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.
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.