Tumgik
#every gun law is an infringement
grumpy-old-patriot · 1 year
Text
Where's my can? I’m 279 days into my wait. 🖕🏻the ATF! Every gun law is an infringement!
8 notes · View notes
freetheshit-outofyou · 11 months
Text
When they say they aren't coming after all the guns I want you to remember this article. This laws bans all un-serialized firearms. Not just home kits, not firearms made on a work bench in a private residence, but every un-serialized firearm. Why is that important? Firearms manufactured or sold in the United States were not required to be serialized until enactment of the Gun Control Act of 1968. That means pre-1968 firearms by makers that did not serialize their products would be ban, not just kits made for home built firearms. I have firearms made from the late 1870's through to the mid-60's that have no serial numbers, they would become illegal if this passed and I lived there. In the 247 years the United States has existed firearms serial numbers have only been required for 55 of those years. So when they say we're not coming after your firearms, remember laws like these would make 247 years worth of old firearm illegal, not just the homebuilt modern rifle and pistols without a serial number.
Every firearm's law is an infringement meant to set up the next infringement.
34 notes · View notes
liberalsarecool · 7 months
Text
Tumblr media
Conservatives see gun rights as a partisan issue: right wingers do not need laws or deserve consequences for having a gun, but everyone else deserves every consequence for having a gun.
The 'shall not be infringed' 2A crowd will ignore Hunter.
503 notes · View notes
cock-holliday · 2 months
Text
I think something extremely worth considering about the ICJ hearing is this: most of what feels underwhelming and angering about the ruling is irritation at the legal system and not at the ruling.
So, people pissed at the ICJ are right, and people saying “no this is actually a huge win” are also right.
It’s something that I, someone with a law degree, fucking loathe about the law.
Half a year back, a Montana judge ruled in a landmark case that companies were infringing on the right of the youth to have a clean environment. It was an historic move, and came after substantial long-haul efforts. It seemed like an impossible task and yet it was accomplished.
It’s also largely symbolic. Anyone who didn’t declare this the end of the climate crisis was labeled a doomerist, but functionally…what is going to be done now?
As of Jan 2024, not much!
The ruling followed up with “so now we turn to the state to address it.” And the state of Montana is red as all hell and full of climate denialism. So then what? If Montana doesn’t want to *do* anything, what then? Will the state be punished? Injunctions? Fines? Anything?
When you are fired from your job unjustly, you must prove you were fired unjustly, which can take years. If they decide the company was right (or maybe not wrong) to fire you, you get nothing. If they find that you’re right, you just get money. Which helps you, undoubtedly! Does it hurt the company? No. So for as long as they are profitable they can “afford” to violate worker rights.
Megacorporations engage in slave labor and generally when found to participate incur fines and prommy not to do it again. Companies like Heineken have faced lawsuits ranging from intentionally misleading consumers, unlawful dismissals, environmental destruction, slavery, and more. Companies like Coca Cola have murdered workers abroad staging strikes. Not murdered as in a word used to make their disregard hit your ears appropriately, I mean sent militias to gun down. They were found guilty of this in court. The company was found to be running death squads. Can you still buy a coke at the store or was the company shut down?
If you steal a dollar from the register at work you can be fired and go to jail. If your boss steals thousands from your paycheck, it’s an oopsie and if you take the time to prove it, you just get your money back. If you don’t get fired for looking, also.
The law is a tool of subjugation and on occasion we can study the tools and bend them like the bottom of a chain-link fence to let someone escape. But it is not a force for total liberation.
The law will never be capable of achieving liberation because the law is what impedes the liberation. It is legal to use slave labor in prison, it is legal to starve you, it is legal to kick you down and if you dare bite the hand that slaps you then it is legal to put you down.
The UN special rapporteur for torture came to a “school” in Massachusetts that was abusing autistic kids and the UN condemned that school for torture. The school is still operational today. The FDA said you had to stop torturing kids during covid and then covid “ended” so now all bets are off. There are people fighting against it every day but if someone burned down that building and sent all the kids home, the state and federal government who ignores the torture would descend upon that arsonist like a tidal wave.
