Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
Quote:
(fuck georgia) |
Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
scapegoating mental illness is incredibly dangerous, not only does it increase the stigma of mental illness and decrease understanding and acceptance, but it paints a target on people with mental health issues and possibly incentivizes government agencies to start stripping rights away from them to try and keep normal people safe
Quote:
Quote:
find the white supremacist hiding grounds and put em on blast Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
Quote:
I don't disagree, I think that there would be huge riots if the 2nd amendment had any attempt to change it in the current time maybe someday though definitely not anytime soon |
Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
Quote:
|
Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
Quote:
Basically no country outside the USA has a constitutionally mandated right to bear arms, and yet in all of them you can bear arms. Canada has almost as many guns per person as the USA has, without a constitutional guarantee against any infringement. Our infringements are quite small. Here's Canadian gun law in a nutshell: 1. You need a license. Getting one involves a background check and some interviews. you have to renew it every five years. 2. You need safety training. 3. If you want to own a firearm in the 'restricted' or 'prohibited' class of firearms, you have to go through a more robust step 1, and you have to register it. That's basically it. There's more stuff around transporting/selling/moving restricted and prohibited guns, but for the primary purposes people need guns (hunting, sport shooting, farm defense) most kinds of rifle and shotgun are just "Get a license, get safety training, congratz you are a gun owner" |
Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
Quote:
its impossible for a US court system to make that kind of ruling because its expressly worded in such a way that the very ruling would make no sense and no legislature will change it anytime soon so its stuck because of really stupid persistence |
Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
Quote:
It might not make any sense based on the current laws, but if you're making an amendment then you're already abandoning the precedent Prohibition was added and then tossed away with just amendments |
Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
Yes and if you ask most Americans they will say that was good because the government took something away and then gave it back, as opposed to giving them something and then taking it away.
|
Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
Quote:
|
Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
Quote:
bad rabbit hole |
Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
privately held firms can (de)platform whoever they want
|
Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
I think devonins stoicism terrorism or whatever is right
And I have a pretty good idea of why the alt right is like gaining traction I just don't understand why you go to killing people That's the part that baffles me, that isn't normal |
Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
Quote:
as in, its problematic that privately held firms have a big stake in platforming + modern day communication streams, to the point that speech is virtually thwarted without the services that these firms provide. they do, and /should/ exercise their own individual rights to speech, but the issue i have is systematic |
Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
Quote:
|
Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
Quote:
|
Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
Quote:
|
Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
Quote:
20 years ago, social media functionally didn't exist. Then it did. At what point do you declare free access to social media a "right" that is oppressive to take away? 19 years ago? 18 years ago? Does the fact that many people over a certain age have no social media presence change this? Does everybody have the right to the internet? If you don't think internet access is a universal human right, you absolutely can't argue that access to some subset of the internet is a human right. If you think that a private group saying "We don't want your kind of speech in our private space, get out" is oppressive of free speech, do you also think that a business shouldn't be able to throw you out if you're causing a disturbance via speech or non-violent actions? Is the only difference between "You can't talk like that in my store, get out" and "You can't talk like that on my service, get out" the fact that the service has a lot of people on it? Do the rules for when I can throw you out of my house change if you're there alone, versus a small group, versus a large party? |
Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
Quote:
civil rights, lgbtq rights, womens rights-- all of these movements needed free assembly and communication to effect change in a society that wasnt on their side im looking at the future implications, not the impact govt intervention would have /now/ |
Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
edit: the future implications of banning white supremacist speech would be continued ban of white supremacist speech w0w! |
Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
Quote:
/i/ think that access to the internet + basic digital literacy should be a right. Quote:
Quote:
if a cake shop denies baking you a cake for whatever reason, well fuck the cake shop but you have the ability to go to another shop and get the same kinda cake. what happens when every social media + video streaming company bans you? again, under this system it's legal and businesses aren't doing wrong. i just wish most communication streams weren't privately held. i don't mean to derail this thread, so i could stop if you guys would like |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution