p.s. there are doubtless plenty who are fr but there's a lot of bs too.
1,806 karma · joined April 19, 2020
p.s. there are doubtless plenty who are fr but there's a lot of bs too.
they'd go join "flyover country".
and even the parts that are less red probably wouldn't want to pipe the water down to cali latifundia. a lot of that area seems very culturally independent so i doubt they'd like being the breadbasket for something like the cali big cities.
and regardless yeah y'all do because population along the coast is very dense. you don't have enough space there to grow all that food for especially the big cali cities.
we don't need y'all, though.
edit: looks like water and seismic activity are the leading suggestions?
regardless when will y'all understand citing death statistics will not convince us to ban guns? we oppose it because we believe it's wrong to restrict a basic freedom not because death figures are under some magic threshold where we'd support it if the number went over.
people have wanted to take our guns for a long time and this is just the latest cause to hang it on. ronald reagan tried it with racism. roosevelt and company tried it with mob violence. this is just the latest excuse.
edit: tired of this. i own lots of guns and have never killed anybody. i had this same argument with somebody else yesterday over financial KYC: we do not fight crime by stripping law-abiding Americans of their freedoms and subjecting them to increased state control.
fighting crime as crime isn't meaningless, it's how we're supposed to do things.
here's the thing: "anti-racism" is being used as a motte-and-bailey argument. it's basically dogwhistling an intent to promote present discrimination (c.f. kendi) even if they're using a different definition that doesn't explicitly state that, because it's how that term has been widely used and understood. but when people take issue with it, they can be like "oh our definition doesn't say that." and ngl i find it pretty disingenuous.