🇳🇱
Just a reminder, the Democrats, who have largely exclusively pushed for gun laws, have given us the following mess:
Guns must cause ear damage -- devices which lower the sound to just below the threshold of causing ear damage are illegal.
Guns with barrels less than 16" must be designed in a way that they are extra hard to aim, making it a much higher risk that you will shoot someone accidentally... Only guns longer than 16" can be easy to aim.
Yet somehow people are baffled when I say the democrats have largely done more harm to the topic of gun control than good... every time they propose or pass a law it is complete nonsensical, largely because they dont even bother to under the very thing they want to legislate.
accessible image description:
an anti-gun promotional poster that says, "Who is faster than a speeding bullet? Nobody."; it shows a cartoon drawing of the end of gun barrel with an entire undetonated bottleneck cartridge flying out the end of the barrel
- - - -
I guess that silly poster is a metaphor for anti-gun folks -- every time they say something they provide more ammunition to their opponents. (full cartridge shooting out the end of the barrel)
@Pat I actually want someone to do a comedy skit where a blind man tries to buy a gun.
I think unsighted people participate in the hobby, using targets that emit sounds.
@Pat That is a joke right?
@Pat I cant imagine that is a normal thing... like im glad he is having fun, so go for it... but there has got to be all of like 2 people who do that right?
I can imagine if someone loses their sight in an accident (like not wearing eye protection at the range), they would still want to continue doing the things they love.
This has come up a few times in movies (blind people firing guns). Like in a horror film with a vulnerable blind woman or man who is being stalked at home by some evil monster, and they have to to try to shoot at it based solely on the sound it's making.
@Pat Since I never lost my sight I obviously cant comment. I just cant imagine it feeling satisfying in anyway, I dunno. To me the fun of firing a gun is int he skill of being able to aim, its hard for me to see how that is enjoyable... but like i said if a blind person is having fun doing it they will have nothing but encouragement from me as long as they stay safe.
As you said, I think it is difficult for a sighted person to understand, but there is so much of the sport that involves the other senses -- the smell of the brass and the powder, the sound, obviously, the kick, and checking the target to see how well you did. A lot of times the target is too far away to tell how you did until you get close to it, and for an unsighted person that would be close enough to touch it.
So I think it could be a very similar experience for sighted and unsighted alike.
@Pat im sure, yea, hard to relate to
@freemo that's what it means to be a democrat.
Uninformed and aggressive about it.
@Pantangelini same for republicans.. the only difference between the two is which topics they choose to be uninformed and aggressive about.
@freemo what topic are democrats informed about?
I can't think of one.
@freemo I agree, there are none.
Neither the republicans or democrats are particularly informed about too much sadly... I mean most people just arent that bright.
@freemo hahaha.
Just take the L dude.
Why is it so hard to accept there are no topics that democrats are actually informed on.
They have no Thomas Massie types.
They are an uninformed mob.
Accepting this is not an endorsement of the gop, its just accepting reality.
You a little off or something? At no point did I say democrats were informed on anything, I said the opposite, that, like the republicans, they are rarely informed. In fact that was what the whole point of the original post.
You are literally arguing against something no one disagreed with you on...
@freemo
I didn't bring up republicans.
And it's not remotely like the republicans.
Some of them are informed on 2a.
And many are informed on things like abortion, taxes, etc.
You stated.
"same for republicans.. the only difference between the two is which topics they choose to be uninformed and aggressive about."
Which suggests an idea that dems are uninformed on some things, gop on others.
Or that it's a equal and opposite situation.
Which it isn't.
Hope that clears it up.
Ok.... which has nothing to do with what you continued to argue a m,oment ago, which was that the democrats were uninformed. stated this several times times... weird, wonder why I wasnt able to read your mind...
So what you meant when you kept saying "Why is it so hard to accept there are no topics that democrats are actually informed on." was actually "Hey im offended you pointed out that republicans are idiots cause im one of them!", gotcha!
I dont really care if your a republican or democrat, but at least say what you mean, not something completely unrelated then act surprised you confused people.
@freemo I'm not a republican.
I stated being uninformed is being a democrat.
You claim that both are uninformed.
Except republican are informed on most topics.
They aren't aggressive either, typically spineless.
Perhaps you disagree with their religious lean, I often do myself.
Not that hard.
Ever think maybe you aren't as smart as you think.
Yes its obvious that is what you are arguing **now**.. and no, sadly that doesnt seem in line with reality.
There are topics each group are horribly misinformed on (Democrats: guns, economics, etc.. Republicans: climate change, STEM, etc) then there are topics which, at best they arent complete morons but are far from well-informed experts (Democrats: climate change, Republicans: guns).
As for aggression, democrats seem to be more rioty and aggressive as groups, republicans are more the type to be violent as individuals(such as the guy who mowed through a crowd).
No I have no issue with their religious lean, I mostly respect it as long as it doesnt cause them to be biggoted.
@freemo hahaha, according to democrats we are all already dead due to climate change.
Ohh STEM, nice. Democrats are more informed about stem but don't understand gender at all.
Hilarious.
Seriously guy.
Btw
Do you mean the black nationalist democrat who mowed through that parade?
@Pantangelini Actually most models historically that predicted climate change has been remarkably accurate (see attached image).
I think you mean they dont understand **sex**? Seems Sex is something they sometimes struggle with, whereas linguistic gender is something republicans seem to get really confused about (often not even understanding the difference between linguistic gender and sex).
