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.
EvilBit@lemmy.world 1 year ago
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.
ihavenopeopleskills@kbin.social 1 year ago
Oppressive regimes start with repression of the civilian ownership of firearms. Sooner or later that affects everyone, even Democrats.
EvilBit@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Oh, we’re playing Slipperiest Slope? When can I start asking toddlers with bazookas?
You can’t say that literally any limitation on access to firearms is tantamount to disarmament. It’s absurdism.