There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Snowclone ,

I guess I gotta appreciate that these people are so incompetent.

Zink ,

Same, but it’s also troubling because it suggests how easy all this underhanded shit must be for the bad actors with half a brain that know how to shut the fuck up and quietly enjoy their ill-gotten gains.

JimSamtanko ,

This shit is going on and yet there’s STILL people whining and suggesting no one vote.

It blows my mind.

Passerby6497 ,

Stone and a significant portion of those people are on the same side. A larger amount are useful idiots who prefer to moralize about what should be instead of doing the base amount to prevent more of the harm they profess to care about.

militaryintelligence ,

Why does trump and his cronies look all weird and creepy

JimSamtanko ,

Because they are.

Honytawk ,

The dark magic they dabble in has its cost.

Sam_Bass ,

The jailcells gonna be crowded with all the reservations these criminals are laying out

BradleyUffner ,

It’s been 4 years. How’s that working out so far?

Sam_Bass ,

Rather blandly

slickgoat ,

The Republicans get away with so much despicable action and each time the Dems get pants by the audacity of the attempt. That’s how we are here now.

The conservatives will try absolutely anything, up to and including armed insurrection. Now with AR15s, and probably with bumpstocks fitted.

Don’t think that it could never happen. The MAGA element love being underestimated.

foggy ,

Just be aware that our military is here to protect the constitution.

Meal team 6 ain’t about that life. Not even their Dale Gribbliest. It’s going to be a horrible mistake. Fool me once…

slickgoat ,

I guess my point is not that they’ll necessarily be successful, it’s more that a great many good people won’t go home to their families that night.

They weren’t successful last time and the Republican Congress welcomed the traitor-in-chief back to DC last week as a hero.

DontMakeMoreBabies ,

If that’s what it takes to remind these inbreds they lost for another hundred years then so be it.

Snowflake ,

Are they good people if they’re taking part in an armed insurrection? What do they think will happen going against the government like that? The government will drop soap bubbles on them? I mean come on how low IQ are they now? I’ve heard we have gay bombs maybe we have straight bombs we can drop on them because they like the orange man a little too much.

slickgoat ,

I’m not calling the insurrectionists good people, I’m calling the defenders of the constitution who might catch an AR 15 round good people.

ouRKaoS ,

I think they’d be more afraid of the gay bombs

JasonDJ ,

I’m of the opinion they aren’t all bad people, just easily mislead and taken advantage of. These people honestly think they are on the right side of history.

suction ,

I just wish if they try something again that we annihilate them all from above like those drone videos. Bump stocks my ass, just turn them into dust. Nothing of value will be lost.

Hathaway ,

So, I work in a gun store(part time), if you think bump stocks are unethical, look up(or don’t) a binary trigger. Those, as far as I know, have never been banned, and are far more effective when it comes to trying to attempt to increase fire rate.

To be honest, a lot of gun legislation is really ineffective. The amount of loopholes etc, are kinda insane. If we’re going to talk about gun legislation, it needs to be a helluva lot more than a part ban on “assault style” firearms, until then, it’s just pandering for votes imo.

(Please don’t assume I am a crazy arsenal wielding person. I actually don’t own any firearms at this moment despite my part time occupation.)

slickgoat , (edited )

I actually looked up the legalisation one time. Congress described a machine gun and gave all the definitions that were forbidden to alter it to make it automatic fire. It was pretty comprehensive, particularly given that it was written in the 80s. However this supreme court said that the magic words ‘bump stock’ wasn’t in the legalisation. Words that didn’t even exist until 2003, or thereabouts. The court ignored the legislative text completely.

And I don’t believe that you are a gun nut at all. You seem perfectly reasonable and make a good point.

commandar , (edited )

However this supreme court said that the magic words ‘bump stock’ wasn’t in the legalisation. Words that didn’t even exist until 2003, or thereabouts. The court ignored the legislative text completely.

This is the text of the NFA that has defined what is a machine gun since 1934:

The term “machine gun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

I’m not a fan of this SCOTUS, but the bump stock ruling was inline with decades of jurisprudence on the topic and the final opinion was fairly unsurprising as a result. It was honestly less of a gun law ruling and more of an executive regulatory procedure one.

A bump stock does not function by a single action of the trigger and does not meet the statutory definition as a result. The ATF rule banning them got struck down because Congress hadn’t authorized the ATF to regulate machine guns beyond that specific statutory definition.

