U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut ruled that banning large capacity magazines and requiring a permit to purchase a gun falls in line with “the nation’s history and tradition of regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety,” Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.
They are going to have a hard time proving magazine capacity limits have historical precedent on appeal. Such gun control was only implemented within the last few decades.
Well, older than that. Gun control are the last of the Jim Crow laws. Its why you have to pay giant tax stamps and get permits and all, its to keep minorities from arming themselves.
We can keep going if you want more links and maybe a peer-reviewed study. Any form of limiting firearms is rooted in racism to restrict minorities from having agency in their communities.
@JustZ how the fuck are you a lawyer and never understood the history of firearm legislation? Nepotism sounds likely.
The judge is dumb because I, an idiot, can not read anywhere in the U.S. Constitution where it says the Second Amendment was written with self-defense in mind.
It literally only says that everyone can own a firearm because a militia (an organization that exists outside of the military or law enforcement institutions, but answers to a state governor) is necessary to maintain a free country protected from any threats to the country.
And a militia can't exist without regular people being able to own guns, so they can train with them, hence where it says "well regulated militia": meaning in good working order. You can't have a militia in good working order without being able to train with your firearm.
It almost seems like a trap, they are all but saying “please stop protesting we can’t take it any more”, a protest becomes a coup/revolution if the authorities refuse to concede to the demands and are overwhelmed by the protesters
If only that someone had won the popular vote over 20 years ago leaving the deciding electoral votes to Florida with the narrowest of margins (hundreds of votes, by the certified count) giving it the ability to choose its own fate in a historically close election.
The number one alternate timeline I’d like to see is if Gore had become president in 2000. Even more than if the Nazis had won WWII or if Caesar hadn’t gone to the senate that day.
(I’d also like to see the world if the spanish armada had taken a different course back in 1588 and avoided that typhoon though…)
It’s a very commonly cited example of alternate history. I’m surprised you’ve never heard that before. There’s been multiple books written and there’s a show on Netflix called man in the high castle, all of them exploring this topic.
To answer the question, it would be interesting to see how it played out. How long would they maintain control over the US and Allies? What would resistance look like? How long would hitlers regime have lasted before being deposed? How long before collapsing under its own weight? What would the entire Cold War era have looked like, assuming the soviets lost too, and what would THEIR resistance look like? How would technology have developed without a Cold War driven space race?
Obviously it would’ve been a catastrophe but it’s fascinating concept to speculate about.
Ahh your phrasing made me think you meant you’d want to physically see that world, I was just tired and it was right after your Al Gore what if so I got confused haha
If I’m purchasing something exciting like a new game console or piece of tech, and it’s available at best buy, I’ll do their in store pickup since they usually have it ready within an hour. Way better than anxiously waiting for it to be delivered in one to three days. Anything else that’s not exiting, I’m not too concerned about waiting for shipping.
No, it’s the same incident but it was another guy called Vernon Unsworth, I think he was the head of the operation whereas the one in the article was “just” one of the guys on the team providing medical aid.
I’m also glad that the article does not mention Musk and his whole stupid PR stunt at all but instead focuses on the people actually involved.
Five years ago does not sound right to me at all, but I looked it up and apparently it was in 2018, so I guess it has been five years after all. Total mandela effect moment for me.
People protesting and then certain groups “joining” them and burning cars and breaking windows requires a police presence.
Stop burning shit.
And yeah it won’t stop the protest from happening just because the French authorities banned the protest. Probably a few people will get arrested though.
Yes I have and that was basically the point of my comment.
It isn’t the protestors burning shit it’s other bad actors. But whether it’s the protestors burning stuff or the other bad actors is really irrelevant. Either way stuff is getting damaged so there needs to be a police presence.
It’s such a common maneuver when you want to undermine a person or a movement’s legitimacy that we even gave it a name.
In the United States MLK talked about this in so many words. He described perfectly how many people will say that they agree with your goals but not with your methods. And if you were to ask what their methods are, it would involve waiting. The problem with that is that waiting doesn’t fix anything.
Oh, that’s an easy one. You framed the problem wrong. When you decided to talk about the problem in terms of the protests, you decided that the actual problem was not important. So that was basically irresponsible.
And the outcome of your framing decision is anti-democratic. If the only thing we look at is the protest, then it’s easy for people to say and believe that a fringe element of looters or rioters is unavoidable, and therefore either the police should have more power to deal with protesters or protests themselves ought to be canceled.
It’s certainly possible to discuss protests and avoid the above pitfalls, but it definitely requires careful consideration.
It is entirely possible to talk about who is burning shit and care about the protests and care about the protestors and care about the businesses that are being destroyed. Just because I didn’t mention every single one of those things in a comment doesn’t mean I don’t care about them.
Please do try to mention them anyway, because not doing so comes across as callousness, regardless of how you actually feel about it.
Your argument is a valid viewpoint - you want positive change for the people protesting, but you want it without any of the wanton violence or burning that goes along with rioting; correct?
However, it is also true that you were: (1) placing the onus of non-violence on the people who were wronged, and protesting here. (2) assuming there was some way for the people protesting, to seperate themselves from the bad actors who engage in these riots with the sole purpose of destroying and looting shit. (3) assuming that there are other easily available methods were the masses could change the system they’re in without any of the rioting. (4) assuming that the powers that be (legislative bodies/lawmakers/policy builders) willingly engage in these methods in good faith, for which history already has plenty of counter-examples.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.