hi! i make music, mario maker trolls, and pixel art. i like makin stuff with cool people. <3 to u all


DavidForbes
@DavidForbes

They definitely will not do so against the particular kind of shitbag that wants to mass murder queer and trans people.

The police are a brutally far-right institution themselves and they enforce (or ignore) laws accordingly. Given that reality harsher gun control just disarms communities under attack.

Contrary to popular belief the u.s. is not and has never been a place where just anyone can go around armed. The point, from colonial times, is for a heavily-armed conservative elite with others largely disarmed. It ain't coincidence gun laws have staggering racial disparities in enforcement.

I wrote about this awhile back, but it's definitely worth a reminder now.


exerian
@exerian

1312

defund those bitches

also, i actually hadn't thought of gun control like this before and it's 100% correct.

more and/or stricter laws just mean more sticks to beat minorities with.

unless those laws are explicitly permissive laws. permissive laws tend to make things better for everyone.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @DavidForbes's post:

My read of the history behind the second amendment is that its purpose was to guarantee an armed middle class: in the South to supply people for slave-hunting parties or to help put down slave revolts, and in the North to supply people for ad-hoc militias to put down tax revolts or other insurrection among the rural poor. (See Federalist 29)

That sentence reads a bit differently in modern US usage, because the term "middle class" has been stretched all out of proportion these days, but by that term I mean people with enough money to not be poor at the moment but with little enough that some disruption or upheaval could throw them back into poverty. That is, those people who are naturally conservative because they really have quite a bit to lose.