Tbf they actually view the other side as the tyrannical one and think their side is the savior, it isn't actually that hard to understand their feelings on that one.
Not saying that they're right, just that this is the explanation for this oft cited "disconnect." Basically just "nobody thinks they're the bad guy."
You could, for example, make it illegal to sell/own guns under 30.
When do people become adults? I think if we're doing shit like this we also have to raise the age of adulthood to (in this case 30). Meaning no military until 30, no smoking/vaping/drinking until 30, on your parent's insurance, they can't kick you out until then, can't be tried as an adult, age of consent, etc, and frankly we likely shouldn't trust kids with other deadly instruments such as cars until then either, they're clearly causing problems with those too considering the numbers on car accidents.
Frankly there is some scientific basis for all this, being that our brains don't stop developing until 25, but this half-adult stage where all of the negatives but none of the benefits apply is ridiculous to me. Fwiw I have this exact same argument about raising the smoking age, etc, it's not just guns, but talk of raising the age makes them relevant to that opinion for me. I'm not even necesarily against it, but for me personally to be on board it has to be bigger than "no guns til 30 just because." Besides, people 18-29, especially women, have a very good reason to have tools with which to defend themselves, and I personally think it'd be a shame to deny say a woman who is escaping an abusive ex those tools, especially considering often women date slightly older men meaning he may be able to get them while she can't, if she's 25ish and he's 30+.
You could ban magazines
Not really. You could ban detachable magazines, which is 99% of guns made after 1910, but that won't fly here because duh, you could ban detachable magazines over 10rnds, but that is entirely ineffective as it's defeated by "carrying another magazine or two," and reloading takes less than 2sec literally (way less if you train it which you can do in your room while watching TV.) That also includes almost every 9mm pistol in the country btw, which mostly have 14-17rnds standard, magazines aren't only in AKs and ARs.
You could limit the caliber of bullets sold.
I mean, in theory maybe that is legally possible? Maybe? But even still the venn diagram of "the deadliest calibre" and "the smallest calibre" is actually just a circle containing the word ".22lr" This is mostly due to quantity (availability/price), of course, but at any rate it illustrates that limiting calibre wouldn't do much since even the smallest calibre commonly available can kill with ease. On top of that the .223 rnd commonly used by mass shooters for example is .003" bigger in diameter than a .22lr, about 25gr heavier of a bullet, but with more powder making it carry about as much kinetic energy as a hot .357 rnd, they don't usw "high powered" rounds like the .50bmg or .338 lapua already, .223 is one of the weakest rifle rounds commonly used for self defense or hunting coyotes.
You could make gun manufacturers civilly liable for the advertisements they put out.
Where are you guys seeing gun ads, like, in Guns & Ammo magazine or something? I don't think I've ever seen one but I hear about them with the whole Daniel Defense scandal. At any rate, they already would be to a degree, like Juul was, that would apply to guns too if it is proven to target kids or something. But there would be a court case to determine culpability which they could win, that's just the way our system works really. Seems easy enough to just not buy those magazines for your kids or whatever. Do they even still have print magazines?
I'm not opposed to something that would actually work and couldn't be abused by some racist sheriff or governor to deny guns to POC et al. But most of the proposed legislation I've seen falls short of one or both of those (personal) requirements. Most things will be used to further burden marginalized populations in overpoliced neighborhoods just like drug prohibition is, it won't affect the people in gated communities at all.
Tbf, they have before. Ron Paul for instance was a Libertarian who ran as a Republican and won, and they do run for local offices a lot (at least the Libertarians, never seen a local Green on the ballot), they just also put forth a presidential candidate because if they can get like 5% or 15% of the vote (I can't remember which) they get federal funding and have to get included in the next debates instead of the debates only being R vs D.
Idk about the other third parties, but the Libertarians are doing exactly that.
His name is Bingo Gas Station Motel Cheeseburger With A Side of Aircraft Noise And You'll Be Gary, Indiana.
Nah it's all a scam, it costs about $130,000 to become clear, and then another $30,000 ish to become level "OTIII," Then another $130,000 to become OTVIII which is the highest current level, just to learn that South Park's Scientology episode was actually accurate to what these people actually believe.
You don't have a authority that decides what is useful and useless, what gets produced and what doesn't.
Well sort of, the "authority" in the case of a truly free market is The Market (or The People, if you will.) If it sells it sells, if it doesn't it doesn't, The Market will decide.
That said, I agree with the rest of your statement and realize that you meant authority in a truer sense, and I in more of a metaphorical sense.
Should be? No, nobody should be subjected to that abuse. But she is, and has been since she was born into it. Some things just are whether they "should be" or not. It's life. I bet if when she was born they said "will you defend our cult against rapists? If no say no and we won't let you in, if yes say nothing." She probably would have picked "No" had she not been a literal baby who had yet to learn english. But they don't, they slowly ramp up the abuse until escaping is at least psychologically neigh impossible.
You can blame her for being a victim of this cult all you want, it's not really my fight and my guess is you'll never understand until you've been in a comparable situation (which is hopefully never) so it would be a waste of time. I've said my piece.
I see a defensible position:
Cults are basically abusive boyfriends x1000.
If you leave or speak out, goodbye all family and friends you've ever known.
She was born into this.
You ever been brainwashed, either by a cult or just an abusive ex? I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but it would help you gain a deeper understandings of the inner workings of a cult, and how they retain their victims.
Scientoligists are anti therapy and anti psychology
All cults are, really, because the therapist can see that the cult is basically an abusive partner x1000 and try to decondition the members.
"Plus, that money should be going to the church, or in this case your therapy sessions with us so you can become 'clear.' Don't you want to give us $300,000 so we can tell you your soul is an alien and Xenu is trying to eat it or enslave it or something?"
Tbh it's really hard to reverse brainwashing and conditioning and speak out which means you lose your entire family and friends (that are also in the cult), whether you were raised in it or tricked into it yourself is even of little consequence.
To expect someone to say "oh hey I got a little professional success now I should by default make my friends and family and entire community hate me and make the most litigious cult mad at me (no way they'd want a piece of the success I'm leaving them for, right?), and go against all the crazy shit I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on trying to become 'clear' or 'OTVIII' (just to learn what South Park already taught us no less)." isn't wrong but it is unrealistic. She'll need a whole ass deconditioning really, or at least it's something that will take quite a long time.
Cults are fucked, way more so than you may think, and this whole "why doesn't she just leave" thing, it's basically the same question as "why doesn't she just leave her abusive boyfreind." Maybe it's impossible to understand either until you've been through one, idk.
Nah, a simple name change solves the problem, as mentioned with Joy Division/New Order.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, when Dio took over they should have renamed the band itself to Heaven and Hell, Sabbath lives and dies with the combo of Ozzy, Tony, Geezer, and Bill.
Usually don't do the comment history thing but I was specifically curious about said state, which appears to possibly be Ohio?
If so yes, people do carry in Ohio.