It's HIGH TIME the 2nd Amendment was REPEALED. Sorry Gunforge ,your guns must be TAKEN AWAY from you

I reposted both on facebook with the comment "this is why I took my baby and left Texas in 1983.

hmmm...

yabut lookit all them thar peoples given freedom since the ban got lifted

You mean the freedom to bleed out?

Man shoots teen playing hide and seek.

https://www.kplctv.com/2023/05/08/s...14-year-old-girl-playing-hide-seek-back-head/

SCOTUS might overturn more gun bans in days.

https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/5...ciation-gun-rights-naperville-brett-kavanaugh

The stats are showing those arrested/convicted, so if the perp isn't caught they by definition wouldn't be included in either column.

The only reason your objection is relevant is if you think that they are less likely overall to be caught and can provide anything to suggest that is the case.

https://twitter.com/kubabielamowicz/status/1657100920155430917?s=46&t=iYW3foyqIA6Tn8VWwn3nwQ

Lawmakers Push for Guns to be Regulated Like Other Products

Lawmakers push for lots of stuff. Especially Boebert and Greene.

That's nice. The difference between those idiots and the subject at hand is that a majority of Americans want to see new gun laws.

But let's run with this for a moment, shall we? What would you call a government that defies 50%+ of the population's desires when it comes to certain issues? I don't know about you, but I tend to think of such countries as dictatorships or failed states. What would you call such a country? Now, if you consider it to be a dictatorship or a failed state, what makes us different from them? Anything? Are you going to do anything about it? Because even if you don't think that we're a failed state or a dictatorship, you gotta admit that we're verging on some of that territory.

Tyranny of the minority.

Put ALL rights up for a majority vote. Run the country, and make every decision, by direct democratic process. You must accept the results whether you like them or not.

No sale? Then fuck off with the "majority of people want this" rhetoric.

Get rid of the electoral college, and yeah.

That would be the only way it could work.

You wouldn’t like how direct democracy would work out.

which one of them?
because I'm pretty sure UA would wind up ostrakon champion.

why? How would an electoral college benefit Diacanu?

If you have any doubts that we're broken as a nation, feast your eyes on this.



I'm sure that, unlike guns, this'll get banned in Florida, if it hasn't been already. Oh, yeah, those to grey circles on the cover? They represent bullet holes. 'Merika!

New App Hires Rideshare Drivers Who Pack Heat

Ayup. I can see no possible way that this could go wrong.

That is an incredibly shitty argument. Slavery and segregation had support well over 50% at points. Abortion bans too at the time of Roe v. Wade. It would not have been dictatorial to eliminate those much earlier than they were.

Doesn't it take all the fun out of drive bys if you have the uber driver do all the shooting?

These are what I consider the facts of life about the state:

1. Popularity of a law does not always mean the law is just or wise; in fact, popularity often comes from unreflective emotionalism or transient passion.

2. Laws need popular support (or at least be subject to popular redress) to be legitimate.

3. Political majorities unrestrained will take everything from political minorities.

4. Power tends to corrupt.

5. Institutions created in the public interest tend to become sclerotic and self-serving as they grow.

Any disagreement? Anything to add?

First, define "state".

Second,
1. "popularity often comes from unreflective emotionalism or transient passion" Bullshit. Spoken like a true asshole without any compassion for anyone other than themselves. I feel bad for the spouse and any children that person may or may not have.
2. Again, more bullshit. Laws need to be just. Popularity should have zero effect.
3. That's an over simplified explanation of a convoluted process and even then, a small aspect of the convoluted process.
4. Uhm... no. shit. Can you be more explicit? Which power? What corruption - in terms of laws being passed.
5. Bullshit. sometimes yes, but not a blanket and certainly not the "end goal".


There are three kinds of power - economic, political, and social. You seem to be addressing laws based solely on social power. The only power making laws should be political (government, not the bullshit that is modern american politics) and then ONLY for the benefit, protection, and advancement of THE PEOPLE. not business.

The institution formed to establish and enforce rules by which a society operates. (This is a very narrow definition of state that leaves out significant things, but it will suffice for discussion.)

A lynch mob has popular support. Segregation had popular support. Consider for a moment that you may just have proven my point.

Just is often a matter of perspective. The Arab says "this land is mine because my ancestors were driven off it," the Israeli says "no, it is mine because my ancestors died to secure it." If only one can possess the land, decide the matter in a way both will agree is just.

It really isn't. Or do you think there isn't a history of the politically powerful dominating minorities?

The Greek democracies failed because they degenerated into majority groups voting themselves property and privilege from everyone else. And those others begin to wonder why they should support a state that only exists to plunder them.

ANY power.

Please note: I'm not saying power or authority shouldn't exist, only that there should always be an awareness of its susceptibility to corruption.

It's a pretty universal tendency of bureaucracy.

Do you think the Defense Department is concerned solely with defending the American people when it seeks huge funding for a new weapons system? Do you think a huge public employees union is really concerned foremost with delivering good service to the public?

You're explaining how you think it should be. I'm telling you how it is.

Perhaps you missed the part where you sided with evil and we all hated your fucking guts?

Because that happened, and you aren't forgiven.

Fuck off back to Camp Wordforge where you might have a chance at an opinion that doesn't belong pre-Nuremburg.

Cunt.

And the next time you think it's NOT 1945? We'll be here to remind you.

And if you think you're spreading some wisdom about power here that absolves you? Fuck off.

We already knew that shit.

If you've had a "come to Jesus" moment, then good. But you'll also realise that that makes you late to the party, if'n y'all have an ounce of humility.

You are a nazi guntard trying to justify immoral and unethical positions.

Of the ass?

The State. So, the government. That is how we refer to the government here in the United States. Most often when people refer to “The State” they unknowingly are referring to Orwell’s 1984’s description of their fascist government. Now, I’m not happy with the direction our Federal government is currently headed - it’s currently a struggle between the oligarchy and a fascist religious government. But, I don’t think it’s fair, yet, to refer to our federal government as “The State”.

I’m not going to make a point by point rebuttal, just only to say that a government that is free of corruption would only be passing laws that benefit or protect the people. Never business. Laws should be few and clear and should be for the benefit of EVERYONE including the people that the masses don’t like.

That's a very difficult standard to uphold. Or, maybe I should say: those pushing almost every law passed today could make that claim. See my next response below.

Suppose a state government offers a tax break and waives some environmental regulation in order to attract MegaCorp to locate their new plant in their state. The plant will employ 1500 people and provide considerable tax revenue to local and state government.

MegaCorp's going to make a bundle with their new plant. They benefit. Directly.

And people in the community benefit; they get jobs and money flowing in.

The state benefits; they get tax revenues.

But, hold on...environmentalists complain that the regulations the state proposes to waive are necessary. And state senator McGrumpington complains that attracting the state with a special tax deal was corporate welfare. Housing advocates protest that rising rents around the new plant are pushing out lower income people. MegaCorp's competitors sue because they're not getting a deal, and that unfairly affects competition...

...and so on.

So, is it in the people's interest to close the MegaCorp deal?

It's complicated, and reasonable people could argue both sides.

The defense contractor pushing a new bomber can argue it's vital to deter the country's enemies. The conservative can argue that the new welfare bill encourages dependency and creates an expensive bureaucracy. The environmentalist can argue that the new highway will result in more traffic congestion and pollution.

I think that's a nice sentiment, but the world is too complex for such a rule to be useful.