The law is…underwhelming, disappointing, unfair, because it is not made for us, the people. It is made by those in power to keep their power, and little tweaks can undoubtedly be the difference between life and death for some, but it is never going to free us all. The law cannot be ignored as a factor in liberation but it is not a source.
That’s not what the law is.
Freedom is sought elsewhere.
76 notes · View notes
siryouarebeingmocked · 4 months
Text
Since this genius seems to be blocking...
Tumblr media
>Teenager goes into a gunstore and buys a an ATAC with 1000 rounds of 5.56. No questions asked.
You're carefully leaving out the part where the teenager is a legal adult for almost all intents and purposes in every single state.
I'd say you're also leaving out the part where rifle murders are less common than knifes, blunt objects, or bare hands, but I don't think you're that well-informed.
>But someone middle aged walks in and wants a handgun with one round.
There are any number of reasons someone might want a single bullet that are not 'suicide'. For example, if they're a blogger and they want to take a photo of two different rounds to make a  comparison post.
Or maybe they have some sort of OCD that wants to keep topped up to a precise number.
Maybe they’re carrying, and realized they’re short a round, but don’t want to buy a whole box.
> Both are infallibly red flags, but one is societally acceptable. Neither should be.
“Everyone should share my prejudices, and they should be enforced by law.”
I would also bet money you have no actual statistics to back either of these up.
>As someone who grew up in a military family around guns, owns guns and understands guns you've created a recreational culture around a tool that is primarily used for taking life.
Tumblr media
I love how you have to lump together hunting, animal control, murder, self-defense, and suicide to make that even remotely true. Five different categories, but you only talked about murder and suicide in the lede.
And most of those categories - probably the majority of use, statistically - are perfectly legal, safe, responsibly used options.
>Grow the fuck up, your "liberty" isn't infringed upon by mandatory state psych and background evaluation for gun ownership.
"Making you do things before you can legally do other things is not preventing you from doing those other things."
That's kind of like arguing that age checks before drinks purchases aren't infringing on people's freedom to drink. Or, heck, driver's licenses.
Also, I suspect the vast majority of gun purchases already go through stores, which means mandatory background checks anyway. Most murderers are not legal owners.
>Honestly the reason I own guns is you totally unhinged inbred fucks walk around with military grade firearms and have an IQ equal to a sock filled with burning pubic hair.
You say this while you imply that "military grade" means "more deadly". And think being edgy and angry and insulting is somehow more persuasive to gun owners, assuming this isn't posturing for other anti-gun idiots.
Also, I'm literally from a country with strict gun control, low legal ownership, and a higher gun murder rate than America. It's not remotely the only one.
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
88 notes · View notes
jackoshadows · 5 months
Text
2000+ artists (including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Frankie Boyle, Miriam Margoyles) sign a letter calling for Gaza ceasefire
Tilda Swinton among 2000+ artists calling for Gaza ceasefire
“We are witnessing a crime and a catastrophe. Israel has reduced much of Gaza to rubble, and cut off the supply of water, power, food and medicine to 2.3 million Palestinians. In the words of the UN’s undersecretary for humanitarian affairs, ‘the spectre of death’ is hanging over the territory.
Gaza is already a society of refugees and the children of refugees. Now, in their hundreds of thousands, bombarded from air, sea and land, Palestinians whose grandparents were forced out of their homes at the barrel of a gun are again being told to flee – or face collective punishment on an unimaginable scale. Dispossessed of rights, described by Israel’s minister of defence as “human animals”, they have become people to whom almost anything can be done.
Our governments are not only tolerating war crimes but aiding and abetting them. There will come a time when they are held to account for their complicity. But for now, while condemning every act of violence against civilians and every infringement of international law whoever perpetrates them, our obligation is to do all we can to bring an end to the unprecedented cruelty being inflicted on Gaza.
We support the global movement against the destruction of Gaza and the mass displacement of the Palestinian people. We demand that our governments end their military and political support for Israel’s actions.
We call for an immediate ceasefire and the opening of Gaza’s crossings to allow humanitarian aid to enter unhindered.”
58 notes · View notes
oldgayjew · 3 months
Text
A simple question for every one who wants tighter gun-control laws ...