@freemo gender is the bell curve of stereotypes of biological sex.
Let's not honestly go down that road where you try to argue that people who call themselves catself or people who think kids should have their genitalia mutilated because of this misunderstanding aren't the ones who are confused
> gender is the bell curve of stereotypes of biological sex.
That is biological gender, not linguistic gender. The fact that even after I pointed out we were talking about linguistic gender you immediately tried to define it like biological gender shows you are uninformed about the topic.
BTW linguistic gender existed before the concept of biological gender.
As to whether they use linguistic gender in a way I like is another matter. I am fine with someone having a different linguistic gender than their biological sex, that has been the norm in languages for a very long time. Though I am not a fan of the "there are 52 genders" crowd.. while there are languages that have many genders, it is not something that is normal in english and not something I see being particularly useful.
@freemo
Linguistic gender....
So the "52 gender crowd" which is all democrats and the democrats, who call Latinos Latinx, are less confused about linguistic gender...
Listen, I've worked with rappers and death metal artists and been to burning man a few times.
If you wanna talk about nonsense I'll switch over to discussing the #flatmoontheory
> So the "52 gender crowd" which is all democrats and the democrats, who call Latinos Latinx, are less confused about linguistic gender...
Absolutely yes.. Because they dont pretend these 52 genders have always been around. They will admit quite readily they are a new invention, but is perfectly in line with the use of genders in a few other languages (there are 13 languages today that I know of with more than 2 genders)... They also recognize languages can change, and while I dont personally like this change, and it isnt part of "standard" english yet.. yes, it is perfectly within the use of linguistic gender based on its usage around the world. Yup, it is far more informed about how linguistic gender works than people who dont even know such a thing exists and instead pretend it is somehow the same thing as biological gender, which it is not.
@freemo
You know they are at infinite genders.
52 was like 2021 # of genders
And no, they won't admit it's made up.
Show me a video admitting this nonsense is made up.
What an awful rabbit hole of stupid this is becoming
@Pantangelini I dont keep archives of videos of people claiming it isnt made up..I do remember just recently seeing someone on the fediverse saying exactly that, that it was made up and also point out so was everything else in language... which is true.
@freemo
What america (and the world in many ways)is facing right now.
Is that well meaning people perhaps like you, can't see through your indoctrination enough to realize the the democrats and their counterparts across the globe. Have gone off the reservation into some brave new world 1984 shit.
You are legit arguing about democrats not being confused aboit gender because they are the ones changing language regarding gender for no discernable reason into completely meaningless nonsense.
No I pointed out them and the repulicans are pretty idiotic about everything, and yes as I said their 52 genders thing is kinda silly cause its pointless as you state... but it still represents a better understanding of linguistic gender thant he republicans who are under some delusion it is identical to biological gender.
This is all I meant.
that's what it means to be a democrat.
Uninformed and aggressive about it.
Has nothing to do with Republicans.
You started the confusion due to an reluctance to accept my statement and include a bs "but republicans" statement that isn't accurate.
Right and I would say if you think that is exclusively a democrat thing, your wrong, and you did a poor job at conveying it at first but you are conveying your opinion more clearly now at least.
@freemo there are uninformed Republicans.
Lots of them.
I can't say there are informed democrats.
Take abortion.
Republicans actually understand the topic at hand.
Democrats don't, they simply scream hypnopaedic messages that they don't comprehend but feel morally superior for screaming at people.
I dont usually see republicans or democrats understanding abortion too well. Most republicans are completely against it taking it to one extreme, largely citing religious basis. Democrats go to the other extreme being ok with no limits of any kind on abortion. Both seem pretty ignorant on that particular topic.
@freemo republicans often understand the premise of the discussion with regards to life and the role of the state with regards to human rights and protecting the existence of human rights.
They can comprehend an arguement of sentience and vehemently disagree based on religion.
I've never had such an experience with a democrat
Republicans literally invoke imaginary people int he sky as the only argumentative point for most of them when they discuss abortion... while there is a valid argument about restricting abortion republicans rarely if ever have the wherewithal to invoke it.
@freemo
I dont believe you have talked to a republican based on this statement
@freemo Suppressors are like the one firearms related thing that’s less regulated in most of Europe compared to the USA. I love shooting my .22LR pistol suppressed, you almost only hear the action working and a little “puff”. For my long range bolt gun I prefer a muzzle brake (and double hearing protection) to minimize recoil.
@freemo
".. every time they propose or pass a law it is complete nonsensical, largely because they dont even bother to under the very thing they want to legislate."
looks like a sweeping overgeneralization
… so, how do specific gun control laws the democrats propose differ from laws for a well-regulated militia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzerland
@freemo
Important follow-up question:
What distinguishes a well-regulated instance moderation policy from a woke kangaroo court?
NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION
… but if, as instance moderator, your primary goal is to "be nice to each other", where being nice to each other refers only to the mods' own in-group, it's an emergent phenomenon.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/89067995@N00/50808699887/in/album-72157717358175956/
@freemo in best case scenario you are right. In worst case scenario, Democrats (or Republicans) have done more harm than good also on all other sectors where you are not an expert, and you are not able to judge for yourself. 🙂
@mzan I mean, yea, overall I'd say the democratic parties and republican parties have made a mess of most things and done a shit job handling any issue sanely.... im with ya on that.
@freemo Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.