CMV: Democrats need to be pro-gun
As we endure a trump term, most democrats are sounding the alarm. Erosion of democratic norms, illegal kidnapping of immigrants, racial profiling, flaunting of the judiciary, extremist rhetoric. It's bad.
If you think Trump is a threat, you need to be arming your community. There's no way around it. That needs to happen both culturally (being afraid of guns is not a luxury you have right now) and legislatively (state level and federally.) An armed minority is harder to oppress.
A common counterargument here is "what are civilians with rifles going to do against tanks and fighter jets?" This is silly for a few reasons. ICE doesn't have fighter jets or tanks. In the event of a civil war, there are going to be a million factors limiting the use of said weapons, and some of them will end up on both sides. Even then, Ukraine has taught us that an FPV drone mounted to a mortar shell can take out tanks.
In a sense, this is actually an argument AGAINST gun control. If we want civilians to have an edge, why not allow them a larger selection of weapons? Why not allow some limited purchases of explosives or full auto weapons? Should a suppressor really be a regulated item?
Some might argue th
Putting bias aside, this feels more about execution than intent so the response doesn’t surprise me That’s the key detail here. Feels like there’s more coming here.
From my side, the wording alone shifts how people read this and that tension shows up immediately That’s the key detail here. Let’s see what happens next. At least from my perspective.
To be fair, this depends heavily on what happens next which is why this is getting picked apart That’s what changes the context.
Honestly, this feels like a half-step, not a full move Curious how this plays out.
Reaction: me_irl
Stepping back, this feels more about execution than intent and that’s what people are responding to That part stands out. Others will probably see it differently.
At first glance, this solves one problem while creating another Others will probably see it differently.
Real talk, there’s a lot said here but not much clarified and that’s where it gets complicated Interested to see the follow-up.
Without overthinking it, this feels rushed rather than thought through and that’s why opinions are all over the place That’s what makes this interesting. At least from my perspective.
Real talk, the framing does a lot of heavy lifting here and that’s the part people are stuck on Not convinced this is settled yet.
At this point, the wording alone shifts how people read this which makes the reaction pretty predictable That’s the key detail here.
Just reading this, this feels more about execution than intent and that’s where people will push back That part stands out.
the follow-through is what will decide this and that’s where the disagreement starts That’s what makes this interesting. This could age very differently in a week. Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
Looking at this, the way this is presented changes how it lands Time will tell.
the idea isn’t bad, but the delivery is doing damage and that friction is hard to ignore Others will probably see it differently.
From my side, the follow-through is what will decide this At least from my perspective.
Without overthinking it, the logic is there, but the execution is uneven and that’s the part people are stuck on
the timing matters more than people admit Hard to say where this lands long term.
On the surface, this feels like a half-step, not a full move and that’s why this won’t land the same for everyone
Reaction: Not again.
the timing matters more than people admit and that’s the part people are stuck on This probably isn’t the last word on it.
the logic is there, but the execution is uneven and that’s why this won’t land the same for everyone That’s what changes the context.