Conversation

Notices

1. 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Friday, 07-Apr-2023 21:41:42 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

   Seems pretty clear to me, want to place limits on it, get support for a new amendment.

   #2A

   • mike805 (mike805@fosstodon.org)'s status on Friday, 07-Apr-2023 21:41:41 JST mike805

     in reply to

     @freemo right on. And before someone posts the "well regulated militia" argument, the militia at that time was the able-bodied male population. The 2a is definitely about the general public being armed and trained to repel either invasion or tyranny.

     If the Federal government wanted to take the 2a seriously, they should be expanding the Civilian Marksmanship Program and offering free rifle lessons in high school.

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Friday, 07-Apr-2023 21:44:05 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     @lmrocha @mike805 @freemo guns literally do nothing without a person. Blaming inanimate objects for the actions of people is low effort
   • Luis M. Rocha (lmrocha@qoto.org)'s status on Friday, 07-Apr-2023 21:44:13 JST Luis M. Rocha

     in reply to

     • mike805

     @mike805 @freemo even if that were the case (it's isn't), you still have them "well-regulated" bit. Also, if the first part is to be taken for sacred, by your interpretation then only white men should have the right to bear arms?

     The reification of an old document is a choice. One that is killing our children. Guns are the number one cause of death for children in America! Our life expectancy is way lower than all other advanced countries. Choosing this mortality for an interpretation of an old text is the definition of a death cult. One that is imposed on a majority of Americans who do not want it.

   • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Friday, 07-Apr-2023 21:51:16 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha

     @thatguyoverthere

     Guns are engineered to do one thing and one thing only... to shoot a piece of lead in a straight line very fast... anything else it can do is the human, not the gun, including where that piece of lead is headed to.

     @mike805 @lmrocha

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Friday, 07-Apr-2023 21:53:44 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha

     @lmrocha

     Nah, the amendment says nothing of white men, and the foubding fathers made no hijts that is what they intended... well regulated militia is very obviously an exemplary clause not a qualifying clause

     @mike805

   • Luis M. Rocha (lmrocha@qoto.org)'s status on Friday, 07-Apr-2023 21:53:45 JST Luis M. Rocha

     in reply to

     • mike805

     @mike805 @freemo you have changed the interpretation of only the bits you like: guns for all, when it was meant for well regulated militia of white men. There was no need for amendments to change that interpretation. But if we want to set the limits clearly specified by the "well regulated" bit (the point @freemo was commenting with meme, incorrectly in my view) then we need an amendment. Isn't that convenient? Of course it is all a matter of interpretation, which depends on the supreme court, which depends on money---or a president with the balls to pack it.

     The only hope it's that this conservative overreach (as in Tennessee and recent supreme court rulings) will result in a youth backlash that has not been seen since 1969.

   • mike805 (mike805@fosstodon.org)'s status on Friday, 07-Apr-2023 21:53:46 JST mike805

     in reply to

     • Luis M. Rocha

     @lmrocha @freemo then change it. The Founders put in a procedure to change the Constitution. If a strong majority really does oppose the public ownership of guns, then you should have no trouble getting an amendment passed, right? A previous generation of progressive activists actually managed to get a ban on alcohol passed as an amendment, so it's not impossible.

     I don't agree with you, but campaigning for an amendment would be the honest approach.

   • Luis M. Rocha (lmrocha@qoto.org)'s status on Friday, 07-Apr-2023 21:53:46 JST Luis M. Rocha

     in reply to

     • mike805

     @mike805 @freemo if we had a democracy that would work, but we have an oligarchy where the lobby of the gun manufacturers out votes the people. Just see what the supreme court did recently to my state of New York. Our democratically enacted gun controls were wiped.

     And if you don't believe we are in an oligarchy, see the news about Clarence Thomas. That is why I take issue with this reification of the founding fathers. That is all a smoke screen to face that there is no democracy on this issue. It's the rule of the lobby, which I very much doubt the founding fathers intended. Indeed, a century later Lincoln called the death penalty for profiteers, which is what the gun manufacturers who profit from there daily assassination of American children are.

