• MisterMcBolt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Also, there is no way that the gun was a part of this crime! Guns don’t kill people. Only the mentally unstable people we goad into mass shootings with the weapons and ammo we sell them kill people.”

  • Dkarma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Pfft these kids don’t even know what kind of guns they’re being killed with…

    -conservatives

    • quaddo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      They could call it a “fnorplgleek” for all I care.

      Until they figure out how to prevent any and all fnorplgleeks from having the ability to injure, main, or kill another human being when the fnorplgleek operator wishes to harm you unlawfully, they can expend 100% of their thinkbox time figuring out how to do so. Like, pin their wetware CPU to working out a solution. Interconnect them Borg style.

      If the response is “well no, not like that” then we recognize that it’s a compromise that continues to put victims in front of said fnorplgleek operators.

      brb getting a “Down with fnorplgleeks” t-shirt made

      • SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        So you wouldn’t care if the legislation was written to ban anything that has the potential to kill?

        Guns, cars, knives, bleach, rope all could fall into that category. See how words have specific definitions and actually matter quite a bit? Especially when the law is concerned. Why do you think there’s different categories of homicide? Do you think manslaughter and 1st degree murder should carry the same penalty?

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            So large jacked up trucks have a use? Butterfly knives and swords have practical uses? What about cars with more than 200 hp? Not like you can do 120mph anywhere legally, so why have them? Or alcohol, more people are killed 10 fold via drunk drivers than all rifles combined… sounds like alcohol should go back to prohibition era and the gov. poisons it.

  • Smoogs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I know so many people who think they are helping by critiquing like this when they are not. And also expect a “thank you” for their destructive distraction. If there were a hell I hope they are the first to burn or freeze in it.

  • corm@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The point of the right to bear arms is to have some defense against an oppressive government if needed.

      • kleenbhole@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes it is.

        Historians could only “uncover” this reason because it’s buried under the actual reasons. All the rationale behind the constitutional amendments was highly documented at the time, public, and easily accessed and referenced.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          You mean including the highly documented rationale that historian uncovered?

          By the way, do you really think you could defeat the U.S. military with your gun collection? Even if you and a bunch of buddies got together?

          • kleenbhole@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            As to your second paragraph, yep, yes, sure. We got beat by a bunch of illiterate desert goat rapists and jungle Asians. Just need to outlast the political will of the oligopoly