I’ve seen lemmings both advocate for gun restrictions, then turn around and say we should use violence… I’m like: pick a side, you can’t hold both opinions
Nah, when someone says they’re against gun rights I prefer to at least give them the benefit of the doubt regarding ideological consistency and assume they’re against all protests that involve violence and are happy when protestors can’t defend themselves or deter against individual acts of state violence. I don’t like to just assume that a stranger is a hypocrite or critically underdeveloped merely because I disagree with them. Believe a person when they tell you who they are.
For handguns, the Sullivan Act qualifies as a may issue act, meaning the local police have discretion to issue a concealed carry license, as opposed to a shall issue act, in which state authorities must give a concealed handgun license to any person who satisfies specific criteria, often a background check and a safety class
So… cops have discretion on who to give permits to…
The. Fucking. Cops.
Sure thing. If your skin color is darker than hitler, no guns for you. If you are a progressive, or BLM protester, or anti-genocide protester, they will just use their discretion and be like: “No, gtfo”.
Meanwhile, an alt-right white kid would have no trouble getting a gun their rural town where his dad knows the sherif.
Oddly enough, this is a rare instance where I actually agree with the right wing shitheads in the court. (Although, the court probably had ulterier motives)
Tell me: how is giving cops discretion to deny your constitutional rights ever a good idea?
Things could be improved drastically. However, conflating gun control proposals with taking away all guns from everyone everywhere doesn’t help anything.
People aren’t going to overthrow our military by force, ever. Wake up. Our only chance is to change the system with reason. Or watch it burn, and try again next time people get a chance to create a government.
I’ve seen lemmings both advocate for gun restrictions, then turn around and say we should use violence… I’m like: pick a side, you can’t hold both opinions
Nah, when someone says they’re against gun rights I prefer to at least give them the benefit of the doubt regarding ideological consistency and assume they’re against all protests that involve violence and are happy when protestors can’t defend themselves or deter against individual acts of state violence. I don’t like to just assume that a stranger is a hypocrite or critically underdeveloped merely because I disagree with them. Believe a person when they tell you who they are.
You can’t? Why not?
knives don’t make effective weapons…
are people gonna overthow tyranny by force with… knives?
Restrictions doesn’t mean no guns. A guy that’s going to shoot schools shouldn’t have a gun, but a guy that’s going to shoot fascists should.
Background check are fine, but dems are getting too draconian.
Example:
The Sullivan Act
So… cops have discretion on who to give permits to…
The. Fucking. Cops.
Sure thing. If your skin color is darker than hitler, no guns for you. If you are a progressive, or BLM protester, or anti-genocide protester, they will just use their discretion and be like: “No, gtfo”.
Meanwhile, an alt-right white kid would have no trouble getting a gun their rural town where his dad knows the sherif.
Luckily, that law was stuck down: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen
Oddly enough, this is a rare instance where I actually agree with the right wing shitheads in the court. (Although, the court probably had ulterier motives)
Tell me: how is giving cops discretion to deny your constitutional rights ever a good idea?
ACAB
I agree with you 100%
Things could be improved drastically. However, conflating gun control proposals with taking away all guns from everyone everywhere doesn’t help anything.
People aren’t going to overthrow our military by force, ever. Wake up. Our only chance is to change the system with reason. Or watch it burn, and try again next time people get a chance to create a government.