Bump stocks are no more a machine gun than a Gatling gun is under the definition that has existed for nearly a century, and the legal status of the latter has been extremely clear for a very, very long time.

If the goal is to treat them as a regulated item, then Congress needs to pass legislation with language that covers them because saying it was already there is simply incorrect. There is a specificity to the language of the NFA that doesn’t cover any number of mechanisms. It’s been a deficiency of the law since 1934.

If you want to fix that, that first requires understanding exactly what needs fixing.

slickgoat ,

That excellent quote of the text you provided spells out that any modifications to a gun that allows any more than a single shot is to be prohibited. A court that is very big on textual meaning, as it purports to be, would readily agree, unless bias is in the driver’s seat.

This conservative supreme court despised regulatory agencies . For decades the US government has relied upon such agencies as subject experts and has allowed them to regulate their areas. This court just wants to reverse this common sense and established way of doing things. I might remind you that the bump stock thing wasn’t a democrat initiative, but a bipartisan Trump one.

commandar , (edited )

That excellent quote of the text you provided spells out that any modifications to a gun that allows any more than a single shot is to be prohibited.

Incorrect.

It prohibits any conversion to a machine gun. The previous sentence has just defined a machine gun. The “by a single function of the trigger” language is what’s critical to this case and you’re completely ignoring it. When reading laws, you use words however they’re explicitly defined if a definition is provided, not how you think they should be defined or would be used in common speech.

Like I said, Gatling guns are pretty highly analogous. They produce what most people would consider automatic fire. They’ve also consistently been ruled to not meet the definition of a machine gun going back to at least the 1950s because they don’t meet that single function of the trigger requirement.

The solution is to change the text of the law.

Hathaway ,

However, many states do restrict this. Like mine thankfully. Crank operated firearms, like a Gatling gun, is legal though however federally. Which, yes, scratches the surface of my issues with gun legislation. Don’t get me started on short barreled rifles vs “pistol”.

Croquette ,

For a non-american, non-knowledgeable on gun person, I’ve seen the bump stock discussion a few times this week.

Why is it a discussion? What difference does a bumpstock do?

d00phy ,

While many in the US have one or more gun, I would argue most were unaware of bump stocks until the 2017 Las Vegas Shooting. TL;DR, a bump stock uses the recoil of the rifle as a “spring” to help pull the trigger over and over again - effectively behaving like a “machine gun.” As already stated, it does not meet the US legal definition of a machine gun because you’re still firing one round per trigger pull. The bump stock basically makes the trigger pull automatic.

As for why it’s a big debate, read the wiki article. One guy killed A LOT of people pretty quickly using this device to greatly increase his rate of fire. It was a public eye opener for much of the country. So much so, that even Donald f’ing Trump came to the realization that something should be don. He didn’t even really get much push back on it from the right or the NRA. That’s how sobering the massacre was. That said, it happened long enough ago that it’s memory probably isn’t powerful enough for anyone to change the law to ban them and similar mechanisms (see: the binary trigger elsewhere in the comments). If they tried banning them today, the NRA and conservatives would fight it tooth and nail.

Croquette ,

Thanks for the context and explanation. It is appreciated.

Schadrach ,

A bump stock does not function by a single action of the trigger and does not meet the statutory definition as a result. The ATF rule banning them got struck down because Congress hadn’t authorized the ATF to regulate machine guns beyond that specific statutory definition.

They had several cases along these lines involving several agencies, and I feel like people don’t understand the underlying legal idea - rule making power belongs to Congress. Federal agencies under the executive branch that have rule making powers receive those powers by Congress delegating it to them in a limited fashion through legislation. Those powers extend only so far as the passed legislation delegates them and no further. Even in cases where it seems like it would be useful, or the name of the agency suggests it would be something in their sphere of influence.

commandar ,

They had several cases along these lines involving several agencies, and I feel like people don’t understand the underlying legal idea - rule making power belongs to Congress. Federal agencies under the executive branch that have rule making powers receive those powers by Congress delegating it to them in a limited fashion through legislation.

Nitpick: rule making power does belong to executive agencies (at least until this SCOTUS decides to reverse Chevron deference). Law-making power resides solely with Congress.

