|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
|
|
On January 30 2019 00:10 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Wtf is food service managers and why are they half as likely to be killed doing a job where you wear a gun?
In fact the most disturbing thing is that retail sales workers / cashiers are "only" about 40% as likely to be murdered as a job where you might infact be expected to apprehend armed criminals.
Now that would be stressful.
If you let everyone have guns, the number of situations that can get you killed increases exponentially.
|
|
|
On January 30 2019 00:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 22:52 Simberto wrote:On January 29 2019 13:17 Danglars wrote:Good news (from my gun rights perspective) for America: A couple good cases are before the Supreme Court on bad gun laws. With the Supreme Court now having five justices who are less likely to approve of gun regulations and laws, it granted a major gun case Tuesday for the first time in nearly a decade.
The court granted a right-to-carry case out of New York that pits the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association against the City of New York. New York bans transporting permitted handguns outside city lines, even if the gun is not loaded and is locked in a container. The guns currently can only be taken to the handful of shooting ranges within city limits.
The case could have wide ramifications for gun rights and gun restrictions across the country, depending on how broadly the court rules.
Conservative justices have been champing at the bit to take up gun rights cases. Justice Clarence Thomas in 2014, for example, criticized the court for not taking up more gun cases, calling it a "disfavored" right.
"The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court's constitutional orphan," Thomas wrote.
With a newfound majority after the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, conservatives may have their chance to make a broad ruling, holding, for example, that the right to own a gun means the right to carry one, or it could rule more narrowly, saying New York's law is overly restrictive or something in between. NPR (also, Scotusblog Case Hub) This is a big chance for the Supreme Court to affirm American citizen's "bear arms" rights, and make the defense of such rights stand among the other important Bill of Rights amendments like the first amendment. The second amendment has been a "constitutional orphan" and "second-class right" for far too long. This is one step back in the right direction. The more secure Americans can feel in their second amendment rights, the better public comity for gun control in the margins. Unloaded guns in locked containers merely being transported out of the city seems like an obvious entry point we can agree on (or can we in this forum lol?) The sensible next steps is to challenge gun laws on concealed carry permits that first ask the petitioner to prove he or she has good cause to need one. The right to bear arms is not subject to proving somebody's out to get you. Yeah, i guess all the bullshit to steal justices to stack the courts with hardcore conservatives paid off in the end. You get to keep on murdering each other forever, and it will be made even more easy for you to do so. I hope you are happy. It just seems so absurd that this is something that you view as a good thing. At this point, i kinda just wish there was a way to put all the US conservatives into the hellscape they love to create for themselves and let them be happy there, but keep them from hurting all the other people in the country. Just have a no healthcare, all guns, all coal, all corruption confederate state with a wall around it in the south, and a reasonable state in the north. In the next 20 or 30 years, we'll see if a peaceful separation is the only way to make society work with such opposite views. Keep your hellscape confederacy memes, I'll keep my rights, thank you very much. How is your 'right' to have a gun infringed when there are regulations in place to ensure crazy or criminals do not? Is there something about you we should know about? Or are you just rabidly paranoid and assuming that once regulations come in, seizure is imminent?
|
On January 30 2019 02:29 Dazed. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2019 00:31 Danglars wrote:On January 29 2019 22:52 Simberto wrote:On January 29 2019 13:17 Danglars wrote:Good news (from my gun rights perspective) for America: A couple good cases are before the Supreme Court on bad gun laws. With the Supreme Court now having five justices who are less likely to approve of gun regulations and laws, it granted a major gun case Tuesday for the first time in nearly a decade.
The court granted a right-to-carry case out of New York that pits the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association against the City of New York. New York bans transporting permitted handguns outside city lines, even if the gun is not loaded and is locked in a container. The guns currently can only be taken to the handful of shooting ranges within city limits.
The case could have wide ramifications for gun rights and gun restrictions across the country, depending on how broadly the court rules.
Conservative justices have been champing at the bit to take up gun rights cases. Justice Clarence Thomas in 2014, for example, criticized the court for not taking up more gun cases, calling it a "disfavored" right.
"The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court's constitutional orphan," Thomas wrote.
