Clearly you just don’t want any gun control. Free for all for the firearm circle jerkers. I hope it becomes totalitarian and they take everyone’s guns away or you all kill each other in “self defense” and leave the rest of us in peace.

You don’t care about innocent people your only concern is “muh guns”.

I find you to be gross and selfish.

feature bans which are by and large what the legislators push are completely meaningless

In this we agree. The magazine ban in question is dumb and will serve little purpose in curbing gun violence.

It may “work” if we go with the totalitarian options sure, especially if we forget about the 600,000,000+ guns already out and trillions of rounds to go with them

Reasonable advocates for greater gun control aren’t looking for “totalitarian” control. They’re arguing for controls that won’t demonstrate great impact until long after we’re all dead and gone. They’re looking for greater accountability and more checks and balances on the purchase side.

Accountability is the big one in my opinion. If you own a gun and keep it loaded and unsecured and it is stolen and used to harm or kill others you should bear responsibility, even if it was reported stolen. If, however, you own a gun and take reasonable measures to secure it, with a gun lock or in a safe etc., and it’s stolen and used to harm or kill others you should not be responsible.

There is often such focus on individual freedom regarding firearms in the US that individual responsibility falls by the wayside.

Responsible, legal gun owners shouldn’t be impacted by greater accountability. They would be inconvenienced by reduced ease of acquisition but that should be minor things like waiting periods and more thorough checks.

One thing that should not happen with reasonable gun control is additional taxes like NFA stamps. Want to own an M2A1 Browning? Sure, just apply, then be subject to a thorough background check, mental evaluation and 1 year waiting period. You’ll also need to prove secure storage to a minimum standard for that type of weapon. The cost for the check and evaluation is born by the government, it’s their restriction after all, but you bear the cost of the storage and purchase of the weapon.

That’s just a for example off the cuff but that’s what reasonable gun control is. It’s not denying the right or taking currently legally owned guns away, it’s ensuring your right to bear arms does not pose a risk to others right to safety.

you just support bad laws because “guns bad” and I actually think about their impact or lack thereof.

But I don’t, I just don’t fetishize guns like many Americans The US has topped 500 mass shootings in 2023 already and is second in total gun deaths only to Brazil. In contrast to the U.S. and Latin America, gun deaths are extremely rare in countries like Japan, the United Kingdom, Norway, and Australia. These countries have implemented incentives or passed legislation to decrease the number of firearms in circulation.. You’re right though, let’s not restrict firearms any further, that clearly doesn’t work. Such gross willful ignorance.

Fuck it, I’d rather them be able to have em too than nobody, fine you win. I figured you probably would agree with that one though.

This highlights the absurdity of the absolutist 2nd amendment take.

We can change to the militia style military and gun control laws of Switzerland.

No

Of course not because the argument in the US isn’t pro vs anti 2nd amendment. It’s between people that value their guns over loss of life and those willing to see more restrictions to prevent loss of life. In fact, we have such a bad gun problem in the US that 70 percent of firearms reported to have been recovered in Mexico from 2014 through 2018 and submitted for tracing were U.S. sourced.

We’re so good at gun violence we export it.

everyone deserves the right to defend themselves

Full stop. The problem is people equate firearms with defense. Firearms are not defensive, they are offensive weapons.

those convicted of violent crimes should be barred from ownership

Why? The second amendment protects the rights of “the people to keep and bear arms”. Are those not people? Let’s restrict the 2nd amendment rights of some people, but not others?

Either all amendments should be treated as literally as possible for the time they were written or they should all be interpreted in a modern view that accounts for 230 years of change and advancement.

we shouldn’t have a standing army.

Great! Let’s get rid of it, use its budget to fund more social programs. We can change to the militia style military and gun control laws of Switzerland.

We’ll have to agree to disagree then. The National Guard didn’t exist when the constitution was written, neither did rifles with 30+ detachable box magazines.

Many historians agree that the primary reason for passing the Second Amendment was to prevent the need for the United States to have a professional standing army. At the time it was passed, it seems it was not intended to grant a right for private individuals to keep weapons for self-defense.

I find it fascinating how often specifically this argument boils down to “this is what it meant literally 230 years ago and is exactly how it should be applied now”.

I disagree. I think the well regulated militia and the people are connected. The people have the right to bear arms because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State.

The average person is not a part of a “well regulated militia” but a member of the National Guard is. The broad interpretation would make more sense if the US was like Switzerland or another country with mandatory service/training.

I do agree the second amendment gives the right “to the people” because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state but there’s a dependency there that’s ignored in modern times. When the constitution was written the militia was all able bodied men but it’s not anymore, that role is filled by National Guard.

So after age 45 they lose their right to guns? Also, with the code definition a “well regulated” militia would be the organized militia:

A “well-regulated” militia simply meant that the processes for activating, training, and deploying the militia in official service should be efficient and orderly, and that the militia itself should be capable of competently executing battlefield operations.

However you want to argue the Constitution the claim that a magazine with more than a 10 round capacity is protected is dubious at best. The 2nd amendment really needs to be revised for modern times but it won’t likely happen in any of our lifetimes.

At this point it’s a race between whether the US falls apart first or the youth that survive the battlegrounds that are public schools, concerts, malls, public transportation etc. in the US decide they’re tired of being shot and killed and come together to quash the remaining resistance to changing it.

deleted by creator

I smoked for ~12 years. I was hospitalized for liver and kidney failure and would go sit out front of the hospital a couple times a day with my IV tree and have a smoke. I quit the day before my transplant surgery, figured it was time to start again better. Haven’t had a cigarette in 6 years.

I get what you’re saying but a) not a correct application of Stockholm syndrome and b) they’re racist exactly the same way as white officers if their actions are motivated by race.

I would think you are correct in that their identity in these circumstances is not that of their race but instead that of their profession.

Likely this. If they divorced and she got everything that wouldn’t protect the assets from a judge in a civil trial.

Divorcing and splitting assets equitably would protect what she gets and leave whatever Danny Masterson has open to lawsuits.

Are you familiar with Tyre Nichols and the officers who beat him so severely he died?

Gasp! Look at all the “also not white” officers

People of the same race can’t be racist towards each other is an incredibly ignorant take.

I didn’t really know anything about One Piece until I watched the live action show but it was a lot of fun. The biggest thing for me was the scoring. It’s well scored and has the same swashbuckling feel as the original Pirates of the Caribbean movie!

Definitely a lot of fun and worth checking out!

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

The answer I saw regarding Jon Stewart was in response to the same question comparing Jon and Bill Maher with his recent announcement. That was that Jon Stewart was not a member of the WGA during the last strike and continued without his writers to keep the non-union workers getting a paycheck.

If true, it doesn’t necessarily make it ok, but it also doesn’t hurt that Jon Stewart seems likable and didn’t staunchly defend his decision, in fact indicating it was very much a struggle for him to make it.

And justified. I’m a believer in better gun control but this ban IS unconstitutional.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator