Because you can’t run a background check on someone without ID. It’s a public safety issue.
This is better, and they’d concede that violent criminals owning guns is a problem, but I wouldn’t concede illegal voting happens with any regularity and they couldn’t prove it does, therefore IDs for voting doesn’t solve a problem and only creates problems.
1 Like
The real answer is that we’re not morons that pretend that rules and laws exist in a vacuum. But you can’t use that to “win” a bad faith argument against conservatives that are pretending that rules and laws exist in a vacuum.
The question itself is also inherently racist. Guns are regulated to protect people from their misuse. This is justified by reason and experience. There is no parallel justification to regulate votes to protect other people from their misuse. Conservatives that are aligning voting restrictions with gun restrictions are showing their bias - they think blacks voting is dangerous, which is racist.
4 Likes
They don’t care. They just want to have privileges that blacks don’t have. It’s their view of how the world should work. You are trying to reason against their intentionally misleading excuses to justify their transparently horrid beliefs. You’re wasting your time.
3 Likes
For a short period of time, you were able to do both at once recently!
Yeah I’m completely done even going through the thought exercises of “winning” arguments with conservatives at this point.
The GOP is explicitly anti-Democratic. The entire party yearns for autocratic, one-party rule. They can’t even admit Biden won or condemn insurrectionists. I’m done taking anything they say seriously.
8 Likes
Because fuck you, that’s why. Of course it’s racist. That’s a feature, not a bug. They don’t want black, brown, and/or poor people to vote. Also, they want to shoot them.
They win just by having you argue with them because when you do, they view you as triggered and they can go to their friends with a story of how they triggered a libtard.
Those people are just too far gone. Gotta focus on making sure that children don’t become like them. Adults past 30 are a lost cause.
1 Like
There is no explicit right to vote in the Constitution.
The Constitution says that certain things–such as race–cannot be used to limit suffrage, implying that there are other criteria that are permissible for denying suffrage.
If you accept the bullshit premise that owning an assault rifle is some sacred right that can be infringed, then you’re already lost the argument.
The correct answer is:
Did a bit of a double-take when I heard that.
And we can safely ignore whatever we want such as “Well regulated militia”
“The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”
seems pretty explicit to me but go off
2 Likes
With the number of guns that are already in circulation, what does banning assault rifles actually accomplish?
Feels like an ideological win that won’t mean
much in the grand scheme.
Soon enough, AI systems will be able to take out active shooters. Of course, that level of control just brings up even more concern.
I just started listening to the 5-4 podcast. In the first episode (Bush vs Gore) they make the same claim that you are commenting on.
I guess, I dunno. The gun nut jackoffs have been demonstrably wrong for decades and caused an incomprehensible amount of misery, fuck them all.
1 Like
In 1972, a team of MIT scientists got together to study the risks of civilizational collapse. Their system dynamics model published by the Club of Rome identified impending ‘limits to growth’ (LtG) that meant industrial civilization was on track to collapse sometime within the 21st century, due to overexploitation of planetary resources.
…
Herrington’s new analysis examines data across 10 key variables, namely population, fertility rates, mortality rates, industrial output, food production, services, non-renewable resources, persistent pollution, human welfare, and ecological footprint. She found that the latest data most closely aligns with two particular scenarios, ‘BAU2’ (business-as-usual) and ‘CT’ (comprehensive technology).
“BAU2 and CT scenarios show a halt in growth within a decade or so from now,” the study concludes. “Both scenarios thus indicate that continuing business as usual, that is, pursuing continuous growth, is not possible. Even when paired with unprecedented technological development and adoption, business as usual as modelled by LtG would inevitably lead to declines in industrial capital, agricultural output, and welfare levels within this century.”
…
Unfortunately, the scenario which was the least closest fit to the latest empirical data happens to be the most optimistic pathway known as ‘SW’ (stabilized world), in which civilization follows a sustainable path and experiences the smallest declines in economic growth—based on a combination of technological innovation and widespread investment in public health and education.
Blaming the rubes in the South feels misplaced to me.
We all support gun culture in one way or another. John Wick for example.
Cross post from climate change thread:
Should update thousand to “score”.
We can stop gun culture by maybe taking their fucking guns away.
Pre-pandemic we had multiple mass shootings a week. An entire generation of middle schoolers thinks it’s just normal that school shootings happen. These people have lost the argument and their murder toys need to be taken away from them.