   • Luis M. Rocha (lmrocha@qoto.org)'s status on Friday, 07-Apr-2023 21:54:14 JST Luis M. Rocha

     in reply to

     • mike805

     @freemo @mike805 This is a case of manufacturers who profiteer from the murder of the citizenry, convincing a minority that wanting to keep their toys has a higher, almost divine reason and it's worth assassinating children for. Again, the number one cause of death for children in the USA is guns. That does not happen in countries not at war. You are siding with the profiteers, not the people, and certainly not the children who are scared and tired of fearing for their lives daily in schools and at home.

   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 00:14:18 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @pj @mike805 @freemo @lmrocha
     
     > We just want to be sure that they don't end up as easily in the hands of a person that may start shooting indiscriminately in a school or other public place
     
     Impossible demand. There is no way to know the mind of another. You can make inferences based on what you know about that person, but even that's largely dependent on what they let you know about them. A better solution would be to make sure that places where vulnerable people are likely to be concentrated should be hardened to both dissuade the behavior and reduce the impact if it occurs.
     
     > white men with wigs yes, founding mothers and people with slightly dark complexion no
     
     Don't people get tired of picking on dead people's bigotry? I mean come on. It's worth noting that the 2nd Amendment does not have any such stipulations. The cultural norms of who would have had their rights protected in the 1700s/1800s has little to do with which rights we should be protecting and to what extent.
   • PJ (pj@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 00:14:25 JST PJ

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha

     @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @freemo @lmrocha

     Bingo! You've got it!

     Nobody wants to ban guns and nobody is coming for your guns. We just want to be sure that they don't end up as easily in the hands of a person that may start shooting indiscriminately in a school or other public place.

     Even the founding fathers had some "well-regulated" criteria for who can and who cannot have a gun (white men with wigs yes, founding mothers and people with slightly dark complexion no).

     The criteria arguably changed from then but the principle stands.

   • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 00:14:35 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ

     @pj

     People have literally banned entire classes of guns such as handguns and imaginary "assault rifles".. not only arr thry coming for our guns, they are explicit about it...

     @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 00:14:53 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ

     @pj @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

     Also no, there was never a well regulated criteria. That was an exemplarly clause as is explicitly stated, not a qulifying clause. Thry have been quotes countless time saying as much.

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 00:20:12 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @pj @freemo @mike805 @lmrocha how does the "racist founding fathers" trope not get tired?
     
     > If I trash talk the people who came up with an idea I don't like it's the same thing as attacking the idea
   • PJ (pj@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 00:20:13 JST PJ

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha

     @freemo

     Yes, they don't explicitly state in the constitution who is and who isn't allowed to have guns, but I think it is pretty clear what would have happened if one of their slaves went for a gun.

     You can't run a society without qualifying clauses.

     @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 00:24:41 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     @lmrocha @mike805 @freemo great question. I know plenty of licensed drivers who probably shouldn't have them, and I've know plenty of people that were excellent drivers who lost their license over bureaucratic bull shit that was completely unrelated to their driving.
   • Luis M. Rocha (lmrocha@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 00:24:42 JST Luis M. Rocha

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805

     @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @freemo so why do you need driver's licenses and insurance to operate a vehicle?

   • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 00:26:31 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ

     @pj @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

     Surr thry do, thry explicitly state the right shall not be infringed. Pretty clear that means all people.

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 00:36:36 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha

     @lmrocha

     I woukd argue licenses and insurance shouldnt be allowed in their current form either... but arguing one thing is valid simply because some other thing exists is pretty weak argument IMO

     @thatguyoverthere @mike805

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 00:43:27 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @pj @mike805 @freemo @lmrocha
     
     > inconvenience a lot of innocent people by having to protect themselves
     
     You have to do that anyway. Do you not have a lock on the door[s] to your home? do you leave your wallet on the dash of your car and the windows down?
     
     > merely pointing out that they also had some (unwritten) criteria of who can and cannot have guns
     
     You are conflating separate issues to try and make your point seem more valid. It's not the same thing. We also don't let prisoners have guns in prison. I do think after a person has served their time they should have their rights restored, but that's not the case for felons. It's still a separate issue from the general debate on gun control.
   • PJ (pj@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 00:43:28 JST PJ

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha

     @thatguyoverthere

     Ad 1: So you are OK to inconvenience a lot of innocent people by having to protect themselves and the places they work or study rather than have someone who wants to own a deadly weapon jump through a few hoops before they can get one? Nice.

     AD 2: I wasn't talking about the morals of your founding father figures, I was merely pointing out that they also had some (unwritten) criteria of who can and cannot have guns, that you think we don't need today.