What this means, as you suggest, is that Congress sets up statutory bounds within law, then the responsible executive agencies create rules interpreting them and defining how they’ll be enforced. Where cases like this one go wrong is when the agency oversteps the bounds of the law as passed by Congress. At that point, the agency has engaged in creating new law rather than rules, which is why the courts swat them down.

I agree with your overall gist, just feel that’s an important distinction to understand the situation.

Schadrach ,

However this supreme court said that the magic words ‘bump stock’ wasn’t in the legalisation.

A bump stock doesn’t make a gun automatic fire, therefore a prohibition on modifications to make a gun automatic fire does not include it. It’s a basic “the law says what it says, you don’t get to add things you don’t like and call them close enough” argument. It’s not about the words “bump stock”, but that the law prohibits modifications to make a gun automatic and a bump stock does not make a gun automatic, it merely makes a method for firing a semiautomatic gun faster easier to achieve.

Bump firing is basically using the recoil from a shot to bounce your finger off the trigger and then pull the trigger again, which increases the rate of fire. It’s even less accurate than automatic fire (because of the way the gun has to literally bounce around), and not quite as fast (but pretty close). You can do it without a bump stock, but it’s easier to achieve, more accurate and more comfortable to do with one. The fact that when bump firing you only fire a single round for each function of the trigger makes it not automatic by definition.

The binary triggers mentioned earlier in the thread are basically triggers that will fire both when the trigger is pulled and when it is released, which hypothetically doubles the firing rate of a semiautomatic weapon by not requiring you to release the trigger and pull it again to fire another round. Binary triggers basically come down to an argument of what counts as an “function of the trigger” and whether both pulling and releasing the trigger can count as separate functions of the trigger - if they can then it’s not automatic, if they cannot then it is.

slickgoat ,

So much twaddle and dancing around definitions. You could definitely qualify for a spot on Trump’s Supreme Court.

All they are a modification to turn a semiautomatic gun into a full automatic weapon. That’s it. All the intricate dribble into the contrary doesn’t change that. Water is wet, sky blue, and modifications allowing automatic fire are machine guns.

Schadrach ,

All they are a modification to turn a semiautomatic gun into a full automatic weapon.

They don’t though. And I went into great detail as to what exactly they do and how it works to explain why they don’t do that.

An automatic weapon fires more than once per operation of the trigger by definition. Any gun that fires once per operation of the trigger is not automatic by definition.

A bump stock doesn’t change that, it makes it easier and more accurate to bump.fire, which is basically using the recoil to bounce your finger off the trigger and back onto it to pull it faster than you otherwise would.

With practice you can bump fire with a regular stock, that doesn’t mean all semiautomatic weapons are actually automatic.

Like the binary trigger thing - eventually that will be challenged in the courts and the argument won’t be over whether or not the words binary trigger are in the law, but whether or not lifting your finger off the trigger counts as a second operation of the trigger or as part of the previous one because that is what would determine if it fires one or two shots per operation of the trigger and thus whether or not it’s legally automatic and whether or not it is controlled as an automatic weapon.

The law doesn’t say what you wish it said, and it isn’t exactly vague.

slickgoat ,

You went into a ton of detail, thank you. But it is meaningless under the original definition of the act.

“The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.”

A bump stock modifies the frame of the gun which converts it into a fully automatic weapon. Don’t just get stuck on the trigger part of the action. The act covers everything, you just can’t cherry pick a single clause and ignore everything else. Otherwise they just might make you into one of Trump’s Supreme Court justices.

Schadrach ,

No, it doesn’t. That’s what I’m getting at. Look at how they define a machine gun in the act. It requires that the gun fire more than once per operation of the trigger (this is also what it means for a firearm to be automatic). A bump stock facilitates operating the trigger again more quickly, but does not fire more then once per operation of the trigger.

You’re not looking at the definition used in the law but deciding that anything that lets you shoot faster counts.

SpaceCowboy ,
@SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca avatar

I tend to agree. There’s already too many firearms out there (more guns than people) so it won’t be all that effective in the short term.

But I think it’s more of a thing that will take generations for there to be a change. And yeah it’s pandering for votes, but it’s also about opening up conversation, which is a step in the direction of a cultural change. A cultural shift away from buying guns for paranoid reasons about protection from “those people” back towards guns being used for hobbies like hunting and target shooting won’t be easy to accomplish. But gotta start somewhere.

Zink ,

…so who is going to break the news to all the gun nuts using non-binary triggers?