What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand, cupcake ...
42 notes · View notes
defenderoftruth · 2 months
Text
Tumblr media
This is why America loves President Trump:
"Every single Biden attack on gun owners and manufacturers will be terminated my very first week in office"
President Trump knows that any gun law is an infringement, and he will act accordingly.
Tumblr media
20 notes · View notes
Decided I'm just gonna put up with the hurricanes and head for Florida. No individual income tax and waaaaaaay lower cost of living. Was gonna go Utah, but their income tax rate is still a bit too high for me when Florida's is 0.
Sell my van after stripping the solar panels, then get a houseboat for as low as $2k, patch it up, rig up the solar, and head for Argentina at the first sign of trouble. Starlink for net, and I'll be able to buy arms in international waters, then it's all about refusing to make port until the statute of limitations for possession would run out and hiding them until the statute of limitations runs out for illegally importing them. Remember folks, every gun law is an infringement, every tax a theft.
18 notes · View notes
Text
A year and a half before he was arrested in the Colorado Springs gay nightclub shooting that left five people dead, Anderson Lee Aldrich allegedly threatened his mother with a homemade bomb, forcing neighbors in surrounding homes to evacuate while the bomb squad and crisis negotiators talked him into surrendering.
Yet despite that scare, there's no public record that prosecutors moved forward with felony kidnapping and menacing charges against Aldrich, or that police or relatives tried to trigger Colorado's "red flag" law that would have allowed authorities to seize the weapons and ammo the man's mother says he had with him.
Gun control advocates say Aldrich's June 2021 threat is an example of a red flag law ignored, with potentially deadly consequences. While it's not clear the law could have prevented Saturday night's attack — such gun seizures can be in effect for as little as 14 days and be extended by a judge in six-month increments — they say it could have at least slowed Aldrich and raised his profile with law enforcement.
"We need heroes beforehand — parents, co-workers, friends who are seeing someone go down this path," said Colorado state Rep. Tom Sullivan, whose son was killed in the Aurora theater shooting and sponsored the state's red flag law passed in 2019. "This should have alerted them, put him on their radar."
But the law that allows guns to be removed from people deemed dangerous to themselves or others has seldom been used in the state, particularly in El Paso County, home to Colorado Springs, where the 22-year-old Aldrich allegedly went into Club Q with a long gun at just before midnight and opened fire before he was subdued by patrons.
An Associated Press analysis found Colorado has one of the lowest rates of red flag usage despite widespread gun ownership and several high-profile mass shootings.
Courts issued 151 gun surrender orders from when the law took effect in April 2019 through 2021, three surrender orders for every 100,000 adults in the state. That's a third of the ratio of orders issued for the 19 states and District of Columbia with surrender laws on their books.
El Paso County appears especially hostile to the law. It joined nearly 2,000 counties nationwide in declaring themselves "Second Amendment Sanctuaries" that protect the constitutional right to bear arms, passing a 2019 resolution that says the red flag law "infringes upon the inalienable rights of law-abiding citizens" by ordering police to "forcibly enter premises and seize a citizen's property with no evidence of a crime."
County Sheriff Bill Elder has said his office would wait for family members to ask a court for surrender orders and not petition for them on its own accord, unless there were "exigent circumstances" and "probable cause" of a crime.
El Paso County, with a population of 730,000, had 13 temporary firearm removals through the end of last year, four of which turned into longer ones of at least six months.
The county sheriff's office declined to answer what happened after Aldrich's arrest last year, including whether anyone asked to have his weapons removed. The press release issued by the sheriff's office at the time said no explosives were found but did not mention anything about whether any weapons were recovered.
Spokesperson Lt. Deborah Mynatt referred further questions about the case to the district attorney's office.
An online court records search did not turn up any formal charges filed against Aldrich in last year's case. And in an update on a story on the bomb threat, The Gazette newspaper of Colorado Springs reported that prosecutors did not pursue any charges in the case and that records were sealed.
The Gazette also reported Sunday that it got a call from Aldrich in August asking that it remove a story about the incident.
"There is absolutely nothing there, the case was dropped, and I'm asking you either remove or update the story," Aldrich said in a voice message to an editor. "The entire case was dismissed."