     @mike805 @freemo @lmrocha

   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 00:43:43 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @pj @freemo @lmrocha @mike805 it's not now. move on
   • PJ (pj@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 00:43:44 JST PJ

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha

     @freemo

     I believe the definition of "people" at that time, as @lmrocha pointed out, might have been very narrow.

     @thatguyoverthere @mike805

   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 00:47:05 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @pj @freemo @lmrocha @mike805 the point I'm making is that the definition of a person is not part of the 2nd Amendment. It's not part of the debate in gun control unless you are claiming that people you think are more likely to become violent are somehow not people. Then we need to figure out how we define that and maybe you have a case. Where we stand today all people are people, and natural rights apply to all people.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 00:48:04 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @pj @mike805 @freemo @lmrocha are you retarded?
   • PJ (pj@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 00:48:05 JST PJ

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha

     @thatguyoverthere

     Or what? You'll shoot me?

     @mike805 @freemo @lmrocha

   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 00:49:11 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @pj @mike805 @freemo @lmrocha "that escalated quickly" :harold:
   • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 00:51:05 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ

     @pj

     It was not narrow, at least not in the constitution. the founding fathers made rather clear, at least many of them, that they wanted many to have equal rights but sadly the states in many cases, and people, just werent ready for it. So it had to be explicitly added as an amendment.

     The quotes from the founding fathers during and after the writing of the constitution was quite clear that their definition of People was in fact extraordinarily broad for the time period and very much they wanted to include blacks in that definition (and likely other minorities).

     Some quotes:

     “There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].” – George Washington, 1786

     "Article the Sixth. There shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary Servitude in the said territory" -- James Madison, at the constitutional convention address prohibition against slavery as an article.

     “We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.” – James Madison (also at the constitutional convention)

     “Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven on a country." -- George Mason

     “The omitting the Word [slave] will be regarded as an Endeavor to conceal a principle of which we are ashamed.” – John Dickinson, draft of notes for a speech at the Constitutional Convention

     “Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States…I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in…abhorrence.” – John Adams, 1819

     @lmrocha @thatguyoverthere @mike805

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 00:51:56 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @pj @mike805 @freemo @lmrocha you just went from "Your argument sucks choose something stronger" to "are you threatening violence?" lol... that's a hell of a leap homie
   • PJ (pj@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 00:51:57 JST PJ

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha

     @thatguyoverthere
     No. Are you?
     @mike805 @freemo @lmrocha

   • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 00:52:09 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ

     @pj

     QOTO is a place for **respectful** debate... lets not do that please.

     @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 00:52:32 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ

     @thatguyoverthere

     We dont need a definition for people, we all know what a person is and the founding fathers made it very clear they intended that word to include all people.

     @mike805 @lmrocha @pj

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 00:53:49 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @freemo @mike805 @lmrocha @pj I agree. I am just trying to separate the arguments because it seems like there is an attempt to conflate the idea that "slaves weren't considered people" with "all people shouldn't get guns". To me the validity of the first argument has no bearing on the validity of the second.
   • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 00:56:51 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ

     @thatguyoverthere

     Yea its an invalid argument in so many ways.. for one its just not relevant, and for another the founding fathers were rather explicit the constitution intended "we the people" to mean everyone.

     @mike805 @lmrocha @pj

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 01:06:12 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @pj @mike805 @freemo @lmrocha
     
     > I just don't agree we should all have to protect ourselves
     
     I mean you don't have to protect yourself, but we do hold some level of responsibility (not all) for what happens to us. Back to the car analogy for a moment, you put on your seat belt right? If you live in an area where you actually feel your life is in danger you should take steps to minimize that danger. What steps you choose are entirely up to you. We have police who will put in some effort (using firearms) to execute the laws which can sometimes be enough to protect people or make people feel safe. You also have the right to own a firearm and become proficient with it so that if you should need to use it (god forbid) you can adequately protect yourself. You can also always look for an area where you don't feel like you are under constant threat. I live in a state with constitutional carry. I never feel like I am in any serious risk when I leave my home. Sometimes I carry. Sometimes I don't.
     
     If we have laws about murder, assault, theft, rape, etc already, I don't see why we need to nitpick about how the person commits the crime.
   • PJ (pj@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 01:06:13 JST PJ

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha

     @thatguyoverthere

     You've said it is not the gun that is a problem, it is the person, and I agreed with that.

