![Jeremy [Iowa]](https://midwest.social/pictrs/image/cf578083-5772-4b2f-a181-51285d32757b.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
US sues Amazon.com for breaking antitrust law and harming consumers
Yeah who knows why he bothers with the abstraction when he can just take bribes directly from the gun lobby. Maybe he’s secretly bankrolled by a shady lobby group representing school children and abused partners.
I'm not sure I'd call it abstraction given it's literally his media business, but hey, whatever makes you feel better.
You’re a representative of the pro-gun community, using their talking points to push their agenda, making you a representative of them. If that label upsets you, it sounds like a problem you should take up with them.
Oh, I see - generalizations are okay when they're your generalizations.
I'm not sure how you interpret an actual focus on actual problem solving as a pro-gun agenda - a rational individual would reflect and consider that when basic problem solving is given a demeaning label, it might be indicative of a bad opinion on the matter. Let me know when you get to that point.
you even read your own link? They openly acknowledge that changes to gun need to be a key part of the solution since “curing everybody of violence forever” is 100 years away.
And you're confused by this... how?
Accessing someone’s past behaviour and restricting or denying them guns accordingly? Congratulations, you’ve invented red flag laws and background checks that actually check backgrounds, 25 years later than everyone else. Go forth and spread the word to your pro-gun brethren and try not to reflect on who could have been saved
Ah, so two things we already have, excellent
We can then proceed to the rest of the preventative measures and actually improve some lives, eh?
I've related an actual experience from my life. Frankly, I don't care if you believe me or not - that you cannot even fathom such a possibility speaks volumes.
Unfortunately, only one of us is serious about addressing the issue - you only care about the tool used.
Yep, we know. It’s the climate change denier strategy. However much evidence there is, demand even more before you’ll consider acting.
Arguably, we're still waiting for any evidence at all supporting the notion it's the firearms that are the root of the violence problem rather than merely the implement used.
The analog here would be that you seem to only care climate change can be caused by residential cars to the complete neglect of the fossil fuel contributions of the energy industry.
But who gives a shit if you’re ever convinced? We can just build something without your rubber stamp of approval and you can join the ranks of people who opposed things like food safety and DUI laws.
Feel free to find any support for the notion that I - or others here - have opposed such things.
Take all the time you need.
When you've accepted failure, consider adopting positions which may actually address root issues here rather than continuing to clutch your pearls most tightly about those darned firearms.
I've personally been stalked by, and unexpectedly face-to-face with, a mountain lion while out hunting with my dad.
You can pointlessly quibble about need, but the fact remains that my .357 was the only effective thing between it and I. I was lucky it didn't want a two-for.
Feel free to continue making such faulty assumptions - it highlights the extent to which you lack the empathy to try and understand other points of view and the imagination to contemplate things outside what you've considered.
There was no joke, unfortunately.
Probably not, since you’ll just deliberately miss the point to try and deflect.
Ah, I see. You can't explain the canyon-crossing leap between the two because of the other person - it's totally not because you're connecting nonsense.
Neat.
The pro-gun community routinely claims that gun laws are pointless because they’ll just be broken anyway, a philosophy which is deeply stupid and morally reprehensible when applied to absolutely anything else, but they seem to think they logic is sound when it comes to gun laws.
I'm still looking for the connection to your bizarre obsession with the abuse of children. Did you have one?
This, aside from your absurd reduction of the rejection of ineffective laws which provide no benefit regarding the stated problems yet provide an pointless restriction on otherwise law-abiding citizens.
Yes. Vastly more so than pro-gun promises to keep people safe from criminals and tyranny.
I see we're still deep in the realm of works cited: crack pipe. Fair enough.
And “team red” takes $16 million a year from the gun lobby and are adamant the solutions just coincidentally align with what’s most profitable.
Ah, I see we're forgetting about Bloomberg and his profiteering off of sensationalism of violence.
Of course you would be, because you’re looking for excuses to do nothing, especially excuses that might take decades to prove wrong.
Feel free to highlight any comment I've made where I suggest doing nothing.
Take all the time you need.
You want a half solution that doesn’t impact you, not an actual solution.
In point of fact, I quite explicitly argue for actual solutions.
I humped my m4 and m16a2 for 7 fucking years, get fucked with your ‘black rifle scary’ bullshit, sideways.
Cool. No one cares.
how are large capacity magazines in any way ‘controversial’ to you fuckwits? fewer rounds in the mag require more reloads bright eyes, it’s pretty fucking simple. you assholes want to justify bump stocks and rotary triggers, you’re not interested in safely keeping and using firearms, you’re interested in not having to give up anything to anyone when the issue is firearms. no compromise, no sanity, just bullshit games about nomenclature and freedumbs.
it’s always telling to me, too, the ones who’s minds get changed when their family members are shot. cause that’s what it takes with your fuckwits, you have neither the imagination or empathy so it literally requires one of your family getting shot at school to actually dig in that theere MAY BEEE A PROBLEM with 400 MILLION FIREARMS in a country of 330 million people.
Did you have a point anywhere in that rant and hyperbole?
so yeah, I got 'sumptions. I’m assuming you’re some bolo fuckmuppet who loves his AR more than he thinks kids should be able to go to school terrorized about getting shot.
Ah, very rational.
It might surprise you to learn I'm quite the proponent of actually addressing underlying issues rather than clutching pearls about sCaRy bLaCk RiFLes.