A spokesperson for the district attorney's office, Howard Black, declined to comment on whether any charges were pursued. He said the shooting investigation will also include a study of the bomb threat.
"There will be no additional information released at this time," Black said. "These are still investigative questions."
AP's study of 19 states and the District of Columbia with red flag laws on their books found they have been used about 15,000 times since 2020, less than 10 times for every 100,000 adults in each state. Experts called that woefully low and hardly enough to make a dent in gun killings.
Just this year, authorities in Highland Park, Illinois, were criticized for not trying to take guns away from the 21-year-old accused of a Fourth of July parade shooting that left seven dead. Police had been alerted about him in 2019 after he threatened to "kill everyone" in his home.
Duke University sociologist Jeffrey Swanson, an expert in red flag laws, said the Colorado Springs case could be yet another missed warning sign.
"This seems like a no brainer, if the mom knew he had guns," he said. "If you removed firearms from the situation, you could have had a different ending to the story."
224 notes · View notes
the-owl-tree · 1 month
Note
i HATE how the ai art moral panic made fandom people more supportive of harsher copyright restrictions like. do you not know why ao3 exists??? or why anne rice is so hated in the fanfic community??
i was talking to someone about this a while ago because they were cheering on that chatgpt lawsuit where several famous authors were suing openai. and i said "yeah ai can be used for bad stuff but i don't want it to be legally restricted because people are retaliating via copyright and that will affect fanworks sooner or later" and brought up the littledragon studios v harpercollins thing from last year as an example and they went "well if the ip holder took legal action then that means they deserve it, shouldn't have been violating their copyright lololololol"
then went on to post about the manga panel redraw they were doing as if that wasn't copyright infringement too
i know that person may have been legitimately too young to know or too uninterested to look into it but that attitude from other fans still shocks me every time i see it
Fanart has always kind of danced in that gray area but otherwise....it really is fine? Like, the steamboat willy example. You could always draw him with a gun but now you can sell shit legally with willy steamboat with a gun. In the end, it's about profit...which is why it's bothered me so much that people seem to think copyright protects artists at all. The fact that the conversation has only centered around independent, commission-based artists is a huge disservice to the ACTUAL abuse and theft that has been happening for DECADES.
A majority of artists that work for wider corporations DO NOT OWN THEIR OWN ART. People will kick up such a fuss that they don't understand that a majority of art theft is done legally, that artist's creations can make billions of dollars and they won't see a cent of the money because copyright law ONLY benefits corporations.
So what exactly is the end goal then? For mass swathes of images to be bought by corporations and used to train AI? Who does that benefit, because you've got to be a fucking moron if you think in any way that helps artists. People will claim to love all art yet they can't even be bothered to look into the history of any of it, this paranoia has people wanting the art industry to resemble the fucking music industry.
I've so little patience for any artist who claims to support artists and then rallies around copyright law. Beyond frustrating to me, apologies for the rant but I just feel very passionate about it.
18 notes · View notes
grumpy-old-patriot · 1 year
Text
I finally got approved today so I will stop my bitching.
Where's my can? I’m 279 days into my wait. 🖕🏻the ATF! Every gun law is an infringement!
6 notes · View notes
qqueenofhades · 1 year
Note
How is the free speech thing balanced in the US with regard to the law? Does everything fall under this amendment? For instance, in France, antisemitism, denial of the Holocaust or racism are (normally) not counted as opinions but punishable by law. Not as crimes but the infraction level below (it's called délits but I don't know the English equivalent)
It's complicated. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, press, and assembly-- i.e. you have the basic right to speak, write, and protest how you want without government censorship or punishment. If the right wing free-speech champions were genuinely concerned about it in any meaningful way, they would be defending the BLM and abortion-rights protestors, since this is something that actually is guaranteed in the Constitution, but uhhh, yeah, free speech for me and none for thee is their whole philosophy.