     I just don't agree that we all should have to protect ourselves (supposedly with more guns) from bad persons with guns, instead of, as a civilized society, minimizing the chances these people can do harm.

     @mike805 @freemo @lmrocha

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 01:06:50 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ

     @pj

     guns arent to protect yourself from a bad person with guns... not sure why you keep repeating something that everyone has told you isnt the case or what is being argued...

     We have access to guns to protect you from bad people with knives, or fists, or a penis and muscles they intend to use to force you into submission and rape you... Guns are the great equalizer and to use them against other guns is not remotely the point, yet somehow anti-gun people keep repeating the same nonsense like a broken record to disagree with an argument no one ever said.

     @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 01:07:43 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @freemo @pj @mike805 @lmrocha yeah the point of bad people having guns regardless of the law isn't to say that you having a gun is specifically to fend of gun wielding raiders. It is the equalization of force that it provides.
   • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 01:10:10 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ

     @pj

     If you want criteria on who can or cant own a gun get support for a new amendment. At the moment it clearly states "shall lot be infringed".

     It has been shown in no uncertain terms that the 2A intended to include all people. You want to change it thats fine go through the propernlegal channels.

     @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • PJ (pj@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 01:10:11 JST PJ

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha

     @freemo

     Again. It is not about how you define "people". It is about having #criteria on who can and who cannot have a gun, drive a car or buy cigarettes or alcohol ...

     The founding fathers had such criteria, as ***everyone could not bear a gun***, and we should also have them.

     That's all I have to say.

     @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

   • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 01:11:21 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ

     @thatguyoverthere

     Yup in fact criminals already have big barriers (and i think its ok to make access to criminal records easier).

     So by its very nature one would expect good guys with guns to far outweight bad guys with guns from the start. Which implies most of the protection from guns is going to be against unarmed people.

     @mike805 @lmrocha @pj

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 01:16:18 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @freemo @mike805 @lmrocha @pj I would say though that I believe that most non-violent (and even some violent) criminals likely deserve to regain their rights after they have served their sentence. I might exclude sex offenders from that because I think the chance of re-offending is too high, but if someone served out the full sentence for their crimes I feel like they should be fully restored afterwards. Not doing so might even push people toward more criminal activity. If the only job you can get is gonna be bullshit pay because of your past you might just lean into it.
   • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 01:26:40 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ

     @thatguyoverthere

     Id say even extremely violent people should have a path to get their rights back, the key shoukd be recovery and eventually entering society again... that said they may have to jump through a lot of hoops to get there since thry woukd have to show quite clearly they have been reabilitated.

     @mike805 @lmrocha @pj

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 01:48:17 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @pj @freemo @mike805 @lmrocha > we suck as a society
     
     yep. Humans are terrible with a few exceptions. We are actually like a lot of other animals except we reflect on our terrible behavior and from what I can tell others don't.
     
     a 110 lbs woman with a can of mace somewhere in her purse that she's never used may or may not be able to fight of a 230lb monster in the middle of the night.
   • PJ (pj@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 01:48:18 JST PJ

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha

     @thatguyoverthere
     You had to "drag me back in"😀

     In my opinion if you have to use guns to solve anything (even in case of the police) it means we as a society suck.

     @freemo's argument that women use guns to protect themselves from bad penises is also dubious. I think taking a self-defense training or even a bear spray would be much more effective.

     @mike805 @lmrocha

   • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 01:49:47 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ

     @pj

     In my opinion if you have to use guns to solve anything (even in case of the police) it means we as a society suck.

     Then every society on earth sucks, and I wont disagree with that… Until you eliminate rape and violent acts from even being attempted then you will never be able to rely on cops. Cops will always be some distance away and it will always require you to have access to a phone and early enough warning make the phone call.

     Usually if someone is being raped or held at knife point or assaulted in the overwhelming majority of cases there was never a chance to even reach out to the police in the first place.

     So yes I am happy to eliminate guns, if the criteria for it is you must first eliminate all violent crimes so you can ensure we dont need those guns in the first place.

     When a guy is twice your size physical defense training is perhaps going to help the womans odds slightly but she will still be at a huge disadvantage, afterall men and women can both get that same training so its not a equalizing force.

