Over and over again for the last 563 pages of this thread I have shared my opinions. Here they are again:
Universal background checks should be required for all gun sales, private parties are not exempt. Agreed.
People should be held accountable for every single round that leaves their firearm. Agreed.
All privately owned firearms should be secured with locks and made inaccessible to children. Agreed and should be required with the purchase of a firearm and made part of the training, how to properly secure your firearms, the why and the potential consequences with autopsy photos of dead kids and adults with gunshot wounds from kids, scare them straight style.
Live fire and safety training should be required for first time buyers and proficiency training at intervals for current owners. Agreed, firearm proficiency and safe handling and storage testing overtime with any recent changes in laws/requirements included.
Nationally recognized concealed carry should be adopted with requirements for proficiency and pending deeper screening standards. I'd give on state reciprocity if there were minimum federal standards for registration, licensing, insurance coverage, training, etc. Without that, states rights, pound sand.
I do find value in having an armed civilian population, for both political and personal protection purposes. Disagree for political reasons, that's paranoia talking. Home/personal protection with restrictions and requirements above, I'd agree.
Currently adopted firearms laws should be enforced instead of focusing efforts on banning a particular type of firearm that is used in a very small percentage of overall, criminal gun deaths. Civilians don't need weapons of war to defend themselves. Serves no other purpose than to kill as many people as quickly as possible. If you cant stop the threat with a 10 round clip, you're not proficient or have the wrong type of weapon for your defense and need to train/practice for that threat that is most likely never to come or come from someone you know or are intimate with.
Suicide awareness and mental health services really need help in the US. Maybe the NRA should focus on that rather than supporting policies that exacerbate the issue of gun violence, as well as voters holding congress accountable to funding mental health initiatives.
Criminals do not obey gun laws and they don't read "Gun Free Zone" signs. And "responsible" gun owners are rarely held to account for their stupidity. Criminals are too easily able to obtain firearms via straw purchasers and "responsible" gun sellers driven by profit.
PEOPLE HAVE TO STOP WANTING TO KILL EACH OTHER. That'll never happen, humans are animals, they kill. We have to stop making it so easy to kill and easy access and possession of firearms directly contributes to the ease with which to kill. How many people who shot and killed someone in a robbery, fit of rage, mistaken identity, accident, etc. would beat or stab someone to death? Its too easy, "clean" and impersonal to shoot someone. You punch someone three times, you might stop. You shoot someone three times you might empty the clip.
That "could be" a start anyway.
ETA: All gun owners are not Trump supporters, rednecks, irresponsible, toothless, uneducated, socially inferior, paranoid, Republican or religious zealots. Please stop acting like they are. I was going to say something about manhood here but don't want to be a dick (its a joke).
Holy shit! We actually agree with each other on a lot of these points.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
The mere presence of weapons at a protest expresses a threat.
A man carrying a gun takes part in a “reopen” Pennsylvania demonstration in Harrisburg, Pa. (Nicholas
What is this about, really?
The spread of protests across a growing number of states expressing opposition to covid-19 pandemic quarantine policies reflects equal parts understandable frustration and disturbing militancy — and in some instances, armed militancy. In Idaho, for example, several hundred protesters at the state capitol were addressed by a speaker carrying an assault rifle, and gun-carrying has been a feature in several state protests, including in Wisconsin, Michigan, Washington and Ohio.
But why, exactly, include guns in the mix?
The short answer is because the mere presence of guns — and it only need be a few — in a collective protest setting is a way to express a threat by nonverbal means, especially when paired with the incendiary, insurrectionist rhetoric of far-right militant groups.
Those carrying guns to political events would be quick to deny any such effort to intimidate, emphasizing that they are simply exercising their rights. Strictly speaking, that’s right, as most states allow open gun-carrying, including at large gatherings. But what gun carriers refuse to admit is that they carry guns to these events because they are intimidating, whether they care to admit it or not.
Take a different but analogous example: police interrogation. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that suspects being questioned while in police custody had to be informed of their constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and to have the assistance of an attorney. The reason police were required to provide these Miranda rights to those being interrogated was because, as the court said, “in-custody interrogation is inherently coercive,” and coerced confessions are by their nature unreliable and a violation of the protection against self-incrimination. In other words, custodial interrogation, by its very nature, is inherently coercive, regardless of the good intentions or friendly demeanor of the police.
The same can be said of the presence of guns in a political setting. The fact of gun-carrying outweighs the stated intention of the carrier.
Our own gun history reveals that our ancestors well understood this about guns. In fact, gun-carrying and display have long been subject to restrictions under the category of weapons “brandishing.”
In 1786, Massachusetts enacted a law giving law enforcement the power to disperse armed groups of 12 or more — and for no other reason. An 1859 Washington law criminalized the “exhibit” of a dangerous weapon “in a crowd of two or more persons.” An 1889 North Carolina law made it a crime “for any person to point any gun or pistol at any person, either in fun or otherwise,” regardless of whether the weapon was loaded. In 1910, South Carolina made it a crime to point any firearm at another person, whether loaded or unloaded. Oregon did the same in 1925.
All of these laws criminalized the mere display of firearms around others. Other brandishing laws did address the state of mind or intent of the gun carrier. Most commonly, these laws penalized any who would display a firearm “in a rude, angry and threatening manner,” as did Mississippi in 1840, or “for the purpose of frightening or intimidating,” as did Oklahoma in 1868. In all, at least 30 states enacted brandishing laws in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries.