Facebones ,

Democrats like to bitch about Republicans but their platforms are 95% the same. The real enemy is leftists, and they’ll take Trump for 4 terms before they ever give an inch to the left.

samus12345 ,
@samus12345@lemmy.world avatar

their platforms are 95% the same.

Economically, yes, but socially, no. That social part matters quite a bit.

Facebones ,

Ehhhhh it matters less than dems want us to think. Social policy doesn’t matter if nobody can make endsmeat. The social policy of dems is just the other wing of our singular corporate party providing the illusion of choice.

Christofascism or fascism with a pride flag, either way we funnel more of our wealth to the 1% and further disenfranchise everybody else.

irreticent ,
@irreticent@lemmy.world avatar

fascism with a pride flag

Wait, what? I’ve never heard anyone claim that those are in in way similar before. That’s a new one for me.

Facebones ,

My point is that democrat voters are rewarding D politicians for pushing and enacting the very fascist legislation they claim to be protecting us from - because apparently fascism is fine so long as they pay lip service to the lgbtqia community.

beetlejuice0001 ,

Can you tell me what legislation by dems are fascist?

irreticent ,
@irreticent@lemmy.world avatar

crickets chirping

IEatAsbestos ,

I agree that both sides are just funneling money into wall street and dont care about the average person, but what do you mean by fasciam with a pride flag? The right has been actively undermining freedoms for 8+ years now. At least 8 years in plain view. What has “the left” even done to resemble any kind of fascism in your eyes?

I used quotes there because i feel its important to keep it clear that the american left in main stage politics is much closer to a center, right leaning party on a grander scale.

Facebones ,

Democrats are working on half the shit they claim to be protecting us from as we speak. Your first mistake is seeing Democrats as “left” even with quotes. Democrats are mid right to the Republicans far right.

By “fascism with a pride flag” I mean they’re pushing a lot of the policies they said we have to vote D to prevent, and their blue MAGA accepts and defends it because apparently fascism is perfectly fine so long as we pay lip service to gays.

(To be clear, I’m super ongoing with lgbtqia rights, but democrats are already wishy washy on trans rights and will go after gays soon enough so long as we keep rewarding them for sprinting further right.)

IEatAsbestos , (edited )

Did you read the second point i made? I quite literally said that the dems are center right. Anyways, i havent heard of dems authoring or pushing fascist legislation. I have heard of and live through the dems doing fuck all about it though, so my point of view is that i have 2 options. Fascists that push money to wall street, and do-nothings that push money to wall street. If its my only option ill take it. But fuck biden.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

Social policies have only been made to matter to create an illusion of two parties. In 1973 Republican and Democratic voters were equally likely to say abortion should be legal.

The US is a corporatocracy and business cares nothing about social matters. Their lobbying efforts fund both sides to ensure that the economic laws meet big business goals no matter who wins.

slickgoat ,

I disagree with the accuracy of what you just said, but 100% agree with your sentiments.

HurlingDurling ,
@HurlingDurling@lemmy.world avatar

I honestly sometimes think that the democrats (at least some) think like this but are in the closet, other times I think their non-action to the republicans shit actions are just part of the overall plan.

afraid_of_zombies ,

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/9a2a5384-e925-49c2-8956-f4a875aaafb9.jpeg

Stone looks like the bad guy from Star Trek: Generations on a prosperity gospel infomercial trying to sell you on a scam.

CulturedLout ,

It looks like he’s wearing a rubber mask. It’s unsettling.

afraid_of_zombies ,

It’s Botox+surgery+concealer, right?

BilboBargains ,

Stodger Rone

LaunchesKayaks ,
@LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world avatar

Bro looks like he’s a decrepit dollar store ken doll

afraid_of_zombies ,

When I get old I am just going to look old.

LaunchesKayaks ,
@LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world avatar

Same, though my hand already look old because my joints are all fucked up lmao. Almost 27 and I have old lady hands

mPony ,

have you considered learning to play Canasta

Hikermick ,

Same thing happened with Bannon before the 2020 election. It won’t make a difference to the cult

fukurthumz420 ,

i’m pretty sure that historians will look back on this and agree that a wholesale slaughter of conservatives would have been the best course of action.

skulblaka ,
@skulblaka@startrek.website avatar

Man, the ballots aren’t even printed yet and they’re already planning their “Nuh-uh!!!” for when they lose. Truly, this is the strength and fortitude you expect out of your fascist leaders. Very strong and confident.

bloodfart ,

Duh.

