and the times' last front-page editorial (inveighing against the nomination of warren g. harding for president) was so seismically effective!
― rushomancy, Saturday, 5 December 2015 13:47 (eight years ago) link
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/12/gun-activists-are-planning-stage-mock-mass-shooting
Gun rights activists in Texas are planning to stage a mock mass shooting at the University of Texas this weekend in protest of both gun-free zones and President Barack Obama's continued calls for tougher gun control legislation.According to the website Statesman, gun rights supporters will begin the day by marching through Austin with loaded weapons and conclude their walk with a "theatrical performance."A spokesman for the two participating gun rights groups, Come and Take It Texas and DontComply.com, told the site the event will involve using fake blood and bullhorns to mimic gun shot noises.
According to the website Statesman, gun rights supporters will begin the day by marching through Austin with loaded weapons and conclude their walk with a "theatrical performance."
A spokesman for the two participating gun rights groups, Come and Take It Texas and DontComply.com, told the site the event will involve using fake blood and bullhorns to mimic gun shot noises.
― j., Wednesday, 9 December 2015 21:00 (eight years ago) link
what could possibly go wrong
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 9 December 2015 21:02 (eight years ago) link
lol exactly what my facebork source said
― j., Wednesday, 9 December 2015 21:03 (eight years ago) link
wait, is the the mock mass shooting to be mock stopped by mock heroes?
― denies the existence of dark matter (difficult listening hour), Wednesday, 9 December 2015 21:05 (eight years ago) link
doesn't say but i guess that would be the 'most sensible' thing???
― j., Wednesday, 9 December 2015 21:07 (eight years ago) link
y'know if I was planning a mass shooting in Texas and was having trouble deciding on a venue...
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 9 December 2015 21:07 (eight years ago) link
bush-cheney family christmas gathering?
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 9 December 2015 21:09 (eight years ago) link
hey now, I'm not lookin to get shot in the face
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 9 December 2015 21:16 (eight years ago) link
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/12/13/3731412/mock-mass-shooting-by-pro-gun-advocates-drowned-out-by-farts/
― j., Sunday, 13 December 2015 18:56 (eight years ago) link
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/11583034/story.html?__lsa=ac17-42c5
this vigilante law enforcement shit is why I fear gun ownership. this lady's response to being sentenced is gross too.
guns are for self-defense, not vigilante law enforcement!
― Neanderthal, Monday, 14 December 2015 14:54 (eight years ago) link
guns are for shooting people
― k3vin k., Monday, 14 December 2015 15:24 (eight years ago) link
well, yes, and I guess that's the problem. giving itchy-triggered finger civilians the right to decide when shooting at people is appropriate.
― Hammer Smashed Bagels, Monday, 14 December 2015 15:26 (eight years ago) link
buns are for pooting people.
― how's life, Monday, 14 December 2015 15:29 (eight years ago) link
farts, not guns
― Hammer Smashed Bagels, Monday, 14 December 2015 15:29 (eight years ago) link
Saying "Guns are for self-defense" is like saying "Landmines around my house are for self-defense", in that it requires a very narrow construal of self-defense, & a willingness to regard the unintended harmful consequences of one's choices as unforseeable & unavoidable accidents, rather than predictable probabilities to whose weights should be factored into the process of making decisions about the best way to protect oneself & one's family, community, etc
― bernard snowy, Monday, 14 December 2015 16:04 (eight years ago) link
I'm anti-gun btw. was just pointing out that she was irresponsible in using the gun in that scenario in that she was shooting at criminals that didn't put her in harm's way in an attempt to 'help' somebody that didn't ask for it, in a scenario that was solved without her help days later anyway.
the claim that they didn't know civilians were in the area is kinda hilarious. they tend to be in shopping centers, that's how commerce works.
― Hammer Smashed Bagels, Monday, 14 December 2015 16:11 (eight years ago) link
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/11583034/story.html?__lsa=ac17-42c5this vigilante law enforcement shit is why I fear gun ownership. this lady's response to being sentenced is gross too.guns are for self-defense, not vigilante law enforcement!― Neanderthal, Monday, December 14, 2015 8:54 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― Neanderthal, Monday, December 14, 2015 8:54 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
this person should go to prison for attempted murder IMO
― wizzz! (amateurist), Monday, 14 December 2015 17:34 (eight years ago) link
promising development: http://www.sfgate.com/local/article/Sandy-Hook-suit-against-gunmakers-lives-7248610.php
― Οὖτις, Thursday, 14 April 2016 19:04 (eight years ago) link
I kind of hate Newsom but stopped clock etc.
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Strict-state-gun-control-measure-close-to-making-7382147.php
― Οὖτις, Friday, 29 April 2016 16:59 (eight years ago) link
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court says people do not have a right to carry concealed weapons in public under the 2nd Amendment.An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling Thursday.The panel says law enforcement officials can require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to show they are in immediate danger or otherwise have a good reason for a permit beyond self-defense.The decision overturned a 2014 ruling by a smaller 9th Circuit panel.
An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling Thursday.
The panel says law enforcement officials can require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to show they are in immediate danger or otherwise have a good reason for a permit beyond self-defense.
The decision overturned a 2014 ruling by a smaller 9th Circuit panel.
Opinion here as a PDF: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2016/06/09/10-56971%206-9%20EB%20opinion%20plus%20webcites.pdf
― a 47-year-old chainsaw artist from South Carolina (Phil D.), Thursday, 9 June 2016 17:59 (seven years ago) link
oh wow
― STOP KILLING ANIMALS, THEY'RE MINT (DJP), Thursday, 9 June 2016 18:16 (seven years ago) link
damn straight
― the world over the crotch. (contenderizer), Thursday, 9 June 2016 18:22 (seven years ago) link
what are the ramifications of this (assuming it is upheld on appeal)?