What the First Amendment does not do is give you the ability to act like a total dick in public all the time and never suffer consequences. The fact that it has been interpreted as such is another result of the skewed extreme-libertarian philosophy that is likewise popular in the US, where you yourself are the most important person and should be able to do whatever you want all the time. You have every right to yell fire in a crowded theater, but when you are arrested for causing a public panic and/or injuries or a stampede or whatever, the First Amendment is not some magical get-out-of-jail-free card where you can invoke it and then cry about being unfairly persecuted if people are harmed by your conscious decision to be a dick. So hate speech is not necessarily a protected category of speech, and it certainly does not exempt you from consequences enforced on you by other private citizens.
For example, take the recent Alex Jones trial. He is a bloated hatemongering piece of human garbage who, ever since the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012, has been making up nonstop lies about the event, claiming it was staged and the victims were "crisis actors," it was a plot to take away Americans' guns, encouraging his equally insane followers to harass the grieving families who had just lost their young children, etc. Anyway, understandably, the families finally sued the living shit out of him for defamation and libel, because free speech does not, again, mean you can just make up nonstop bullshit and cause tangible public harm. It's not the government suing Alex Jones for his reprehensible lies, so his whining about how this, you guessed it, "violates his First Amendment rights!!" is an even bigger load of bullshit than usual. The private citizens whose life he deliberately made a living hell are fully entitled to seek recompense for that pain and suffering, and juries in several different states have agreed, awarding them combined damages of over one-billion-with-a-B dollars, while Jones has likewise tried all kinds of shady bullshit to hide his finances and avoid paying up. Because, as noted, he is absolute rancid garbage.
That's why the right wing was screaming bloody murder about the outcome, because if -- gasp -- people can successfully hold them liable for all the awful things they say and do on a daily basis, they might experience, oh no, A Consequence. And since the loss of money and prestige is pretty much the only punishment these shitbirds understand, they don't want it to catch on, and so they holler about First Amendment Infringement as if that means absolutely anything. Because oh boy, there is truly nothing they love more than playing the martyr while continuing to attack everyone else for daring to act as if they have, in fact, the exact same civil rights as them.
81 notes · View notes
anamericangirl · 1 year
Note
what are things the right needs to say which are worth saying? besides Disabled People Shouldn't Be Killed In The Womb which is a thing I very much agree with
Lots of things. No one should be killed in the womb. We have a right to bear arms so every gun control law is an infringement. Stop sexualizing children and promoting child abusers. Identity politics is evil is hurting the younger generations. Don’t transition minors. And a lot more as well but those are what immediately come to mind.
62 notes · View notes
naturalrights-retard · 4 months
Text
Another indicator that the people have lost all hope in the public sector is the recent rise in gun sales across America. Gun sales rose 8.3% in the past year, according to the FBI National Instant Background Check System (NICS). Over 1.33 million guns were legally acquired in October alone.
The people do not trust the government to protect them. We have seen the deliberate migrant invasion sweet across the nation. Crime has risen in every major US city and the laws in place prevent the police from arresting criminals. The Israel-Hamas rallies were another tipping point as people are watching their fellow Americans rip down flags and violently take to the streets.
There are about 500 million privately owned guns in the US. The Second Amendment is our key to freedom from an oppressive government. Simply look at history – Hitler confiscated the guns, Mao confiscated the guns, Stalin confiscated the guns, Kim Jung-Il confiscated the guns, Pol Pot confiscated the guns, and Chavez confiscated the guns to name a few. Governments have historically removed the right to bear arms before implementing the most oppressive regimes imaginable. It has happened countless times throughout history, and yet, there are still those who believe we would be safer without the ability to protect ourselves.
The Second Amendment promises Americans: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That means any gun restrictions are completely unconstitutional. Laws are NEVER implemented to protect the people, but rather, they are implemented to control us.
6 notes · View notes
Note
I support common sense gun control laws; like "don't point a gun at someone you're not prepared to shoot with said gun" or "don't shoot a gun without knowing where the bullet is likely to end up", you know, basic common sense stuff about controlling the safe use of your gun, not stupid laws like "no pistol braces, and especially don't use one to shoulder a pistol," "no automatic guns manufactured after May 19th, 1986," or "guns being transported must be locked in the trunk of your vehicle and kept separate from the ammo"
Every gun law is an infringement.
7 notes · View notes