Live data from Hacker News

American Data Privacy and Protection Act

congress.gov

311–313 of 313 posts

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we need strong regulation to reduce gun violence With it already being illegal for certain criminals to own firearms, what regulation short of a total ban would help? This is where the "add more laws" logic fails. The thinking is that adding more laws will keep criminals hands off of guns. Criminals by definition ignore laws. Guns can be made via a 3d printer now. Ammunition used to be made (reloaded) by campfires.…

The solution is recognizing that the 2a side is belligerent regarding the consequences of easy access to cheap weapons. Once we accept that all we need to do stateside is adopt sensible legislation that demonstrably works in countries without a belligerent group incapable of intelligent debate. I’m not going to engage with you on a slippery slope argument. Your solution is naive, unsupported by research, reasonably h…

> The solution is recognizing that the 2a side is belligerent regarding the consequences of easy access to cheap weapons

So now only wealthy people can exercise a right?

> Once we accept that all we need to do stateside is adopt sensible legislation that demonstrably works in countries without a belligerent group incapable of intelligent debate.

Again, what legislation. I want specific laws you think will work.

> I’m not going to engage with you on a slippery slope argument.

It honestly sounds like you have no argument, just that you don't like guns and want them gone.

> More guns = more suicides and accidents. You should already know this.

I don't count suicides as deaths. This is used by the pro gun control groups to artificially inflate the numbers. Suicidal people will use other means if you take the guns away. And yes of course, the increased use of any object results in increased accidents with those objects. That's why some parents teach their kids gun safety early (I was handed a shotgun at age 8) and we develop proper procedures for handling weapons (Such as always visual and physically ensure the chamber is clear even if you "know" it's unloaded).

> the nra/federalist society, and similar organizations have been using their lackey’s to prevent progress on gun control for decades. Mitch McConnell has publicly taken pride in his ability to prevent anything from getting done regarding anything.

Do you think that perhaps the NRA is just representing the people that belong to its organization? Or said another way, if the NRA had nobody to represent would they exist?

While it may be hard for you to understand my position and the position of others like me, it's not the NRA fighting. It's me, other's like me. And we certainly aren't giving up anytime soon.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is recognizing that the 2a side is belligerent regarding the consequences of easy access to cheap weapons. Once we accept that all we need to do stateside is adopt sensible legislation that demonstrably works in countries without a belligerent group incapable of intelligent debate. I’m not going to engage with you on a slippery slope argument. Your solution is naive, unsupported by research, reasonably h…

> The solution is recognizing that the 2a side is belligerent regarding the consequences of easy access to cheap weapons So now only wealthy people can exercise a right? > Once we accept that all we need to do stateside is adopt sensible legislation that demonstrably works in countries without a belligerent group incapable of intelligent debate. Again, what legislation. I want specific laws you think will work. > I’m…

You’ve made liberal use of fallacious argument, taken my arguments exceptionally uncharitably, and have conveniently ignored many other of my arguments while projecting your own shortcomings onto me. You should read the site guidelines. At this point it is clear that you are arguing in bad faith and it is not worth the effort of even reading your replies as you have made it abundantly clear that you have no interest in engaging in a rational discussion. Instead it is obvious that your goal is to spread to your widely debunked talking points; truth, evidence, merits, respect be dammed.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The solution is recognizing that the 2a side is belligerent regarding the consequences of easy access to cheap weapons So now only wealthy people can exercise a right? > Once we accept that all we need to do stateside is adopt sensible legislation that demonstrably works in countries without a belligerent group incapable of intelligent debate. Again, what legislation. I want specific laws you think will work. > I’m…

You’ve made liberal use of fallacious argument, taken my arguments exceptionally uncharitably, and have conveniently ignored many other of my arguments while projecting your own shortcomings onto me. You should read the site guidelines. At this point it is clear that you are arguing in bad faith and it is not worth the effort of even reading your replies as you have made it abundantly clear that you have no interest…

What have I ignored and what have I taken uncharitably? I’m asking for specific laws that you would enact that would help the situation. You have not provided any and you’re now attempting to derail this conversation.

Every scenario you’ve presented Ive disproven. Remember this was started when it was said that food truck operators can become felons.

Further what site guidelines have I violated?

I want specific laws you’d enact to resolve the issues as you see them. Can you provide them or not?

Post reply on HN