It’s astounding to me that a second January sixth isn’t at the top of people’s minds this go round.

Not because it’ll be successful (although there’s always a chance) but because we already have elected officials who believe that trump won the 2020 election and there will only be more this time around.

What’s the long term effect of legitimizing disbelief in a functioning democracy? America never was one, but what does it mean when there’s double or triple digit numbers of elected officials who publicly say so?

The usual explanation for distrust in government has nothing to do with people recognizing reality and changing their views based on it but instead blames that change on lack of bread and circuses, no basics of life and no distraction from reality.

We certainly don’t have the basics of life, but the distraction machine is running like a champ slaps hood you could fit like seven more dissociative technologies in this sucker!

What combination of lack of basic necessities and distractions are driving people’s belief (true or false!) that the election was stolen and that our fake democracy is actually fake?

beetlejuice0001 ,

Lack of critical thinking combined with echo chambers of manufactured propaganda 24/7

NutWrench ,
@NutWrench@lemmy.world avatar

The only good news is that if they try to storm the Capitol again, they’re not going to have Trump and his “acting” Secretary of Defense giving them cover this time.

Those troops are going to be loaded for bear.

bloodfart ,

that’s not good news though.

seeing americans get blasted by either the national guard or capitol police isn’t gonna build trust in the fake american democracy.

seeing that one woman get shot in a situation where she presented no threat at all was bad enough.

Soulg ,

She shouldn’t have been forcefully attempting to enter a restricted area while having guns actively pointed at her while being told to stop, then.

bloodfart ,

the state justifies its actions. i’m not asking if the justifications are accurate or not, but what the outcomes of those actions are with regards to peoples trust and perception of the government.

regardless of weather many people were willing to approve of the state’s justification, what will happen to our trust in our government when january 6 part 2 participants are getting hosed down with m855a1 this time?

_tezz ,

Personally, I feel that preventing fascist traitor scum from installing a dictator and subjugating the democracy would give me more trust in my government. The state would not have to justify that action to me, that is perfectly just already.

xhieron ,
@xhieron@lemmy.world avatar

I can think of few things that would restore and bolster my faith in government more than watching the arms of the state rapidly, effectively, and effortlessly put down an active, armed rebellion against the democratically elected institutions of the nation.

Anyone who marches on the Capitol to unseat the legitimate government of the United States should be met with lethal force, preferably while on camera being broadcast live.

And that includes anyone who marches on the Capitol to unseat a legitimate Republican government.

Flowing from the rule of law is the peaceful transfer of power, and flowing from that is the presence of loyal opposition.

A government that defends the people’s ability to select it with the means entrusted to it is doing exactly what it should. The bitch my state sends to the Senate is an utter slimeball whom I despise with the very core of my being. But the people of my state in their wisdom sent her to DC, so anybody who charges that building with designs on her life should immediately eat a red, white, and blue bullet. If the government fails to defend that bitch, then it has failed me, and my faith in it will have been tarnished.

That’s my perception of the government in such an event. I certainly don’t speak for everyone.

bloodfart ,

Okay so if this becomes a pattern how do we break the cycle of having to dome protesters every election cycle? Historically it hasn’t been good for the state to have constant uprisings no matter if you support their cause or not.

Passerby6497 ,

You’d have to dismantle the right wing propaganda network that’s being coopted by hostile powers to damage trust in our government and sow discontent amongst the populace.

But unfortunately, the right would rightly see this as an attack on them, because their media ecosystem is the generator of this shit…

Zink ,

You may have just picked a bad example, because I think the state’s stance doesn’t really factor into many people’s opinions on this particular shooting.

bloodfart ,

Idk, my experience talking to people who claimed to have voted democrat showed otherwise. I had a lot of older people saying they didn’t have to shoot her. Someone who lives a couple of roads over even said the “just shoot her in the leg” line.

I guess for people who are old enough to remember like maybe Kent state forwards there’s a real bad association with cops or national guard shooting anyone protesting, demonstrating or rioting or whatever and I think if it goes off bigger this time around that’s a bigger problem.

SkyezOpen ,

what will happen to our trust in our government when january 6 part 2 participants are getting hosed down with m855a1 this time?