     @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 01:51:13 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @freemo @pj @mike805 @lmrocha when I attended the course recommended for concealed carry (not required - constitutional carry) they pointed out in very clear terms the job of the police is not primarily to defend you. It is to execute the law which generally means arresting people suspected of a crime. That means the crime already happened by the time the cops show up.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 02:13:13 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • Louis Ingenthron
     @LouisIngenthron > in the officials custody
     
     This is a special carve out specifically in the case of an official being given domain over your safety. This is not how it works "in the streets"
   • Louis Ingenthron (louisingenthron@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 02:13:14 JST Louis Ingenthron

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     @thatguyoverthere And SCOTUS recently confirmed this, regarding the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas shooting: "An official has a duty to protect individuals from harm by third parties only when the individuals are in the official’s custody."

     https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201914414.pdf

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 02:47:04 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • Louis Ingenthron
     @LouisIngenthron so it's kind of irrelevant to daily life. Unless you would prefer to be "in the custody" of someone else for your whole life.
   • Louis Ingenthron (louisingenthron@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 02:47:05 JST Louis Ingenthron

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     @thatguyoverthere Yes, that was my point.

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • Louis Ingenthron (louisingenthron@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 02:47:52 JST Louis Ingenthron

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     @thatguyoverthere You've still missed the point. I was agreeing with what you said, not arguing against it.

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 02:48:12 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • Louis Ingenthron
     @LouisIngenthron ah ok... yes I misunderstood.
   • mike805 (mike805@fosstodon.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 03:23:52 JST mike805

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ

     @thatguyoverthere @freemo @lmrocha @pj this thread shows a common problem.

     People with incompatible worldviews usually cannot have productive debates about an issue that impacts their worldviews.

     People on the gun rights side see this as a matter of NATURAL RIGHTS - rights that existed before civilization. Numbers and harms don't move them.

     People on the anti-gun side see it as a matter of SAFETY - they want to reduce harms. At least the honest ones do. A few are would-be tyrants.

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 03:33:41 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @mike805 @freemo @lmrocha @pj agreed. The violence we are subject to is a cultural problem and no amount of banning and bureaucracy is going to fix it. Too much could even make it worse. People are creative. Weapons can be made at home. Shinzo Abe was assassinated with the most cyberpunk looking weapon ever made on the planet made "by wrapping steel pipes together with tape".
     
     https://english.jagran.com/world/shinzo-abes-killer-wielded-homemade-gun-had-considered-a-bomb-attack-say-police-10045759
   • mike805 (mike805@fosstodon.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 03:33:42 JST mike805

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ

     @thatguyoverthere @freemo @lmrocha @pj From the gun-rights side, we used to have a civilization where people could have deadly weapons for protection and sport, without frequent massacres taking place.

     We need to fix our culture so that is possible again. That's where the statistics come in - figure out what are the factors causing people to go rage monster.

     If the culture isn't fixable, then what comes next will not be pretty, and guns will certainly be in demand in that environment.

   • mike805 (mike805@fosstodon.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 03:34:14 JST mike805

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ

     @freemo @pj @thatguyoverthere @lmrocha in that case, Japan sucks less than most. The police there go most years without firing a shot. They are trained to use their batons with modified sword-fighting techniques to disarm a knife attacker.

     However... in the absence of guns, the Yakuza was able to run extortion and protection rackets with basic strong-arm thugs, and force small businesses to pay them a substantial percentage. That's the downside of being gun-free. Organized muscle dominates.

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • mike805 (mike805@fosstodon.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Apr-2023 03:34:59 JST mike805

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ

     @thatguyoverthere @freemo @lmrocha @pj only a minority of humans seem capable of rationally overriding their emotions. We have rational thought but the ape mind controls all the rewards and punishments. The rational mind just exists to figure out how to satisfy the ape desires.

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • mike805 (mike805@fosstodon.org)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 18:02:16 JST mike805

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • Luis M. Rocha

     @lmrocha @freemo @thatguyoverthere drivers' licenses are "shall issue." You don't have to be friends with the mayor, or a business owner. You have to show basic competence in the field you are being licensed in - able to drive a vehicle for a few minutes without doing anything seriously wrong.

     Many states have similar "shall issue" for CCW permits. Although a natural rights purist would object, in a practical sense it works.

     The problem is when you have to be "someone special" to get one.

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • Luis M. Rocha (lmrocha@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 18:02:17 JST Luis M. Rocha

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805

     @freemo @thatguyoverthere @mike805 no it's not. Comparison is essential for making laws and argue about them.

