Last I checked, I’m not free to shoot anyone who isn’t trying to kill me.

Making fun of whites is acceptable because ALL white people are imperialist oppressors that deserve violence. A little jokey-joke is letting them off easy.

/s

Alternatively, saying “beep beep” like a little car horn

“Look how cute I am! Please ignore the embarrassing and obnoxious thing I just did.”

They don’t, they’ve been domesticated and trained to allow it.

The role of a government is to collect taxes, then use those taxes to provide the most good to the greatest number of people.

In general, voters will have many ideas as to what that implementation should look like, which is why we elect representatives.

“Do you shit with the door open?”

“Why? Are you hiding something?”

“To make sure you’re not hiding anything, I need you to shit with the door open from now on.”

Eventually, they’ll justify their need for privacy. When they do, agree with them.

Appropriately, the “house rules” that keep the game going longer and make it “more fair” is actually just socialism

It sounds like you and I are in agreement, we’d like to see fewer gun deaths and less gun violence in the US. At the end of the day, I think you’ll have a hard time finding anyone who disagrees with that sentiment.

It sounds like we also agree, whatever measures are passed, we’d like them to be effective at taking guns out of the hands of those who would do harm with them.

The reason I oppose a ban is, bans disproportionately affect law-abiding gun owners, and the overwhelming majority (over 99%) of gun owners in the US abide by the law and commit no crimes with their guns. Bans overwhelmingly succeed at disarming responsible owners who had no bad intentions in the first place, and overwhelmingly fail at disarming the criminals at whom the bans are targeted.

Additionally, there are about 5-6 guns per US gun-owner. The logistics of safely locating, safely confiscating, and safely disposing of all of those guns in a way that doesn’t end up with them on the black market, is not a problem I think anyone has a good way to solve currently. I assert, the logistics of addressing societal factors that contribute to violence are much simpler, better understood, and more achievable.

European countries also do more to address the root causes of violence, poverty, drug addiction, mental health, and homelessness.

I think the differences in the way these societal factors are addressed more than explains the observed difference in levels of violence.

I believe a much more effective means of addressing violence in a country involves addressing the root causes of that violence, as opposed to banning the means of violence.

Banning the means only prevents violence when no means exist; addressing the root causes prevents violence, despite whatever means may exist.

I’m guessing police don’t fall into your definition of “regular people”. Like I said, police-involved shootings count as “mass shootings”.

If a cop shoots and hits two bad guys, that counts as a mass shooting. If a bad guy wounds a cop and his partner kills the bad guy, that counts as a mass shooting. If two people attempt to mug an old lady and she shoots them both, that’s a mass shooting.

I think most people would agree, those three scenarios aren’t what comes to mind when the phrase “mass shooting” is used, and I think most people would agree, these aren’t the scenarios we want to be putting a stop to.

Ask your doctor about Viagra.

Failing that, buy a house with thick walls, far away from neighbors, play your game only when the house is empty, try not to hurt yourself, and happy tugging.

To be fair, gun violence in the US has been declining year-over-year for over half a decade now.

The number of “mass shootings” continues to rise because the definition of “mass shooting” has been steadily expanded such that it now includes self-defense shootings, gang-on-gang shootings, officer-involved shootings, shootings that happen even though no crime has occurred, and many other events that don’t typically come to mind when one hears the term “mass shooting”.

Not so. According to the Federal Firearms Act (FFA), even as a private seller, you’re still responsible for confirming the person you’re selling to is legally eligible to own what you’re selling them. In fact, there’s even a number you can call to have the same background check done they do at gun stores, it just takes a lot longer to go through the process.

If that person is a felon, and if they get caught with that gun and if they trace it back to you, you’ll be investigated for illegally selling guns to felons.

Some states don’t even allow you to privately sell firearms; you’re required to pay an FFL license holder to do the transfer or use the state police as an intermediary to transfer possession.

Of course not. Where do you apply for your license to exercise your first ammendment rights?

It depends on your definition of “gun nut”. If you’re referring to someone who enjoys the historical significance of firearms, are intrigued by the engineering involved, and/or maybe goes to the range a few times a year to target shoot for fun, then I’d say it’s likely.

If you’re referring to someone who fetishizes guns and makes it a core component of their personality, I’d say most likely not, unless you’re the type of person who already does that with other things.

One side wants, enables, and defends fascism. The other side only offers token resistance and refuses to allow any populist or progressive candidates onto the presidential ballot (remember when Bernie Sanders won the vote to be nominated in 2016 and the DNC said “no” and appointed Hillary Clinton anyway?). Biden promised to codify Roe v Wade, un-schedule cannabis, and forgive student loan debt. None of those things happened. Instead, corporations were given priority over the voters, on every issue, for another election cycle, so the hard Rs could continue their corporatism and fascism unimpeded as soon as they were elected again.

When the end result of electing one is corporatism and fascism, and the end result of electing the other is still corporatism and fascism, but four years later, who cares whether there’s any technical distinction between them?

This cunt is allowed to vote. Just think about that for a little while.

The popularity of lobster rolls mostly comes from a time, not so long ago, when eating lobster and shrimp was on about the same level as eating crickets. People in the Northeast would catch them for export. Poor kids brought lobster rolls to school, rich kids brought baloney sandwiches or Oscar Mayer hot dogs. Eventually, people decided lobster was a “luxury” food so now you get these tiny little lobster rolls for absurb prices. Hard to understand how they’d attract any new fans today.

We did show up to the primaries enough to make a difference in 2016. We voted for Bernie Sanders as our candidate. The DNC told us all to go fuck ourselves, they’re a private institution, they can do whatever they want, the votes are just a formality, and appointed Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate instead.

Please, tell me more about how it’s fault of the voters.