Me personally? Trust immediately restored. Jan 6 showed how fragile our system really is with the right people pulling the right levers. It was public knowledge that something big was being organized, yet security was not increased and the national guard was not called in (though I wouldn’t be surprised if they were on standby as it was shortly after George floyd protests/riots). Rioters accessed offices of officials and came VERY close to the senators themselves. Had they not reconvened and certified the election later that night, we would’ve had a constitutional crisis which was one possible goal of the whole thing.

Bottom line, I don’t give a fuck how a bunch of actual seditionists that worship trump as a god emperor feel. You can’t just storm the goddamn capitol of the country. If preventing that requires mowing down seditionists, that’s not the government’s fault and not my concern.

dogslayeggs ,

She was carrying a backpack big enough to hold a bomb, climbing through a hole in a door that was barricaded, being warned by armed guards not to, and was backed by thousands of angry rioters ready to follow her in.

I’m pretty sure she represented a threat.

If your house were surrounded by people yelling and waving bats and batons and pipes and you barricaded your door against them entering, would you feel threatened by someone who broke your window and started climbing in?

bloodfart ,

hey i’m just gonna copy and paste this into my reply to everyone else who got in after the first person: i’m not arguing about the state’s justification of its actions i’m asking what happens to americans perception of our government when we see whats her name get shot x100 during the next january 6. if you wanna talk about that i’ll reply but if not i won’t.

monsieur_hackerman ,

Why should we worry ourselves with the perceptions of idiots? They’re idiots. Fuck what they think.

bloodfart ,

There’s a lot of people in the replies saying something along these lines but none as succinctly put as you.

What’s the right way for the state to deal with “idiots” when it doesn’t care what they think? Certainly after this next January 6 the state can’t just kill them, what’s the response from the state you’d like to see?

monsieur_hackerman ,

Wtf, why would we need to kill someone for being an idiot? The obvious and simple answer is to ignore them.

octopus_ink ,

if you wanna talk about that i’ll reply but if not i won’t.

You shouldn’t have brought it up if you weren’t prepared to discuss it.

No one is asking you to debate this first part:

seeing that one woman get shot in a situation

We all know a woman got shot by the government and was justified by the government.

However, YOU made this statement:

where she presented no threat at all

And you are 100% nothing more than a troll IF you claim it’s not reasonable to have to justify such a position, YOUR position, as stated by you.

bloodfart ,

Okay, I’ll defend what I said so that it’s clear that I brought it up not to troll or engage in bad faith but as an example of the effects of state violence on public trust.

Regardless of weather or not you believe the states defense of its agents actions, you can’t deny that the woman who was shot was unarmed (I think I saw some news articles trying to call her armed because she had a pocketknife, but come on!) and that there were alternatives to deadly force available. I saw them discussed online and heard even my very vote blue no matter who style lib neighbors say them when we talked about the news.

Some of the stuff I remember hearing people say was “push her back through”, “push her back through with a stick” “let her come through and arrest her” “beat people trying to come through with a stick” and “shoot into the air/ground to disperse them”.

I’m not bringing those things up to then give you the opportunity to ask me to defend them, but to provide examples of normal everyday people’s responses to seeing the states agents kill someone who looked like them or someone they knew and only became more sympathetic as her background was reported on and pictures of her from before January 6 surfaced.

I also know that she was brought up in the news as a victim of state violence and her name was used as a kind of dogwhistle for stop the steal type right wingers and even normal republican types for little while.

I don’t remember it because I don’t run in those circles but it had a cadence like “Sharon bobbit” or something.

The effect of that one death was very polarizing and did little to build broader trust in government except for with people who took the controversial “I don’t like those people/they’re criminals so good riddance” view.

So that’s why I brought it up and specifically said that she posed no threat. Not because I wanted to defend the people who did January 6 or the ones who use her name as a shibboleth but because it’s a good example of state violence suppressing January 6 prompting a negative response.

octopus_ink ,

I appreciate that you expounded on your overall point, but I don’t think you defended what I quoted at all, and that’s the only bit I think you are really on the hook to defend here.

where she presented no threat at all

I won’t list all the examples others already gave you of how easy it is to see that from the point of view of anyone on the other side of that specific door at that specific time, she was indeed a threat. That’s not “accepting the government’s justification” that’s using my own eyeballs and not pretending I don’t understand the context of what was happening. Anyone claiming she’s not a threat at that moment is willfully ignoring every other detail of the situation.

bloodfart ,

I’m so sorry for not being clearer about the meaning my words have.