   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 18:04:20 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     @mike805 @lmrocha @freemo or win they penalize you for unrelated things by taking your license. If it demonstrates competence you should need to demonstrate incompetence for suspension/revocation.
     
     As an aside, I've never met a car that required a license to start moving
   • mike805 (mike805@fosstodon.org)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 18:05:34 JST mike805

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • Luis M. Rocha

     @freemo @lmrocha @thatguyoverthere the vehicle versus gun comparison ought to be used more often in these debates.

     Some of the terrorist truck rampages have run up body counts comparable to the mass shootings. And if guns were banned, large vehicles would be the next easiest way to go on a killing spree.

     Cars are also the other big killer of young people besides guns and drugs. So "how would you regulate vehicles then?" is a good question to ask.

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • mike805 (mike805@fosstodon.org)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 18:05:35 JST mike805

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • Luis M. Rocha

     @freemo @lmrocha @thatguyoverthere actually.... owning a car doesn't require a license. It is entirely possible to have a car registered in your name and not have a drivers' license. If you have a big piece of land you can even drive it around your own land. Many farm boys drove around the farm long before turning 16. Those kids could also carry a rifle around on the farm, and did.

     Using a potentially deadly object IN PUBLIC requires you to demonstrate basic competence in most states.

   • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 18:05:35 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha

     @mike805

     Yes obviously true, but you know what I meant.

     @lmrocha @thatguyoverthere

   • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 18:05:37 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha

     @lmrocha

     great then lets do that:

     Since guns dont require licenses, we shouldnt require licenses to drive cars either... Through the use of comparison you made a strong argument to abolish car licenses :)

     Yea I dunno that sounds like a bad way to argue.

     @thatguyoverthere @mike805

   • mike805 (mike805@fosstodon.org)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 18:16:51 JST mike805

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • Luis M. Rocha

     @thatguyoverthere @freemo @lmrocha yes the whole "smoke a joint lose your license" thing ought to be declared unconstitutional.

     As for licenses to start moving, don't tempt them. :-) they are already trying to put lockout devices for alcohol and sleepiness and so on in all cars. Gee, I hope those never malfunction in an emergency.

     The same people who would disarm us absolutely would put car ownership out of reach for the average person, given a chance. They'd prefer a world of robo taxis.

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 18:27:09 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @lmrocha @mike805 @freemo @pj what inconvenient bits? Shall not be infringed seems pretty straight forward. If you are referring to the militia portion we're back in a loop.
     
     Where I think we may differ is that I see these rights as natural god given rights of man. Government doesn't give us our rights, and allowing them to take your rights away and calling any rights preservation oligarchy hurts my brain. If every supreme court justice tomorrow said oh we've change how we interpret the 2a that changes nothing as far as "rights" go. 2A is protection against infringement (weak as it may be) not granting you the right to bear arms.
   • Luis M. Rocha (lmrocha@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 18:27:10 JST Luis M. Rocha

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • PJ

     @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @freemo @pj that is not the point I made. I was pointing to the capriciousness that gun profiteering apologists use when interpretating the 2A. All concepts that it trades in have changed dramatically, but the apologists treat the inconvenient bits as, well 'it's not like that now”, and the bits they care about as immutable, reified text that only other amendments can adapt.

     As I said, all this is legal interpretation that depends only on a few lackeys the profiteering oligarchy pays up to sit on the supreme court---in another profound constitutional blunder. It is very hard to fight oligarchy, but the youth whose lives it values less than profit may yet have the power to change things.

   • mike805 (mike805@fosstodon.org)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 18:37:01 JST mike805

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • Luis M. Rocha

     @freemo @lmrocha @thatguyoverthere technically true but requires some brainpower.

     An idiot can commit mass murder with a truck or a gun or with fire. And most of the mass murderers are idiots, fortunately. If really smart people went homicidal, we'd have body counts in the tens of thousands.

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 18:37:02 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha

     @mike805

     I'd argue poisons are the easist way to do mass killings... its been done, a bag of poison someone makes, takes it on a train, opens the bag, everyone dies... easy to make, kills en masse at a level comparable or exceeding guns.. no reasonable way to protect against it directly so only real option is to convince people to stop wanting to murder.

