A Texas bill, known as the FURRIES Act, would ban non-human behaviors in public schools, including the use of litter boxes and wearing animal accessories.
Rep. Stan Gerdes, the bill’s author, claimed schools were providing litter boxes for students acting as “furries.”
When pressed, Gerdes could not find an example. The bill was left pending in committee.
No, actually a lot of 'em skip a lot of those steps. They have the expensive firearms, and ammunition, but rarely practice at the range, mostly don’t take any classes, targets? meh - why waste money on targets when we’ve got old cans?, gun safes are for sissies with kids, etc.
After hurricane Andrew in Miami, there was a long period where services like 911 just didn’t exist. I thought briefly about getting a Glock 9mm and a pump action 12 gauge, but when it came to the reality of ownership I could foretell that I wouldn’t spend as much time at the range as I believe I should if I were to keep such things in my home, so I opted to not buy them. 32+ years later, there have been a couple of incidents over the years where I might have pulled my weapon if I had it, none of them could have had a better outcome if I had my weapon at the time. Flipside: my stepfather concealed carried for 40 years - as was his Constitutional right. He planned scenarios, shared them, was prepared should he ever need to use one of his many weapons - his collection was probably worth $50K by the time he died. He was also an alcoholic, and eventually addicted to opioid pain killers, never gave up his guns. Luckily the only thing he ever shot besides ducks while hunting was a bookshelf by accident while cleaning his guns. All those years, all that planning on when and how to take another human life should the need ever arise, all those years and years of drug clouded judgement… I do NOT feel safer knowing that there are literally thousands of old men, and women, at various stages of dementia and infirmity out there in our county just like him.
I pointed out the cost to demonstrate the depth of their concern. You aren’t likely to cast a vote to ban your own hobbies. You aren’t going to vote to make your collections worthless.
20-some years ago, I took my first concealed carry class. 30 people in the room, and only 6 of us (including me and two of my brothers) had ever fired a gun before.
Democratic leadership never bothered to consider how gun ownership would affect the political opinions of all those new gun owners in swing states. It just shunned them as Republican baby killers, and wondered why they were losing votes.
Gun toting step father saturated in Faux News, he wasn’t going to vote for Liberal Commies even if they put a gun to his head at the ballot box.
If I had bought that Glock and 12 gauge, and practiced with them monthly, I probably would have invested about $5K total in the gun safe and a couple of other weapons - plus the time and ammunition, and I would have happily surrendered them AT THE SAME TIME as all of my neighbors should we have gone full UK gun ban here in the US. Not that I am typical, but the real problem with gun ownership is that guns are so cheap basically anybody can get one if it is the least bit important to them. Investing $50K in guns doesn’t make you any safer against the punk who walks up behind you with a .38 special. Banning guns, making them much harder to get and illegal to keep, that cuts down the number of punks who can get their hands on a .38 special in the first place.
This is the attitude I’m talking about. “Poor people are punks, who will walk up behind you with a .38spl. Guns should be more expensive to keep those filthy poors from getting them.”
Centrist, corporatist, elitist crap.
Most punks I know aren’t poor, they’re just punks. They come from poor, middle class, and rich parents in pretty much equal proportion.
Your attitude is showing in your assumptions.
That wasn’t an assumption. That was your own words:
Your argument doesn’t apply to middle class and rich “punks”. They’ll still be able to afford their guns. Your “real problem with gun ownership” argument only applies to the poor.
Again: guns are an equal access opportunity for all social classes.
For less than a couple hours’ minimum wage anyone can purchase lethal force in a convenient pocket carry size.
Yes, you’ve said that. You’ve declared that to be the problem. I quoted you saying that:
the real problem with gun ownership is that guns are so cheap basically anybody can get one if it is the least bit important to them.
Solving “the real problem” as you described makes it no longer “equal access opportunity for all social classes”. Solving “the real problem” denies that access to those dirty poors, without substantially affecting the middle class and the rich.
Your “real problem” argument only applies to the poor. I’ve given you every opportunity to back away from that, but you’ve doubled down on it twice now. I can only take you at your word that you have a problem with those dirty poors.
Not sure if hyperbole or ignorance. I’ll charitably assume the former.