this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2025
479 points (96.9% liked)
Progressive Politics
3028 readers
308 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But people can't buy whatever they want. I can't buy drugs, but I would like to. So clearly simply wanting to buy something isn't enough. So why are gun suppressors an exception?
Seems like a false equivalency as the constitution doesn't grant an inalienable right to recreational drugs
Yeah but that's the point it's an arbitrary distinction. People somewhere make an arbitrary distinction about what people can and cannot do.
The gun nuts would go mad if the Constitution were changed but only because it's an inconvenience to themselves. If the Constitution said you couldn't have guns and it were changed so you could, they'd be all for that. So it's not actually about the Constitution, it's mostly about themselves.
So freedom of speech or assembly is arbitrary? Regardless, it is still a fact that the constitution does not grant an inalienable right to recreational drugs, making this a false equivalency. You can't dispute that.
shh, you can't give critique to the gun fetishists. it summons their brigading bullshit bands, the best you can get is transparent 'it's about safety' lol. as if these idiots don't already have tinnitus. Funny they won't wear their plugs and cans to defend their ears, but they'll whine piss and moan about paying for the suppressor tax.
they're gravy seals who want to complete their cosplay kit.
You're not being brigaded, you're simply incorrect. Hearing protection is still required when using a suppressor btw as it can still result in hearing loss.