     @lmrocha @thatguyoverthere

   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 18:41:53 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @lmrocha @mike805 @freemo @pj natural and god given are synonyms take it as you will I'm not asking you to accept God, bit good luck declawing me and anyone else who sees having claws and the capabilities that affords to be part of nature. I will always have the right to defend myself regardless of what the legal status of firearms is. No person or group of people can take that away. Best you can hope for is tyranny
   • Luis M. Rocha (lmrocha@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 18:41:54 JST Luis M. Rocha

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • PJ

     @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @freemo @pj God is besides the point here. The constitution is to establish a secular society for believers and unbelievers. Besides, I take take issue with equating guns at least with Christianity. The gospels are very clear about Jesus' thoughts on self -defense. You need to be diabolical (in the original sense of the word) to make a connection between "turn the other cheek” and the 2A. I think his surrender to crucifixion is quite clear on that note.

   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 18:42:33 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @lmrocha @mike805 @freemo @pj happy easter by the way
     
     He is risen
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 18:50:09 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @lmrocha @mike805 @freemo @pj
     
     Sorry to keep chaining replies I just noticed the turn the other cheek reference.
     
     > 36 Then he said to them, “But now, whoever has a money-bag should take it, and also a traveling bag. And whoever doesn’t have a sword should sell his robe and buy one. 37 For I tell you, what is written must be fulfilled in me: [i] And he was counted among the lawless.[j] Yes, what is written about me is coming to its fulfillment.”
   • mike805 (mike805@fosstodon.org)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 18:50:38 JST mike805

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ

     @lmrocha @thatguyoverthere @freemo @pj God is never beside the point. A person's position on that question reliably predicts most of his other views. There is a "root" or top level in everyone's mind, and what resides there decides everything else.

     Jesus was advising a small group of traveling evangelists, for whom getting into a violent confrontation could not possibly help them in their mission. Thus "shake off the dust of that place." He was not referring to all people for all time.

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 18:54:19 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @lmrocha @freemo @mike805 @pj the point is that yes turning the cheek is something we should all strive toward, but Jesus never said that his disciples should be disarmed. We should not thirst for anger and vengeance, but that doesn't mean there is never a time and place for self defense.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 19:07:26 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @lmrocha @mike805 @freemo @pj I guess that's a jab. No one is saying you should be able to use guns to convert people to Christianity, but to pick and choose the things he said (out of context) to support an argument he never made is not going to work. He did want the disciples to be peaceful and slow to anger. He also recognized the dangers of the world and told them to be prepared. These ideas can coexist, and in fact we have quotes from Jesus in the Bible that suggest they do.
   • Luis M. Rocha (lmrocha@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 19:07:27 JST Luis M. Rocha

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • PJ

     @mike805 @thatguyoverthere @freemo @pj wow, so we do have the Gun-Jesus figure after all. Who needs the cross when you have the guns....

   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 19:45:43 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @lmrocha @mike805 @freemo @pj
     
     > if you dont have a sword buy one
     
     Not the same as be armed? :Think:
   • Luis M. Rocha (lmrocha@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 19:45:44 JST Luis M. Rocha

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • PJ

     @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @freemo @pj "be prepared" is not the same as "be armed". I was raised Catholic, and the idea of using a Christian conception of God to defend gun-based self-defense is, frankly, diabolical---especially when we know it leads to incident children being killed over and over again.

   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 20:32:14 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @lmrocha @mike805 @freemo @pj
     
     > and he was counted among the lawless
     
     I'm pretty sure this says he (and his disciples by proxy) will be considered outlaws. It seems to me that before this they were considered to be safe from imprisonment, but that he was warning them times are changing and soon they will be wanted criminals.
     
     The larger point is that cherry picking turn the other cheek as the only time Jesus spoke on arms or self defense doesn't convince me that arms are against his will. Honestly Leo Tolstoy makes some compelling arguments, but I think at the end of the day that even if a person decides to turn the cheek or allow an intruder to take their stuff or hurt them because of the way they interpret those passages that's separate from forcing people to depend on the government for protection. Especially since we live in a nation with separation of church and state. I may not choose to defend myself, but I still have the right to do so.
   • Luis M. Rocha (lmrocha@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 20:32:15 JST Luis M. Rocha

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • PJ

     @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @freemo @pj there is much context, and prophecy parallelism, in that passage to make that such a simple case. The sermon on the mount is much more relevant to understand Jesus' moral teachings, than confusing/ambiguous (”two swords are enough”) prophetic statements just prior to arrest.