With a newfound majority after the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, conservatives may have their chance to make a broad ruling, holding, for example, that the right to own a gun means the right to carry one, or it could rule more narrowly, saying New York's law is overly restrictive or something in between. NPR (also, Scotusblog Case Hub) This is a big chance for the Supreme Court to affirm American citizen's "bear arms" rights, and make the defense of such rights stand among the other important Bill of Rights amendments like the first amendment. The second amendment has been a "constitutional orphan" and "second-class right" for far too long. This is one step back in the right direction. The more secure Americans can feel in their second amendment rights, the better public comity for gun control in the margins. Unloaded guns in locked containers merely being transported out of the city seems like an obvious entry point we can agree on (or can we in this forum lol?) The sensible next steps is to challenge gun laws on concealed carry permits that first ask the petitioner to prove he or she has good cause to need one. The right to bear arms is not subject to proving somebody's out to get you. Yeah, i guess all the bullshit to steal justices to stack the courts with hardcore conservatives paid off in the end. You get to keep on murdering each other forever, and it will be made even more easy for you to do so. I hope you are happy. It just seems so absurd that this is something that you view as a good thing. At this point, i kinda just wish there was a way to put all the US conservatives into the hellscape they love to create for themselves and let them be happy there, but keep them from hurting all the other people in the country. Just have a no healthcare, all guns, all coal, all corruption confederate state with a wall around it in the south, and a reasonable state in the north. In the next 20 or 30 years, we'll see if a peaceful separation is the only way to make society work with such opposite views. Keep your hellscape confederacy memes, I'll keep my rights, thank you very much. How is your 'right' to have a gun infringed when there are regulations in place to ensure crazy or criminals do not? Is there something about you we should know about? Or are you just rabidly paranoid and assuming that once regulations come in, seizure is imminent?
Did you even read the original post he quoted? I'm going to need to see some proof you read the exact contention I made, and why you think it fits into your description.
|
The South Dakota legislature has passed a bill allowing residents to carry concealed handguns without a permit, sending the measure to Gov. Kristi Noem (R) for a signature.
The state House passed the Senate legislation in a 47-23 vote on Tuesday to allow for the so-called constitutional carry, The Argus Leader reported.
Noem has vocalized support for the measure before but said she will consider the language in the bill before signing it into law.
"We are pleased to see constitutional carry pass the state Senate and House of Representatives. Hopefully Gov. Noem will see the benefit in providing law-abiding South Dakotans with the ability to better defend themselves and their families," a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association said in a statement.
The Hill
South Dakota will have constitutional carry provisions not too long from now. I think the further restriction of permitless carry to South Dakota residents of the state is fair and should be passed as well. It’s good to remember that some state politics continues to advance constitutional protections on owning and carrying guns.
|
On February 01 2019 05:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +The South Dakota legislature has passed a bill allowing residents to carry concealed handguns without a permit, sending the measure to Gov. Kristi Noem (R) for a signature.
The state House passed the Senate legislation in a 47-23 vote on Tuesday to allow for the so-called constitutional carry, The Argus Leader reported.
Noem has vocalized support for the measure before but said she will consider the language in the bill before signing it into law.
"We are pleased to see constitutional carry pass the state Senate and House of Representatives. Hopefully Gov. Noem will see the benefit in providing law-abiding South Dakotans with the ability to better defend themselves and their families," a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association said in a statement. The HillSouth Dakota will have constitutional carry provisions not too long from now. I think the further restriction of permitless carry to South Dakota residents of the state is fair and should be passed as well. It’s good to remember that some state politics continues to advance constitutional protections on owning and carrying guns.
I can't get over how weird everything about your post is. This is coming again from someone who actually shoots guns.
The one thing gun owners would actually care about in there you didn't mention?
I'll give you a hint:
According to a poll from the nonprofit gun safety group Everytown for Gun Safety released Tuesday., the vast majority of South Dakotans surveyed, 84 percent, said they support the state's existing concealed carry permit requirement.
|
|
|
|
|
United States44283 Posts
Online radicalization in echo chambers of hate. It’s a sign of the times. In his manifesto he specified that he chose to use guns, rather than a bomb, in order to try to start a race war in the US because 2nd amendment something something. Probably best not to dignify the idiocy with an argument about guns, even if his plan was dumb.
|
Man, Christchurch can not get a break  After 2 devastating earthquakes and now this there's no wonder people are leaving the place in droves.
On March 15 2019 13:57 KwarK wrote:
Online radicalization in echo chambers of hate. It’s a sign of the times. In his manifesto he specified that he chose to use guns, rather than a bomb, in order to try to start a race war in the US because 2nd amendment something something. Probably best not to dignify the idiocy with an argument about guns, even if his plan was dumb.
