this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
550 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19151 readers
3629 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Saying something is too dangerous to own is fucking stupid

they’re are reasonable licensing and registration requirements.

Don't you think the reason there are licensing and registration requirements for dynamite is because it's too dangerous to own?

[–] Madison420 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's clearly not too dangerous to own, it's dangerous enough to license.... That was my point.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And if you don't have a license, you are not allowed to ___ it?

[–] Madison420 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Purchase or possess, yes.... You're taking a real slow route to a very obvious point.

Register, license and own whatever the fuck you want.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Purchase or possess

So....... own.

[–] Madison420 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Without a license. You're being a dope, I'm for licensing and registration not a total ban. I'm not quite sure why you chose such a sequitous route good such a stupid point.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm having a little fun poking at you because you called another poster fucking stupid while missing their point entirely, and you called me dope while being completely unable to see the contradiction I was laying out in front of you.

I'll stop here, but you'll have better conversations online if you engage with people sincerely rather than jumping straight to insults about others' intelligence.

[–] Madison420 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I didn't call anyone fucking stupid I said saying guns are too dangerous to own is fucking stupid. Someone can hold an ideal that is idiotic without being an idiot, don't be so thin skinned on sometime else's behalf. There is no contradiction dude, you were/are being a dope.

That's great advice, you should take it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

My dude, chill out. You'll have better conversations!

[–] Madison420 1 points 11 months ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm trying to figure out your logic here. You seem to be trying to defend an undefendable position. Cars, afaik, typically require a license to actually own one, yet we don't consider them too dangerous for someone to own. Are they too dangerous for an unlicensed individual to own? Yeah, but most people can get a license for one.

On the other hand, anyone can own a sword or a crossbow, or (afaik) build a maser out of a couple microwaves if they want to (or until recently, build and own a flamethrower), so those must be perfectly safe to own. I can pull the electron guns out of old CRTs and build a device pretty much guaranteed to cause melanoma in anyone I point it at. I'm sure the people who end up with skin cancer would be happy to know that the hacked-together cancer-beam I created is perfectly safe because it doesn't require a license to own.

So I'm trying to figure out what your point is. You seem to be trying to say that if something is restricted, then it is "too dangerous to own" but that's obviously not true. Yet for some reason, you're trying to cling to this argument.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Are they too dangerous for an unlicensed individual to own? Yeah

Congratulations. You figured out my point in your first paragraph.