this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
-14 points (28.1% liked)
conservative
920 readers
1 users here now
A community to discuss conservative politics and views.
Rules:
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.
-
No spam posting.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
-
No trolling.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Without due process is the crucial bit
It’s not even taking away guns, just preventing their purchase! Jesus Christ, shut the fuck up until you’ve at least read the platform. Talking out of your ass when the information is RIGHT THERE is embarrassing you.
https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-Democratic-Party-Platform.pdf#page48
That is considered disarming.
So, in summary, in order for your comment to be true, we need to entirely redefine the word “disarm” to mean “prevent from additional purchase”, and we need to define “us” as “stalkers, abusive partners, and those convicted of assault or battery”.
You are at best being deliberately and dangerously reductive. And that’s being generous. You’re more likely being selfishly deceptive and willfully ignorant.
Oppressive regimes start with repression of the civilian ownership of firearms. Sooner or later that affects everyone, even Democrats.
Oh, we’re playing Slipperiest Slope? When can I start arming toddlers with bazookas?
You can’t say that literally any limitation on access to firearms is tantamount to disarmament. It’s absurdism.