Woozle/2022/02/17/1

crossposted to Nextdoor

correcting conservoid comments (CCC)

2022-02-15

1

MM compares Ford's liability for making a car which was used to kill someone with Remington's liability for making a gun which was used to kill someone: «We have to stop car violence.»

How many times does it need to be pointed out that this is what driver's licenses are for – and that if gun licenses were as carefully restricted as driver's licenses, we probably wouldn't be having this argument?

That said, cars are much more necessary for survival in many US places than guns are, and therefore guns should probably be more heavily regulated.

We should maybe have a conversation about how this happened, and whether the great suburbanization experiment which started in the mid-20th has been good for society.

2

BK notes that «Guns don’t shoot themselves.»

It's arguably true that "Guns don't kill people; people kill people", at least most of the time. This is, in fact, why we need to keep guns away from people. (...though it should be noted that sometimes guns do shoot themselves. They're dangerous, no matter how you slice it.)

3

In response to the main article, BK notes that «that was extremely dumb on Remington’s part», to which Scott responds «Is "dumb on Remington's part" code for "inconvenient for the lib-owning gun nut narrative"?» – but BK clearly misinterprets this as somehow calling him a lib, which it obviously isn't. One is forced to wonder how many other things BK has misunderstood.

2022-02-17

1

This from BK: «We are all sick of judges legislating from the bench. The just sidestepped the will of the voters. They just said our votes don’t matter doing this. We elected those reps and they work for us, not the court»

Reality: (a) interpreting laws is a judge's job, and (b) the majority wanted this.

"Legislating from the bench" is a right-wing catchphrase, aka "judicial activism", which sounds problematic but actually more or less describes what judges are supposed to do. If they overstep, that's what higher courts are for -- and right now the highest court is packed in BK's favor. If he can't get what he wants under these circumstances, then he might consider that maybe what he wants is actually unjust.

Also, I think he might be misunderstanding something here: «We elected those reps and they work for us, not the court»

So, yeah, you elected reps, and they worked for you. The reps then tried to redraw the lines so they'd get re-elected whether you wanted them or not. Is that actually what you want, dude?

...which in turn makes me think of DB's argument that it causes harm to pregnant women to let them make their own decisions. Are these both perhaps desperate pleas from hardline authoritarian followers secretly hoping the government will take away their burden of choice?

2

This from RR: «In the video, he mentions that the elderly couple had connections to someone being indicted with voter fraud. I wonder what that’s about.»

It's about voter intimidation, obviously.