

It’s just posturing, really. It’s the kind of gun legislation that gets liberals excited, but probably won’t actually change much in the long run
It’s just posturing, really. It’s the kind of gun legislation that gets liberals excited, but probably won’t actually change much in the long run
Nothing. I didn’t say it was an effective strategy, just what appears to be THE strategy at play
The AR platform is high modifiable, has a nearly infinite number of configurations, can be customized to meet just about any need, and is easily the most widely available sem-automatic rifle on the market. This makes the barrier for entry (to being a mass shooter) much higher.
More than one state can commit a genocide at the same time and they don’t even have to be friends. Ignoring human rights violations because you overcorrected when you found out America was bad is a shitty position, and I advise that you reevaluate your values
Don’t try to make this about ethical consumption. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Most Americans don’t even KNOW about the Uyghurs in China. Literally any exposure this horrible situation is doing something.
I think I’ve just come to the conclusion that there is no way you’re going to concede the point that the Chinese are committing atrocious human rights violations, are you?
What? Not buying Chinese products is somehow evil? I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Regardless of what the article is advocating for, it’s making a really crucial point about Uyghur slavery, which is fucking evil, and you’re choosing to ignore it
It what ways? By literally opposing both the U.S. AND China and recognize both of their complicity in massive human rights violations? Why are you trying to whataboutism this?
You don’t have to support any evil. You can choose to not support any of them. Why is it a dichotomy to you?
You know it’s possible for multiple evils to exist, right? And sometimes they are also adversaries. Yes, the U.S. is evil. Yes, China is evil. Yes, Russia is evil. So in and so forth.
I mostly agree with you (see my other comments in the thread). I was just explaining it from the perspective of the Maryland lawmakers. Although, you’re not entirely correct. It appears that the law is a lot more broad than the title would lead you to believe