bostonbananarama @ bostonbananarama @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

385

Joined

2 yr. ago

I don't think any generation of 3/4 of the states is ratifying that.

Disagree. The solution is to push for as much gun control as possible,

That's essentially nothing.

...until eventually the dam breaks and the 2A dies.

And I think elephants should fart rainbows, but both of our proposals lack any consideration of how we make that happen.

In the long run, gun ownership in the US will resemble how it works in other Western countries, which is to say not much at all.

Eventually? There are roughly 400 million guns in this country...how many generations is "eventually"?

I'm not even disagreeing with you, but hoping doesn't make it happen. How do we get there? What are the steps? Does your projected path take into account the systemic impediments?

Are you under the impression the politics of 1994 are remotely similar to 2023? Have you read the Supreme Court cases of Heller (2008) or Bruen (2022)?

Name call all you want, but you're the one tragically out of touch. This Congress, especially the Republican majority in the house would NEVER pass this bill. SCOTUS has completely changed gun rights in this country since 2008. First finding an individual right to gun ownership, then drastically reducing those gun limitations that are allowable under the 2nd amendment.

I suggest you do some reading before spouting nonsense. Your comment somehow states the bill is simultaneously "entirely new" and also the "same damn thing". Muppet.

This has been said about many issues in the past.

Which issues? Civil Rights? Gay marriage?

Those are issues in which the American people were opposed, and then societal views changed. As you pointed out, that isn't the case here. Americans already favor reform, but they aren't going to vote these people out based on the status quo.

Newtown was the wake up call, if nothing changes after a bunch of small children get massacred, you're not getting change. Not without wholesale changes. Proposing an AWB is political theater, nothing more.

What do you propose?

I guess I'd ask you the same question. I don't have a proposal because I don't think any of it will make it through Congress. And if it somehow made it through Congress, the Supreme Court would strike it as unconstitutional.

Short of voting out these members of Congress and balancing the court, there's no hope of reform. So drop the issue to appeal to more voters. Win more elections, balance the court, then you're in a position to effect change.

Also, AWBs are pretty useless. They tend to grandfather in existing weapons and they exclude handguns, which are the weapon used most often to commit murder. Magazine limits, which were in the 1994 law, were the only piece to show a genuine reduction in violent crimes.

It's not even that, it's shocking to me because most of the people who love guns are on the side of the fascists anyway. Fight the government? They're going to vote for the authoritarians.

I just wish Dems would stop trying to ban any guns, and not because I'm against gun control, but because it's a losing issue. It's never passing through this Congress, and if it ever did, the Supreme Court would strike it down. Given that that's fairly undeniable, why lose the people who organize and vote on this issue alone?

It's like this, I'm not going to fault anyone who decided to get out of Germany in the 1930's. Similarly, I can't blame people who prefer to leave for greener pastures rather than deal with Christian White Nationalist a-holes everyday.

They make a quarter of a million...

You haven't seen CEO compensation lately. She makes between $6-12m depending on bonuses and stock options.

Not quite, it did serve as another example of different treatment that is based on personal features. Mission 100% absolutely successful.

OK, I agree, but how did that elucidate my understanding of the use of age as a factor in disparate treatment? Because, again, the myriad of differences between the two make the comparison inapplicable, IMO.

My argument is and has always been "fruit a belongs in the category fruits, just like fruit b".

I agree race and age are two bases for different treatment. If you have no point beyond that, then fair enough, your analogy is useless.

In these categories, they are exactly alike. IN. THESE. CATEGORIES. they are the same (again: not in all other features).

In other words, in the ways they are alike, they are alike. Congratulations, you've created a tautology.

Your objections amount to

No. I'm not claiming they're not fruits, I'm rejecting the claim that because they are both fruits their other qualities and attributes are transitive.

Your argument basically boils down to they are both fruits, therefore apples also have a lot of vitamin C.

I agree that age and race are reasons that someone could treat another person disparately but the similarities end there, which makes race a bad analogy.

