tulu1791.bsky.social
he/him/his #vivayitiđđš | #BLM | 2A đŤ | BI đłď¸âđ| Dyslexic | Computer Science & Electrical Engineer đ¨đžâđť| Constitutional Marxist
118 posts
15 followers
12 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
The only group impacted by universal background checks is the law-abiding population. This violates the Second Amendmentâs clear directive that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The government lacks the authority to burden law-abiding citizens for the sake of rules criminals will ignore
comment in response to
post
Itâs not about âplayingâtâs about rights. You donât gatekeep those. Period.
comment in response to
post
History proves this. Who decides what counts as a âreasonableâ restriction, and who enforces it? The same government that spied on civil rights leaders? The one that disproportionately disarms Black and brown communities? Yeah, no thanks.
comment in response to
post
And then thereâs your final leap: âWithout background checks, you support terrorists.â Cute. Giving the government more control over who âdeservesâ rights has never gone well for marginalized groups.
comment in response to
post
2. Prosecuting sellers? Fine in theory, but in practice, background checks overwhelmingly punish law-abiding people who make mistakes, not criminals. The 95% false positive rate from NICS denials shows this system is broken and targets the wrong people.
comment in response to
post
1. Without a background check, youâre claiming sellers canât know if a buyer is prohibited. Okay, but how does this system actually stop bad actors? Prohibited individuals donât care about your paper trailâŚthey get guns illegally.
comment in response to
post
My solution, respect peopleâs rights
comment in response to
post
What are you going to do about 3D printing?
comment in response to
post
And as for that article youâre peddling⌠itâs behind a paywall. LMAO. If your argument was so airtight, you wouldnât need to hide it behind a subscription fee. Try again.
comment in response to
post
So really, all youâre advocating for is creating more hoops for law-abiding citizens to jump through while criminals carry on as usual. Brilliant strategy.
comment in response to
post
Also, let me get this straight⌠youâre defending universal background checks (which are an infringement by design) under the guise of âpatriotism.â Meanwhile, criminals are building ghost guns at home or buying them off the black market without batting an eye.
comment in response to
post
Our rights are sacred precisely because they arenât contingent on someone elseâs judgment of whether we âdeserveâ them.
Thatâs the entire point of the Constitutionâmaybe crack a history book instead of parroting feel-good nonsense.
comment in response to
post
Oh, so now youâre the gatekeeper of who âdeservesâ rights? Fascinating. Tell me, who gets to decide this? You? The government? Because history shows us how well that has worked out for marginalized groups. (Spoiler: it hasnât.)
comment in response to
post
As for your claim that responding to me is like âkilling an ant with a hammerâ⌠interesting analogy, considering itâs you swinging wildly at facts you canât refute. Maybe you should try engaging with the actual argument. Or is critical thinking too heavy a hammer for you to lift?
comment in response to
post
But sure, keep pretending systemic racism in gun laws is a figment of my imagination.
comment in response to
post
You want to talk about division? Letâs talk about how gun control has always been used to divide and oppress, especially along racial lines. Martin Luther King Jr. (a Nobel Peace Prize-winning civil rights leader) was denied a permit to carry a firearm for self-defense simply because he was Black.
comment in response to
post
If this is your idea of intellectual superiority, I can see why youâre so pressedâŚ
comment in response to
post
Oh, please, more ad hominem attacks and whitesplainingâIâm sure that will really bolster your argument. Itâs funny how you accuse me of being loud and uninformed, yet here you are dodging historical facts with personal insults and empty rhetoric.
comment in response to
post
So the only ones in your world that are armed are criminals correct? đ¤Ł
comment in response to
post
So no, ID verification isnât inherently unconstitutionalâbut when it becomes a tool for gatekeeping rights, it absolutely violates the spirit of the Constitution. Maybe try engaging with the actual argument instead of playing gotcha games.
comment in response to
post
Letâs not pretend this is about protecting voting integrity. ID laws often go hand-in-hand with tactics like purging voter rolls and closing polling places in minority neighborhoods. Itâs not about fairness⌠itâs about control.
comment in response to
post
Poll taxes and literacy tests were considered âreasonableâ tooâsee where that got us?
comment in response to
post
Oh, repeating myself makes me wrong twice? Cute, but let me spell it out for you (again): the issue isnât ID verification itself; itâs how easily it can be abused. History proves âreasonableâ checks have been used to disenfranchise voters, target minorities, and justify overreach.
comment in response to
post
And just so you know banning open or concealed carry is arbitrary at best, which is why some states unconstitutionally ban one or the otherâŚ
From a tactical point of view, in self defense situations concealed carry is the way to go⌠but their are times for open carry (like during a armed protest)
comment in response to
post
Yet here you are, complaining about the law-abiding person because their existence forces you to âchange your behavior.â Maybe instead of trying to control other peopleâs rights, you should work on controlling your emotions.