     Personally, and this is just me, I read that passage as an indication of the futility of the few arms his disciples could buy from selling their clothes, in the presence of the might of the Roman army. Certainly two swords weird have both been enough... So, I interpret this as as call to focus on what matters about his message, which is the opposite of swords.

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • Luis M. Rocha (lmrocha@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 20:32:29 JST Luis M. Rocha

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • PJ

     @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @freemo @pj I meant: "certainly two swords would not have been enough."

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 20:32:35 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @lmrocha @mike805 @freemo @pj I figured
   • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 20:38:37 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ

     @lmrocha

     Except we dont know that, all the data suggests the opposite, banning guns means people die en massem, including kids... But since you have no peer-reviewed data to show that (and neither do I) thats another matter.

     @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @pj

   • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 20:38:51 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ

     @lmrocha

     You have not provided a single study that addresses whatI am arguing.. you can scream about "all data" all you want, but as long as you keep posting completely irrelevant studies that are not addressing what I asserted then you dont have a leg to stand on.

     @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @pj

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • Luis M. Rocha (lmrocha@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 20:38:52 JST Luis M. Rocha

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • PJ

     @freemo @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @pj that is just patently false. All data points to the opposite. No evidence whatsoever (from all other similar countries) that regulating the use of guns leads to people dying en masse. That's just silly and totally false.

   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 20:44:17 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @lmrocha @freemo @mike805 @pj what percentage of gun suicides would decide life is worth living if they didn't have a gun?
   • Luis M. Rocha (lmrocha@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 20:44:18 JST Luis M. Rocha

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • PJ

     @freemo @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @pj I don't have to provide data for what *you* are arguing. That's your job. Go ahead and publish it. I gave you published evidence in strong support of my claim: more guns --> increased mortality. If you have evidence against the current scientific evidence, which can sustain peer-review, by all means publish it. Restating your beliefs without proof (beyond your own mind) is not enough and it is dishonest to claim your belief invalidates current peer-reviewed and replicated studies without demonstration.

   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 20:45:01 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     @lmrocha @freemo @mike805 @pj I would expect this paper to have some way to extrapolate that if they choose to lump in suicide?
   • 🐘🐘 Humpleupagus 🐘🐘 (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 20:50:28 JST 🐘🐘 Humpleupagus 🐘🐘

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ
     Slaves weren't people, faggot. Have you read The Dred Scott decision? It establishes that you don't have any grasp of history, whatsoever. Opinion disregarded.
     
     Simply put. Now that all free men are citizens, they have the right. You lose. Kill yourself.
     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • Luis M. Rocha (lmrocha@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 23:36:09 JST Luis M. Rocha

     in reply to

     • mike805

     @mike805 @freemo the founders were not gods. Their conception of guns, militia, armies, people (who they thought mattered), rights (for those they throughout mattered) bear absolutely no relevance today. All of those have changed dramatically since then.

   • mike805 (mike805@fosstodon.org)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 23:36:10 JST mike805

     in reply to

     @freemo also "the people"in the 2a definitely refers to the actual human beings living in this territory. So that quashes any "collective right" claim.

     The use of "the people" to refer to some theoretical group right is really a Marxist invention. The founders said what they meant and meant what they said.

   • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 23:36:11 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • mike805

     @mike805 The well regulated militia is clearly an exemplary clause and not a qualifying clause

   • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 23:36:23 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha
     • PJ

     @pj

     I think the problem is misrepresented. Mass shootings are not the problem, violence overall is and mass shootings is a very low priority when it comes to addressing that. It is too arbitrary and rare to call it the problem

     @lmrocha @mike805

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • PJ (pj@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 09-Apr-2023 23:36:24 JST PJ

     in reply to

     • mike805
     • Luis M. Rocha

     I might have a suggestion that could satisfy most of the people here:

     Problem: The perpetrators in mass shootings are mainly “loners” with some unresolved issues.

     Solution: To be able to legally buy a gun you need to be a member in good standing and have a permit from a “well-regulated militia” (a.k.a. a gun club or society).

     So the responsibility for the security of a society is neither on the individual nor on the government, but on the society itself.

     What do you think? Is everybody happy? You have your guns (as many as you wish) and the rest of us are a little bit less concerned we’ll get shot at our place of work, learning, or praying.

     @lmrocha @mike805 @freemo