― Mordy, Thursday, 9 June 2016 18:23 (seven years ago) link
NRA kills everyone
― ejemplo (crüt), Thursday, 9 June 2016 18:25 (seven years ago) link
Only appeal is to SCOTUS. We all know how the SCOTUS stands these days, with 8 justices, frequent 4-4 splits and the next president to fill the vacant seat. Odds are mighty good atm that any appeal would not overturn!
― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Thursday, 9 June 2016 18:29 (seven years ago) link
Hard to say. The opinion notes that the 2A may or may not protect a general right to carry openly in public but that that wasn't the question before them and that Heller did not go that far.
― a 47-year-old chainsaw artist from South Carolina (Phil D.), Thursday, 9 June 2016 18:29 (seven years ago) link
that was an xp to Mordy.
― a 47-year-old chainsaw artist from South Carolina (Phil D.), Thursday, 9 June 2016 18:30 (seven years ago) link
― Mordy, Thursday, June 9, 2016 1:23 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
I don't think they're that significant, necessarily, except in the sense of maybe halting or slowing a further progression toward expanded gun rights.
But first of all Supreme Court appeals are not as of right, they have to take cert (i.e. you have to petition them to take the case and they have to decide to hear it). When they don't hear a case, the decision stands as the law within that circuit but doesn't bind other circuits.
If the Supreme Court takes cert and holds that the decision is broadly correct, it looks like that would simply mean that things remain as they are, i.e. states are permitted to have laws restricting or banning concealed carry of firearms. There's only a real change in the state of things if (1) the Supreme Court takes cert AND (2) the Supreme Court reverses and holds that concealed carry bans or restrictions somehow violate the second amendment (or that they do in certain circumstances).
I think that's correct, anyway, I didn't do a careful read of the opinion or survey other recent cases.
― socka flocka-jones (man alive), Thursday, 9 June 2016 18:32 (seven years ago) link
Are there circuits that have held that concealed carry restrictions are unconstitutional? There's usually a much greater chance of cert being taken if there is a "circuit split," i.e. a conflict in the interpretation of law between two circuits.
― socka flocka-jones (man alive), Thursday, 9 June 2016 18:33 (seven years ago) link
yeah this is good but I'm not sure it's a big deal
― Οὖτις, Thursday, 9 June 2016 18:33 (seven years ago) link
xps There are dozens of states that would never dream of limiting concealed carry, or letting cities within that state limit cc either. Still, it is a rare loss for the NRA.
― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Thursday, 9 June 2016 18:34 (seven years ago) link
Of course there are, but this decision has no impact on those states. The NRA only "lost" inasmuch as it didn't gain.
― socka flocka-jones (man alive), Thursday, 9 June 2016 18:37 (seven years ago) link
I guess it's good inasmuch as *maybe* it will discourage challenges in other circuits. But I doubt it, especially since the 9th is on the liberal end.
― socka flocka-jones (man alive), Thursday, 9 June 2016 19:02 (seven years ago) link
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/06/11/the-voice-singer-christina-grimmie-is-critical-condition-after-gunmans-attack/?utm_term=.cc82559be512
― Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 11 June 2016 14:52 (seven years ago) link
article limits are why people don't bother to read news outside of facebook anymore
― Nhex, Sunday, 12 June 2016 00:06 (seven years ago) link
Ugh, sorry about that. Heard about this from my daughter. Some finalist from some season of the Voice reportedly shot dead at a fan meet and greet by a dude packing multiple weapons.
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 12 June 2016 02:13 (seven years ago) link
not blaming you, just the dying media
― Nhex, Sunday, 12 June 2016 02:39 (seven years ago) link
hurry up on this imo
― nomar, Sunday, 12 June 2016 12:46 (seven years ago) link
Bump
― Οὖτις, Sunday, 12 June 2016 13:20 (seven years ago) link
nra terrorists kill another fifty. fuck guns so much.
― wmlynch, Sunday, 12 June 2016 17:59 (seven years ago) link
Or, you know, you could just do what Bernie Sanders doesn't want to do and put the industry out of business
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-gun-control_us_56dcea34e4b0000de405063a
― normcore strengthening exercises (benbbag), Sunday, 12 June 2016 18:01 (seven years ago) link
shut the fuck up
― Neanderthal, Sunday, 12 June 2016 18:07 (seven years ago) link
eat my ass
― normcore strengthening exercises (benbbag), Sunday, 12 June 2016 18:07 (seven years ago) link
But don't let me stop you from trying to accomplish something that will never happen in the alternative to something that could
― normcore strengthening exercises (benbbag), Sunday, 12 June 2016 18:11 (seven years ago) link
Stay classy, gun owners of Facebook...
https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13442118_1060458774037036_5720019541464103867_n.jpg?oh=30dd73984cae0c6f686c7c33bfa22b88&oe=57CABD48
― Now I Know How Joan of Arcadia Felt (C. Grisso/McCain), Sunday, 12 June 2016 19:08 (seven years ago) link
that is genuinely fucking sickening
― Trump is dong (bizarro gazzara), Sunday, 12 June 2016 19:11 (seven years ago) link
no more sickening than "gun rights" themselves, but yeah.
― wizzz! (amateurist), Sunday, 12 June 2016 19:12 (seven years ago) link
might be time to institute a reading comprehension test in order to vote. our "conservative" friends can never seem to understand that "well-regulated militia" part of the second amendment, even though it starts the whole thing, no matter what anyone tells them
― reggie (qualmsley), Sunday, 12 June 2016 19:13 (seven years ago) link
that's a really dumb idea, and it wouldn't work the way you want it to anyway
― wizzz! (amateurist), Sunday, 12 June 2016 19:15 (seven years ago) link