the question you must also ask is: why do traffic controls in other countries not escalate like this?
I realised it wasn’t worth wasting time on you when you’re so indoctrinated. But by all means, keep trotting out essays full of misinformation that has been widely debunked.
That's it? You and Boxy both? "Nuh uh" is all you got? The reason you don't want to engage is not because you're enlightened and above it all.
Bruh what in the actual hell are you talking about? Go read some of my earlier posts in the thread if you want to be enlightened, about how stuff like this has been an integral part of my entire life. I don't go on like this because I'm trying to win; I absolutely hate that we even have to have these fucking conversations to begin with. I go on because someone needs to be the guy who won't stand for the dumb shit. I have no party affiliation, no label for you to stick on me (and holy shit, have people tried), and I have no delusions about any of this.
All he can do is project breh. It's fucking hilarious.
It's like when people go "get politics out of muh movies" as if movies were never political. Case in point, when Star Wars adds prominent POC and a female main character (which isn't political btw), some people complained about 'politics' but refused to acknowledge the political undertones of the original trilogy.
Star Wars did Finn so dirty
That is an absolute, stone cold fact. What a waste.
He was so good in The Force Awakens. He did pretty good against a wounded Kylo with no force powers, was brave, competent, charismatic, all that good stuff. Then in The Last Jedi they had annoying ass Rose explain to Finn, the former child soldier, the horrors of war, and then repeats a shittier version of his arc in the first movie. Gtfo. I think the writers spent all of their time on Kylo Ren because Adam Driver had to carry those movies on his back.
No, I understand you 100%.
The Civil War absolutely wasn't about ending slavery, history has been very kind to President Lincoln in that way, but thank God it happened. But it wasn't a war that broke out because the North finally decided to do the right thing, when Lincoln was a lawyer he once represented a slaver in court even. This isn't comparable to the hypothetical situation of taking guns from people for the right reasons just to fix an injustice.
Yeah, that's completely untrue. The civil war was about slavery, and all the state leaders and generals in the south said as much.
They only decided to move away from slavery because they were moving away form agriculture period into industrialization, not because they were super cool nice guys. I'll admit I overgeneralized but there were a lot more factors than jsut slavery that lead to all out war.
I didn't say anyone was super cool nice guys. But if we'd been focusing on the fact that slavery was 'the culture' and the economy in the South, we'd still have it.
Well, I've already agreed with you as to why this should happen. I get your point, but the answer to how things should be done was clear back then: industrialization. Cotton was then handled in factories rather than forcing slaves to pick it from a field. There were very clear answered because the industrialized North was already doing it. They replaced their slaves with workers that were technically paid but still easily exploitable. The new economic model was already set. There is NO EXAMPLE in America of how gun control should or even CAN be done. There isn't half of the country, the more powerful half mind you, dedicated to making it happen.
There are examples all over the world. Just replace North/South with US/other first-world countries.
Your examples of murder and slavery do not work in this context at all, because firearm ownership represents a voluntary relationship. You can choose to own one or not, know how to operate one or not, or refuse any personal association with them whatsoever. Both murder and slavery are necessarily defined by their involuntary nature in regards to the victim. The moral justification for force against the perpetrators of your examples would also justify those willing to protect their 2nd amendment rights. Those not willing to outwardly struggle in such fashion may succumb to the Prohibition effect. I suspect that this time around the black market would take the form of 3D printed guns. Then you'll miss those 4473s.
Wtf -- and the victims of slavery were voluntarily complicit in not being given rights? This makes no sense.
This kind of leads back to my original response to truefenix which kicked all of this off, did those other first world countries have to disarm as many people as we do? Was it close? What I'm saying is our unique (uniquely bad lmao) situation makes things more complicated. No it won't happen overnight, which of course nobody expects. I just don't think it can happen. I think it is very complex, not simple at all, wouldn't be peaceful either. I think compensation would actually do some good, someone earlier in this thread said that and I thought that was a good idea. Closing the shops and banning sales would help with new guns to some extent, but imo the problem isn't new guns, the real problem in implementing this is seizing all of the existing ones.
I'd like to cosign this as a TLDR of my posts on this subject.