So he decided to shoot up a town in New Zealand because of the US 2nd amendment..? Yeah this guy seems like a healthy human being.
|
On March 15 2019 17:02 Excludos wrote:Man, Christchurch can not get a break After 2 devastating earthquakes and now this there's no wonder people are leaving the place in droves. Show nested quote +On March 15 2019 13:57 KwarK wrote:
Online radicalization in echo chambers of hate. It’s a sign of the times. In his manifesto he specified that he chose to use guns, rather than a bomb, in order to try to start a race war in the US because 2nd amendment something something. Probably best not to dignify the idiocy with an argument about guns, even if his plan was dumb. So he decided to shoot up a town in New Zealand because of the US 2nd amendment..? Yeah this guy seems like a healthy human being.
They can be healthier than you think! There was a huge debate on ABB's mental health during his trial, and he was considered sane in the end.
|
I'm not one for politics on TL usually, but this video has some good points visa vi white supremacist terror,
They are thoughtful words from a news anchor and a Muslim about how far right ideas have been mainstreamed. The music in the background is a bit sappy, but his message of unity which it ends on is worth it.
On another note,
I'm not from NZ so I can't really say how advanced the debate around gun control is there, but I don't think there are any calls currently for more legislation.
- A post script -
At the intersection of: how did this terrorist get access to so many firearms and how this person become a terrorist, the later seems to be stressed more.
Its a bit of a moot point though because you can tackle them both at the same time. The bigger complex issue is the mainsteaming of white nationalist ideals. An Australian senator blamed Muslims themselves for being murdered. When it gets to that point, white supremacy isn't being mainstreamed any more, it is mainstream!
Finally, in a world seemingly out of control, I am going to try and wrest some back. Look out for your Muslim friends and community.
|
People have ignored and will ignore Youtube for way longer than they should.
All of these dudes are radicalized on Youtube, by the Ben Shapiros, the Lauren Southerns, the Stefan Molyneux. Lauren Southern used this day to remind everyone that she is the worst sort of garbage and say that when the left attacks her after Christchurch, it's exactly the same as when people attack all muslims after a muslim terrorist attack, and it's therefore a bad thing. It's unbelievable how bad these people are, like, I almost legitimately can't believe it.
|
|
|
49 dead...and 50 more in the hospital...horrible.
Talk about mainstream, this guy is an Australian senator...who blames it on the muslims for existing. He's denounced by pretty much everyone but still he's a fucking senator.
|
Standing in the shower this morning, for some reason I was thinking to myself that its nice that we haven't heard about any mass shootings for a while, and maybe people are starting to calm down.
Fuck me.
|
On January 30 2019 02:29 Dazed. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2019 00:31 Danglars wrote:On January 29 2019 22:52 Simberto wrote:On January 29 2019 13:17 Danglars wrote:Good news (from my gun rights perspective) for America: A couple good cases are before the Supreme Court on bad gun laws. With the Supreme Court now having five justices who are less likely to approve of gun regulations and laws, it granted a major gun case Tuesday for the first time in nearly a decade.
The court granted a right-to-carry case out of New York that pits the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association against the City of New York. New York bans transporting permitted handguns outside city lines, even if the gun is not loaded and is locked in a container. The guns currently can only be taken to the handful of shooting ranges within city limits.
The case could have wide ramifications for gun rights and gun restrictions across the country, depending on how broadly the court rules.
Conservative justices have been champing at the bit to take up gun rights cases. Justice Clarence Thomas in 2014, for example, criticized the court for not taking up more gun cases, calling it a "disfavored" right.
"The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court's constitutional orphan," Thomas wrote.
With a newfound majority after the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, conservatives may have their chance to make a broad ruling, holding, for example, that the right to own a gun means the right to carry one, or it could rule more narrowly, saying New York's law is overly restrictive or something in between. NPR (also, Scotusblog Case Hub) This is a big chance for the Supreme Court to affirm American citizen's "bear arms" rights, and make the defense of such rights stand among the other important Bill of Rights amendments like the first amendment. The second amendment has been a "constitutional orphan" and "second-class right" for far too long. This is one step back in the right direction. The more secure Americans can feel in their second amendment rights, the better public comity for gun control in the margins. Unloaded guns in locked containers merely being transported out of the city seems like an obvious entry point we can agree on (or can we in this forum lol?) The sensible next steps is to challenge gun laws on concealed carry permits that first ask the petitioner to prove he or she has good cause to need one. The right to bear arms is not subject to proving somebody's out to get you. Yeah, i guess all the bullshit to steal justices to stack the courts with hardcore conservatives paid off in the end. You get to keep on murdering each other forever, and it will be made even more easy for you to do so. I hope you are happy. It just seems so absurd that this is something that you view as a good thing. At this point, i kinda just wish there was a way to put all the US conservatives into the hellscape they love to create for themselves and let them be happy there, but keep them from hurting all the other people in the country. Just have a no healthcare, all guns, all coal, all corruption confederate state with a wall around it in the south, and a reasonable state in the north. In the next 20 or 30 years, we'll see if a peaceful separation is the only way to make society work with such opposite views. Keep your hellscape confederacy memes, I'll keep my rights, thank you very much. How is your 'right' to have a gun infringed when there are regulations in place to ensure crazy or criminals do not? Is there something about you we should know about? Or are you just rabidly paranoid and assuming that once regulations come in, seizure is imminent?
