> These are objective facts.

The characterization of the federal government as "broken" (at least in this capacity) and "dysfunctional" is a normative judgment you're making based on your own subjective value preferences.

Some -- perhaps most -- Americans regard the federal constitution's ability to restrain states from enacting policies that transgress against generally accepted individual rights as desirable, and working as intended.

▲

pear01 2 hours ago | parent [-]

That wasn't the objective fact in question, and I think you know that. A humorous one to contest anyway, given it is well known most Americans take a dim view of federal politics, especially when their favored party is out of power. This is a country where national elections are routinely decided by roughly a percentage point.

Are you willing to concede most guns used by criminals in Mexico come from the United States? That would be a question of fact, not characterization. And that, if it is easy enough to smuggle guns from red states into Mexico to commit crimes, it stands to reason it is even easier for red states to do the same to blue states? Or are you going to invent some other strawman to attack in your defense of your "individual rights"?

▲

Gormo 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Are you willing to concede most guns used by criminals in Mexico come from the United States?

No -- nor am I willing to assert the opposite, because I have no knowledge of the topic. I will ask, though: why is the place of manufacturer of guns used by criminals is Mexico something worth worrying about?

> And that, if it is easy enough to smuggle guns from red states into Mexico to commit crimes, it stands to reason it is even easier for red states to do the same to blue states?

Well, yes, of course. But I assume that this will be the case regardless of any attempted policy at any level of government, because I do not believe suppressing the movement of firearms is an attainable goal at any scale in the first place.

▲

pear01 an hour ago | parent [-]

Well maybe you should endeavor to get some knowledge? Yet it seems like you are saying it's irrelevant because you are uninterested in suppressing the movement of firearms, because it's not an "attainable goal". So really, you aren't interested in investigating this fact. That's fine, that's your business.

Regardless of your own personal interest, it is a fact, and one you could confirm and learn more about rather easily. But you're not interested. So, if the best you can come up with is a more dressed up version of the other reply's "idgaf" well again that is your business. I appreciate the lack of vulgarity but I'm not going to attempt to make you interested in something. In my mind it's not a very compelling argument or reason to have replied to me, despite the fact you've left me sort of vaguely intrigued by the boundaries of your intellectual curiosity. But suit yourself. Have a nice day.

	▲	Gormo an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Well maybe you should endeavor to get some knowledge? Yet it seems like you are saying it's irrelevant because you are uninterested in suppressing the movement of firearms, because it's not an "attainable goal". So really, you aren't interested in investigating this fact. That's fine, that's your business. Yes, all of that is correct. > Regardless of your own personal interest, it is a fact, and one you could confirm and learn more about rather easily. I could, but I could also spend my time learning about many other topics which would yield useful insights, develop skills, help me understand the world better in ways that actually matter, among many other things. Why would I then spend time studying something for which the outcome would be the same regardless? > So, if the best you can come up with is a more dressed up version of the other reply's "idgaf" well again that is your business. Well, no, it's not just that I don't give a fuck, but rather that I think the entire line of inquiry is a waste of time in itself, in that all it will do is provide a rationalization for one normative position or another, and offers little utility to anyone beyond that. Arguing over it is like arguing over how many peanuts are in a particular jar -- yes, there's an objectively correct answer, but the question itself is of no importance, and not worth bothering to answer.