You'll note this is the second time I've provided such an analysis - it seems you didn't bother to actually check before violently abusing your keyboard.
I believe we're still waiting for you to show guns are somehow the problem.
Yes, those forums known as Reddit, Lemmy, etc... you're showing incredible works cited: crack pipe energy.
It’s as if you don’t care about violence and moreso about protecting your firearms. What is your solution?
Interestingly enough, one of us - and not you - actually cares about addressing the underlying issues.
My solutions are myriad. Violence is a complex problem.
Scoped to mass shootings, it's already fairly well laid-out here.
Regarding general violence, there's much to indicate the actions needed to resolve the high-profile-yet-miniscule-count mass shootings would overlap with general violence and homicide. From there, extend to adding the necessary social safety nets to protect an individual from being exposed to and pressured into such dire extremes.
You know... actually improve lives rather than clutch pearls that those poor souls used firearms in their violence.
mass murder after mass murder
You seem to be making quite the set of assumptions.
Those of us in favor of firearm ownership do actively want change - but you might be surprised to hear we want changes which actually address underlying issues rather than nonsense about magazine capacities and scary black rifle.
Hold up. Canada's failure to manage its borders is our issue? This, even aside from how you apparently only care that crime was committed with those darn American handguns rather than that crime was committed. Aren't you supposed to be the country doing better?
Also, what's this about right to kill black people? Is this more Works Cited: Crack Pipe nonsense?
The US is too many school shootings in to admit they have a problem.
When either party is willing to actually address underlying issues, feel free to revisit that high horse.
Arguably addressing root issues would have profound effect... though I tend to agree it won't happen without civil war, given the current state of partisan politics and waves vaguely at this post
It seems that you are saying simultaneously that this is a very weak measure, and also it is a strong enough measure to upset people.
Rather, the very nature of arbitrary restrictions - for absolutely no gain - is quite enough to upset people.
So then, we have a problem. Something must be done, but even this very small step gets blocked, fought against, and has individuals such as yourself encouraging others to not support it.
Any step which encroaches upon rights without direct tie to solving a problem should be resisted. Have you considered Democrats could, say, literally anything other than big scary rifle and big scary standard mags?
You’ve said that it could be used as ‘ammo’ against Democrats, to say that “They are coming for your guns.” But couldn’t you also say that its the opposite? Like, if someone is worried that “they” are going to take guns away, maybe that person could be placated by knowing that this near-nothing step is what is actually being asked for. It isn’t taking guns away. It’s a step that, as you say, won’t make a lot of difference anyway. So can’t that help reduce fear of change?
Given these measures are well-understood as entirely ineffective yet pushed for, it is similarly well-understood there will be further restrictions as nothing will change with the identified problem - how could it, given the measures aren't in any way an addressing of those issues? Thus, we're left with a road to bans via incrementalism.
I would imagine after Roe v. Wade's pivot, you'd understand how relying on but SCOTUS isn't sound strategy - one must, instead, reject politicians pushing for such arbitrary, unhelpful measures rather than enabling the incompetence and erosion.
From my point of view, something must change. Some people propose big changes, some propose small changes. And both meet resistance. I suggest that if you also want change, then it’s probably best to support even small changes without worrying about someone else might get upset that a change was attempted at all.
It would be fair to say politicians are proposing changes; they're unfortunately proposing the wrong ones - neither party is currently willing to consider anything outside their respective side of the wedge issue.
Blue team could entirely win here, were they willing to abandon their ivory tower - they refuse to do so. That failing is on them and no one else.
Gangsters with street sweepers is not responsible gun ownership.
v.
Just because you say something ... doesn’t make it so.
Nice.
On the off chance you'll actually read this one, it's pretty easy to find, but in case you need a direct link...
Ooh, cherry picking from a Heller lawyer, I’m sure that’s unbiased.
I'm not sure how referencing something directly relevant to the subject and the quibbling about its intent. Perhaps you could walk us through that reasoning.
edit: I liked the part where he mentions the first draft of the Virginia state constitution but not the final draft, but then omits the first draft of the US constitution. Delicious cherries.
Another one: The use of “bear arms” in an 18th century context almost always meant “in military service.” Scalia even acknowledges this, but says only when used in “bear arms against.”
You... do understand picking two references out of the entire document is actually cherry picking, right? Are you seriously so blatantly trolling?
But it doesn’t matter. Halbrook points out that the Pennsylvania declaration of independence says: “That the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State.” Ok. Why is “in defense of themselves” a specifically enumerated right? Because the term “bear arms” doesn’t apply to self-defense otherwise.
And self-defense was not the point of the second amendment, the security of a free state was.
You do understand these two ideas are incompatible, right? Even aside from how that quite clearly highlights the intent was not just "defense of the state". Had you bothered to read to the following page, you'd have seen that - but I suppose that's not really in line with your cherry-picking, is it?
I guess it makes a lot of sense when you just ignore all counterfactual evidence.
Irony.
It’s simple. For 220 years, this was not an individual, unlimited right. Then Scalia hand waved away two centuries of precedent and decided the text magically aligned with his activist agenda.
Rather, it was not interpreted as such; its intent has always been quite clear.
It's simple, once put in a position to have to do more than rely on previous precedent, referring to the actual history of the amendment required course correction.
I'm looking forward to Amazon's upcoming light slap on the wrist and increased lobbying efforts.