4 ms·
Yep, I assumed you didn't, which is why I said it. My point was that if pressed, the lawmakers responsible for overriding these "bag bans" would say something s
by Volundr 3y ago
Yep, I assumed you didn't, which is why I said it. My point was that if pressed, the lawmakers responsible for overriding these "bag bans" would say something similar to you, essentially that bag bans are bad (though I suspect their reasoning would look very different). Yet one can easily find them advocating for local control as a reason why <issue not going their way> shouldn't be decided at the federal/state level. Local control, until "local" does something they don't like.
- avgcorrection 3y ago> My point was that if pressed, the lawmakers responsible for overriding these "bag bans" would say something similar to you, essentially that bag bans are bad (though I suspect their reasoning would look very different). They would say something similar to me. Except the reasoning would be very different. So the only similarity is that they would say that it is “bad” (I would say that the ban is pointless per se). So they wouldn’t say something similar to what I said. Next up: “Wars are bad”. Did avgcorrection say that? Or a Libertarian? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ
- Volundr 3y agosigh my point was that they would happily use the reasoning "it's bad" as a reason for overriding local government, despite having a long history of preaching about the importance of local government, and using that importance to try to shut down discussion of other issues, as something that should be handled "locally". Call it an aside to your aside if you want.