Closely related were restrictions on when and where people could carry guns, stretching back to the 17th century. These laws restricted gun-carrying in public places, communal gatherings, schools, churches, circuses or shows, parades (if the weapons were loaded), certain meeting places including legislative houses, entertainments, on Sundays or on Election Day. Separate measures commonly and strictly regulated firearm discharges. More common still were restrictions on mere gun-carrying. From the 17th through the start of the 20th centuries, 47 states restricted concealed (and in some cases open) gun-carrying.
Taken together, this body of law squarely contradicts the modern claim by a few gun owners that a person carrying a gun is no danger or source of intimidation to others if that person does not intend to do harm. A person carrying a gun to go hunting or target shooting is transporting the weapon to use for its lawful and intended purpose. Whether armed protesters admit it or not, gun-carrying to a political rally serves a different, disturbing and unnecessary purpose: intimidation. It is inherent in the act, putting it squarely at odds with vigorous, open and lawful political dissent. Our ancestors, it seems, understood this better than we do.
About time, these type of guns have no place in our society. Canada needs tougher guns laws for those that use guns in the commission of a crime...because most guns used in crime are illegal guns to begin with...and that’s a huge part of the problem...we are country that prefers timeouts than jail time...loi
odds on that it was an overweight white guy that was at the armed capital "protests"?
What did she have to buy at a dollar store that’s worth a human life , she actually went home and got the man to kill the guard that’s the crux of it , his followers are deplorable despicable human beings!
After reading the article and learning about the arrest of the woman and both men involved, I think it's pretty safe to say that this was more closely related to gang activity, not Trump.
Post edited by dudeman on
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
I would think white privileged would be no arrest and no charges, but refused to prosecute because you’re white. Not what I see happening here.
The incident happened in February. Reverse the races of the four involved. You think three black guys would be walking free into May had they shot to death a white, unarmed jogger? In Georgia?
I would think white privileged would be no arrest and no charges, but refused to prosecute because you’re white. Not what I see happening here.
The incident happened in February. Reverse the races of the four involved. You think three black guys would be walking free into May had they shot to death a white, unarmed jogger? In Georgia?
Given that courts and much of the judicial system has been shut down for almost 2 months, maybe.
I would think white privileged would be no arrest and no charges, but refused to prosecute because you’re white. Not what I see happening here.
The incident happened in February. Reverse the races of the four involved. You think three black guys would be walking free into May had they shot to death a white, unarmed jogger? In Georgia?
Given that courts and much of the judicial system has been shut down for almost 2 months, maybe.
Glynn County, GA courts remain open for essential functions like arrest warrants, first appearances and child support hearings despite the state Supreme Court justice declaring a state of emergency on March 16th, essentially leaving the decision to close, remain open or open with limitations to the individual county judge and the governor declaring a Stay at Home order on April 3rd.
If holding a dangerousness hearing after shooting an unarmed jogger in broad daylight is not an “essential function,” then maybe it’s “White privilege?”
And the courts were not “shut down” for two months. Again, reverse the race of those involved and would you still believe the black guys would have still been walking around? In May? In Georgia? For shooting to death an unarmed white guy in broad daylight in his own neighborhood?
Maybe it was only white privilege from February 23rd to March 16th?
And I’ll add, those concealed carry, stand your ground proponents would argue that if the BLACK victim had just pulled a gun out of his jogging shorts and killed the two WHITE accosters, he’d be within his rights.
YEA FUCKING RIGHT. What a country. How about that unemployment rate? For BLACKS?
I would think white privileged would be no arrest and no charges, but refused to prosecute because you’re white. Not what I see happening here.
You’re going to defend this? Really? What’s up with that?
I'm not defending him. just asked what’s white privilege about white guys going through a grand jury that is required. IT was the end of February so a little over 2 months. Under normal circumstances 2 months doesn’t seem like a long time. Put it in the middle of a pandemic I’m not sure what else to expect. I didn’t defend them. They look guilty to me. There’s a trial pending, a jury will decide if they are or not. I just asked where’s the white privileged in that?
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I have never understood that mentality and that is where the 2A people get it wrong. It's people like this that ruin it for everyone else...
Waltzing around w 2 handguns is idiotic too.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I've tried it before and it is very silly, I thought it was a new and better way. Wrong... I think the movies even stopped doing that stupid shit.
Great news in Canada too bad this country will never do anything like this!
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
After reading the article and learning about the arrest of the woman and both men involved, I think it's pretty safe to say that this was more closely related to gang activity, not Trump.
I would think white privileged would be no arrest and no charges, but refused to prosecute because you’re white. Not what I see happening here.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
If holding a dangerousness hearing after shooting an unarmed jogger in broad daylight is not an “essential function,” then maybe it’s “White privilege?”
And the courts were not “shut down” for two months. Again, reverse the race of those involved and would you still believe the black guys would have still been walking around? In May? In Georgia? For shooting to death an unarmed white guy in broad daylight in his own neighborhood?
Maybe it was only white privilege from February 23rd to March 16th?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://apple.news/A9KCfYhw_QmaRROnAxu5JtQ
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
YEA FUCKING RIGHT. What a country. How about that unemployment rate? For BLACKS?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Any redneck with a gun is a cop in their mind. And any black person is a criminal.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
I didn’t defend them. They look guilty to me. There’s a trial pending, a jury will decide if they are or not. I just asked where’s the white privileged in that?