bostonbananarama @ bostonbananarama @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

438

Joined

2 yr. ago

There comes a point when you become just a white nationalism apologist.

What are you talking about? The fact that I've repeatedly asked you when and how we can effect change under your model, and you've ignored the questions and repeatedly stated that it will eventually happen (as if by magic), that makes me a white nationalist apologist??? Congratulations, I didn't think you could make a more idiotic reply, but you did it! Good for you!

As such, you can go fuck yourself.

Further proof your vapid comments are as empty as your mind.

I don't want him to run, I'll take Gavin Newsom or AOC. Is that better?

Can't wait for someone to dismiss a 12 year study over their feelings that this is wrong. Undoubtedly accompanied by "Don't they have bootstraps in Kenya, pick yourself up!"

You could save so much time if you just turned your account into a bot that replied as follows:

Eventually! Eventually! Eventually!

How? Eventually! When? Eventually! Why? Eventually! Who? Eventually! What? Eventually!

Well, Democrats have been pushing the AWB in Congress for about 30 years now, the first 10 it was law, then it sunset, and they kept pushing....and they have lost a ton of ground in that fight, just like abortion. Because while they were introducing bills, Republicans were remaking Congress and the judiciary. But sure, let's propose more pointless legislation... it'll work this time.

This is anti-progress thinking. It's laughable that you actually think basic legal reforms can't happen.

No one said basic legal reforms can't happen, you're creating a strawman. I said that this Congress and this Supreme Court will not allow gun control. If you disagree, by all means let me know where my error lies.

Also, let me know the path to passage rather than vague statements about eventually. Eventually is weasel language that means you have no confidence in what you're saying; if you did, you'd tell me when and how that can be accomplished.

I assume you've pivoted now to universal healthcare...but I'm not sure. No one said it's impossible, for that matter, no one said gun control is impossible. Just that it won't pass a Republican controlled legislative body, and I assume it would be struck down by the Supreme Court...same as gun control. Change both of those (Congress & Court) and you've got a chance.

I'd be fine with changes to all manner of healthcare and insurance coverage, including single payer.

You have to change Congress too. But you're still talking about 15+ years, and multiple conservative justices dying, and being replaced by liberal justices, and the reverse not happening.

So can we agree that we can hold off on the AWB for like 20 years?

Yes, there's no way Roe would have been overturned by that Congress or that Supreme Court (50 years ago). Just like this Congress and Court will not allow significant gun control. Republicans gerrymandered districts and refused to seat a justice, thereby changing those things. Thank you for proving my point.

Eventually, eventually, eventually...

Eventually a space alien from over 100 light years away will be named Steve and be president of Earth. You can't prove me wrong, because... eventually!

Universal health care has been on the national stage since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. Over a century and not much to show for it.

The problem with eventually is that there's no measure of success, since you can never be wrong, it's just not eventually yet.

Again, that's all great, but how does it happen? What are the steps to take? Saying it will eventually happen seems even more dismissive than saying it can't happen given current conditions.

I don't think any generation of 3/4 of the states is ratifying that.

Disagree. The solution is to push for as much gun control as possible,

That's essentially nothing.

...until eventually the dam breaks and the 2A dies.

And I think elephants should fart rainbows, but both of our proposals lack any consideration of how we make that happen.

In the long run, gun ownership in the US will resemble how it works in other Western countries, which is to say not much at all.

Eventually? There are roughly 400 million guns in this country...how many generations is "eventually"?

I'm not even disagreeing with you, but hoping doesn't make it happen. How do we get there? What are the steps? Does your projected path take into account the systemic impediments?

Are you under the impression the politics of 1994 are remotely similar to 2023? Have you read the Supreme Court cases of Heller (2008) or Bruen (2022)?

Name call all you want, but you're the one tragically out of touch. This Congress, especially the Republican majority in the house would NEVER pass this bill. SCOTUS has completely changed gun rights in this country since 2008. First finding an individual right to gun ownership, then drastically reducing those gun limitations that are allowable under the 2nd amendment.

I suggest you do some reading before spouting nonsense. Your comment somehow states the bill is simultaneously "entirely new" and also the "same damn thing". Muppet.

This has been said about many issues in the past.

Which issues? Civil Rights? Gay marriage?

Those are issues in which the American people were opposed, and then societal views changed. As you pointed out, that isn't the case here. Americans already favor reform, but they aren't going to vote these people out based on the status quo.

Newtown was the wake up call, if nothing changes after a bunch of small children get massacred, you're not getting change. Not without wholesale changes. Proposing an AWB is political theater, nothing more.

What do you propose?

I guess I'd ask you the same question. I don't have a proposal because I don't think any of it will make it through Congress. And if it somehow made it through Congress, the Supreme Court would strike it as unconstitutional.

Short of voting out these members of Congress and balancing the court, there's no hope of reform. So drop the issue to appeal to more voters. Win more elections, balance the court, then you're in a position to effect change.

Also, AWBs are pretty useless. They tend to grandfather in existing weapons and they exclude handguns, which are the weapon used most often to commit murder. Magazine limits, which were in the 1994 law, were the only piece to show a genuine reduction in violent crimes.

The first-ever scientific encyclopedia, written by Pliny the Elder in 77 C.E., devoted an entire chapter to menstruation. According to the entry, menstruating women could kill crops and drive dogs mad.

Are you saying that's not true? /s