Don't talk with him. He honestly believes that the right of a shooter in a mass shooting to have ease of access to the guns he used in a mass shooting is greater than the right of people shot in a mass shooting to not be shot. There's no conversation to be had with that opinion.
|
On March 16 2019 01:35 Gzerble wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2019 02:29 Dazed. wrote:On January 30 2019 00:31 Danglars wrote:On January 29 2019 22:52 Simberto wrote:On January 29 2019 13:17 Danglars wrote:Good news (from my gun rights perspective) for America: A couple good cases are before the Supreme Court on bad gun laws. With the Supreme Court now having five justices who are less likely to approve of gun regulations and laws, it granted a major gun case Tuesday for the first time in nearly a decade.
The court granted a right-to-carry case out of New York that pits the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association against the City of New York. New York bans transporting permitted handguns outside city lines, even if the gun is not loaded and is locked in a container. The guns currently can only be taken to the handful of shooting ranges within city limits.
The case could have wide ramifications for gun rights and gun restrictions across the country, depending on how broadly the court rules.
Conservative justices have been champing at the bit to take up gun rights cases. Justice Clarence Thomas in 2014, for example, criticized the court for not taking up more gun cases, calling it a "disfavored" right.
"The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court's constitutional orphan," Thomas wrote.
With a newfound majority after the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, conservatives may have their chance to make a broad ruling, holding, for example, that the right to own a gun means the right to carry one, or it could rule more narrowly, saying New York's law is overly restrictive or something in between. NPR (also, Scotusblog Case Hub) This is a big chance for the Supreme Court to affirm American citizen's "bear arms" rights, and make the defense of such rights stand among the other important Bill of Rights amendments like the first amendment. The second amendment has been a "constitutional orphan" and "second-class right" for far too long. This is one step back in the right direction. The more secure Americans can feel in their second amendment rights, the better public comity for gun control in the margins. Unloaded guns in locked containers merely being transported out of the city seems like an obvious entry point we can agree on (or can we in this forum lol?) The sensible next steps is to challenge gun laws on concealed carry permits that first ask the petitioner to prove he or she has good cause to need one. The right to bear arms is not subject to proving somebody's out to get you. Yeah, i guess all the bullshit to steal justices to stack the courts with hardcore conservatives paid off in the end. You get to keep on murdering each other forever, and it will be made even more easy for you to do so. I hope you are happy. It just seems so absurd that this is something that you view as a good thing. At this point, i kinda just wish there was a way to put all the US conservatives into the hellscape they love to create for themselves and let them be happy there, but keep them from hurting all the other people in the country. Just have a no healthcare, all guns, all coal, all corruption confederate state with a wall around it in the south, and a reasonable state in the north. In the next 20 or 30 years, we'll see if a peaceful separation is the only way to make society work with such opposite views. Keep your hellscape confederacy memes, I'll keep my rights, thank you very much. How is your 'right' to have a gun infringed when there are regulations in place to ensure crazy or criminals do not? Is there something about you we should know about? Or are you just rabidly paranoid and assuming that once regulations come in, seizure is imminent? Don't talk with him. He honestly believes that the right of a shooter in a mass shooting to have ease of access to the guns he used in a mass shooting is greater than the right of people shot in a mass shooting to not be shot. There's no conversation to be had with that opinion.
The post you just quoted is a month and a half old, and you're making a ridiculous assumption about his beliefs on the matter. Why did you even post here?
|
I woke up at 4 am, checked cricinfo.com and saw a headline for the shooting. I go back to sleep, wake up a few hours later and see it being posted about by everyone. All I could think was "wait this is newsworthy"? "People are shocked by this, surprised that it happened"? Radicalization isnt happening on the fringes, the instigators are as mainstream as they come. When so many government members around the world spew hate and bigotry, what else can be expected of our citizens? Muslims, don't take this as an opportunity to invite pity, recognize what is happening and what we are doing wrong and fix it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