Great, we agree that they share a single common factor, but that alone does not make race analogous to age. The many reasons why they're different, is why it's a bad analogy, it is why they're not analogous.

Well, then how about you read the other points that supplement that one factor sufficiently and explain that

You've made no other points.

you are wrong in this regard.

In courts age related restrictions are reviewed using a reasonable basis standard, whereas race related restrictions are reviewed using a strict scrutiny standard for that exact reason.

I don't see how that analogy is lacking in any way

That's your problem. I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it. The closer the analogy tracks to the original statement the better the analogy. The fact that race and age are two criterion that a decision can be based is extremely weak. To point this out I named a dozen or more things that you could base a decision on.

I've never stated that those aren't two things you can base a decision on, but you continue to explain that point over and over again anyway. Race doesn't track closely enough to age, an example of that is that age can often be a permissible reason to differentiate, but race never is. Ergo, bad analogy.

Smell: yes. Height: yes. Hair style: yes. Food choice: yes. Suit color: yes. Religion: yes. Party: yes. Education: yes. Speaking style: yes. Gender: yes. Handedness: yes. Weight: yes. Place of birth: yes. Sports team affiliation: yes. Personality: yes. Previous employment: yes. Name: yes. Ethnicity: yes.

^^^ They all fit as well as yours, since they can-be-a-resson. TERRIBLE ANALOGY! The only connection is so broad that a thousand other things can apply in the same way.

But both can be reasons for different treatment and in that one particular feature, they are the same, thus the sound analogy.

No, sorry, it remains terrible. In the same way stealing a candy bar and murder aren't analogous simply because they're both illegal. Although, at least in that analogy both would always be illegal. In your analogy, disparate treatment based on age can often be valid and permissible, well disparate treatment on race can never be.

There are two definitions for discriminate:

1. make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people

2. recognize a distinction; differentiate

Either considering Biden's age isn't discrimination because it isn't unjust, because those factors are an important consideration; or every choice is discrimination because we're using the differentiate definition. Personally, I believe the second definition is useless and doesn't convey the obvious connotation of discriminate.

Race is a terrible analogy for the same reason it receives strict scrutiny, there are no readily apparent reasons to use race as a determining factor. Age is not remotely in the same ball park, because there are numerous reasons to consider age. The piece you're missing is that age can be used as the reason for disparate treatment and be within the bounds of the law. Race can...almost...never be. (Can't think of anything, or any case law that upheld a race criterion, but maybe it's possible).

By that definition, every choice is discrimination because any criteria you set necessarily excludes so other group.

You keep pivoting to race as your analogy, but it doesn't fit. Look at the scrutiny courts give to race versus sex or age. Laws based on race receive strict scrutiny, gender gets intermediate scrutiny, and age is judged with a rational basis scrutiny.

So, yes, while discrimination can mean that, it certainly has a connotation that makes it a poor word choice. It is misleading as to what's happening. Using age as a selection criteria is based on rational facts, selection based on race is based on hate. Poor analogy.

Possibly one of the most needlessly pedantic comments I've ever received.

Age discrimination is typically, almost entirely, discussed as a legal issue, most often within the arena of employment. The reason being that most people realize and accept that age affects abilities. So taking into account the age of a candidate wouldn't be age discrimination in the typical sense.

His age does indeed put him into a risk group for possible dementia, true, but the criterion disqualifying him would be if he specifically does have dementia or not - not his age.

And he's going to take a cognitive test at my request and share the results? And those results will guarantee that he won't develop dementia for the next five years? If the answer to either is no, then I need to make a decision based on probability. He's far more likely to develop dementia than someone in their 70s, and I would guess hundreds to thousands of times more likely than someone in their 40s.

Not to mention that life expectancy would hold that he'd be dead by now. He's fairly likely to die in office, especially when considering the stress of the job.

Yikes

I know... Science!!! Absolutely terrifying!