comment in response to
post
The world doesnât revolve around your comfort. The person open-carrying is being upfront and visibleâyou know they have a weapon and can act accordingly. The person concealing their firearm might have bad intentions, but youâd never know until itâs too late.
comment in response to
post
Should drivers be banned from owning cars because theyâre statistically more dangerous than guns? Or how about banning knives, baseball bats, or literally anything else someone could perceive as âthreateningâ?
comment in response to
post
Youâre acting like seeing a firearm is some kind of personal attack on your sensibilities, but letâs be real: the problem isnât the gun⌠itâs your irrational fear of it. Should we start banning things just because you find them unsettling?
comment in response to
post
Itâs not antisocial; itâs lawful self-defense, a constitutional right, and a reflection of reality (one you seem determined to ignore).
comment in response to
post
Why should you be forced to change your behavior? Because thatâs how living in a society works. Other people have rights, too, even if they make you uncomfortable. The mere act of someone carrying a gun is not inherently âthreateningââthatâs just your own projection.
comment in response to
post
So sure, reasonableness is part of the conversationâbut if youâre going to wave that around, at least recognize how slippery that slope gets when the government is the one deciding whatâs âreasonable.â Some of us still value the Constitution as a safeguard, not a suggestion.
comment in response to
post
Think stop-and-frisk⌠think ICE checkpoints in immigrant communities⌠think surveillance programs disproportionately targeting marginalized groups. You might trust the system to wield this power fairly, but history says otherwise.
comment in response to
post
And even if you argue that some stops are inherently reasonable (like verifying age or citizenship), the reality is that this reasoning has been used time and time again to justify discriminatory practices.
comment in response to
post
The moment we allow the government to claim any request is âreasonableâ because they say so, weâve already lost the security the 4th Amendment was designed to provide.
comment in response to
post
Letâs be clear: reasonableness isnât a blank check for arbitrary stops or fishing expeditions. Itâs not some vague, feel-good standard; itâs meant to be evaluated within the framework of protecting individual rights.
comment in response to
post
The entire purpose of the amendment is to limit government overreach, not hand them a free pass to demand your papers whenever they feel like it under the guise of âreasonableness.â
comment in response to
post
Ah, yes, the old âreasonablenessâ clauseâbecause nothing says âsecure in their personsâ like turning over ID on demand. Sure, the 4th Amendment mentions âreasonableness,â but youâre conveniently ignoring that itâs tied directly to probable cause and specificity.
comment in response to
post
Iâll give you a hint MLK was denied a permit for a firearm Because he was BlackâŚ
comment in response to
post
Hereâs a thought: systemic racism exists maybe take a minute to ask yourself how policies like gun control have been used to perpetuate it. Or would that require too much critical thinking? Go ahead⌠keep pretending your insults substitute for facts. The rest of us will stay over here in reality.
comment in response to
post
I laid out the evidence, but instead of engaging, you went straight for personal attacks.
comment in response to
post
Let me guess⌠you think pointing out historical facts about gun controlâs racist roots is a âweak mindâ argument because you canât actually refute it? It must be exhausting constantly hiding behind empty rhetoric instead of addressing the substance of the discussion.
comment in response to
post
Ah, the throw out an insult (âyouâre an idiotâ) and call it a rebuttal. Thatâs just a thing⌠you havenât proven anything. All youâve done is rely on ad hominems and act like dismissing systemic racism as ânot the all-encompassing divine excuseâ means itâs irrelevant. (Spoiler: it doesnât.)
comment in response to
post
So tell me, âDr.â Pate: are you always this allergic to actual history, or is it just inconvenient when it proves your policies are rooted in systemic racism? Maybe if you spent less time hand-waving away dissent and more time learning, you wouldnât need to rely on cheap insults to feel superior.
comment in response to
post
Youâre really out here whining about âwild theatricsâ while ignoring that gun control laws were explicitly designed to disarm marginalized groups. I even handed you the receipts, but instead of engaging with the facts you deflected.
comment in response to
post
But please, keep fixating on my username instead of addressing the actual argumentâitâs a great way to avoid admitting youâre wrong.
comment in response to
post
Let me guess, you skipped the part of history where a well-regulated Black militia was necessary to secure the free state of Haiti; overthrowing the most powerful empires in the world at the time (France, Britain and Spain) because it doesnât fit into your neat little worldview.
comment in response to
post
Oh, look at this self-proclaimed history buff who clearly has no idea what the Haitian Revolution was or why someone with a Haitian flag might have the username âFuck the French.â
comment in response to
post
Come back when youâre ready to engage with reality instead of hiding behind insults dressed up as scholarship. Until then, enjoy the echo chamber where your fragile ego is safe from facts.
comment in response to
post
Youâre so desperate to paint this as a lack of knowledge that you completely ignore the actual content of the argumentâŚtypical intellectual dishonesty.
If this is the best youâve got, I suggest you follow your own advice and âdry up.â