a dollar or two in taxes?

I know he's a piece of shit but that's not exactly a path of moral high ground. "Murder is wrong, unless it costs me a tiny amount of money, in which case fuck yeah let's go".

Do you really want to publicly ignore 9/11 as an incident in which “an airplane was flown into things”?

Sure, let's do it since I'm now genuinely curious what's going on inside your head. Is your reading comprehension that dogshit or did you ignore all that context because you genuinely thought "airplane did 9/11" was going to get you crowned "smartest person in the room"? Maybe you're lashing out because I pointed out that the overwhelming majority of domestic terrorists just carry out attacks with their legal firearms? Let's find out together.

The headline and article specifically mention that a light aircraft was used. Everybody in every comment until you arrived is talking about Cessna style aircrafts with a maximum takeoff weight around 7,700kg, not a passenger jet with a takeoff weight around 200,000kg.

The person I replied to said they were "worried about this tactic being used in the US against targets". It doesn't look like you felt the urge you frothily exclaim "WHAT ABOUT 9/11???" at him, so I guess at that point you hadn't yet decided we were talking about massive passenger jets.

In my comment, I specifically mentioned that filling a Cessna with remote control gear and high explosives is a non-trivial task, making it an extremely unlikely plan for a terrorist and without those things, the damage may not be fatal to anyone but the pilot.

Then you burst in with your pants already pissed. "What if they just casually load it up with 500 pounds of military explosives they ordered off Amazon? It could do as much damage as a bomb that was 10 times larger and used materials that are closely monitored!"

But fuck, if we're going for baseless hypotheticals that ignore both the "size of plane" and "no explosives" caveats, why stop there? What if a racist teenager fills an A380 with nuclear warheads and crashes it into New York? Think about how wrong I'd be then -- since for some reason, that's important to you.

Do you really want me to publicly explain to you the difference between a small Cessna and a Boeing 737?