In the context of a shooting by cops I’m using “no threat” to mean no threat that merits deadly force, not that it wasnt a crazy situation.

My point was never to say that the situation wasn’t unique or that fear or feeling threatened never factored in, but the situation in which that woman was shot didn’t constitute a threat to anyone that merited deadly force.

She was unarmed (again, I remember some news trying to say that her pocketknife constituted a weapon but whatever), was climbing in through a barrier that she had to be lifted up to reach and could have been restrained with several different tools or techniques at the disposal of the cop that shot her.

If there were no other options available then a person could believe otherwise and plenty of cops have gotten off for killings because they said their service weapon was their only option.

I was hoping it would be clear what I meant by “no threat” when I explained how lots of people had said all those things they thought the cop could have done, but that’s my fault.

octopus_ink ,

My point was never to say that the situation wasn’t unique or that fear or feeling threatened never factored in, but the situation in which that woman was shot didn’t constitute a threat to anyone that merited deadly force.

There was no reason to believe that though. Now I’ll make the list anyway. First person at head of mob to come through that window. Bomb in backback was possible. (Members of congress were still escaping from the area), concealed weapon was possible, either of those things on the next person behind her were possible. She was in one of the most protected areas of our government, at the head of a mob that had beaten their way into the building, and had built a noose outside while cheering for the death of the vice president. She was a threat.

Passerby6497 ,

In the context of a shooting by cops I’m using “no threat” to mean no threat that merits deadly force, not that it wasnt a crazy situation.

The only thing you have that even remotely begins to resemble a point is that she posed no VISIBLE threat. Which, when you’re protecting high value targets, is fucking meaningless.

If you were a world leader and saw a mob of angry empty headed idiots coming towards you while their friends outside are talking about hanging one of your superiors, are you really going to pretend that’s not a threat?

but the situation in which that woman was shot didn’t constitute a threat to anyone that merited deadly force.

It absolutely did, and deadly force was merited well before it was used. Again, a mob of people chanting they wanted to hang a politician violently broke into the antechamber for many politicians that may have carried concealed weapons or explosives.

Just because you’re not capable of seeing why deadly force was more than justified doesn’t mean it wasn’t, and your arguments willfully ignore the context and surrounding factors that harm your argument

dogslayeggs ,

I think most Americans didn’t have any perception change of their government when they saw that chick get shot. If anything they were shocked by what levels conservative civilians were ready to go to for their completely unfounded beliefs.

bloodfart ,

I agree with you that most Americans were shocked in general or didn’t care but I think there was a significant amount of people whose perceptions were maybe changed.

Do you think the scale would change things? If this becomes a pattern, what’s the way out?

Passerby6497 ,

If anything they were shocked by what levels conservative civilians were ready to go to for their completely unfounded beliefs.

And just how far the government was willing to let them go before they took off the kid gloves and began to consider treating them even somewhat like the George Floyd protestors were treated.

It was rather eye opening to see the dichotomy between law enforcement response between protests that started non violently protesting in the street vs an angry mob marching on Congress while they actively tried to do a peaceful transfer of power.

Treczoks ,

American insurgents. Traitors. And nobody forces them to storm the Capitol.

SkyezOpen ,

she presented no threat at all

Yeah I’m just gonna smash through the only barrier between me and the senators and hope security realizes I just want an autograph and am not trying to hurt any government officials. Genius plan. That said, she DID present a threat by her actions, and a larger potential threat as several rioters were armed. They did their job when they shot her and if anything, showed incredible restraint by waiting until she was literally climbing into the room.

bloodfart ,

hey i’m just gonna copy and paste this into my reply to everyone else who got in after the first person: i’m not arguing about the state’s justification of its actions i’m asking what happens to americans perception of our government when we see whats her name get shot x100 during the next january 6. if you wanna talk about that i’ll reply but if not i won’t.

CouncilOfFriends ,

On that topic, in my estimation it is going to be a far worse time for everybody if we normalize a violent coup whenever Fox News radicalizes a critical mass of reprogrammable meatbags. After January 6th, even conservatives were briefly able to condemn attempted treason before they found enough room to stand in the shadow of their dear leader. Most Americans did not have a great perception of the state of government, however I’ve never actually met anyone who believes rioters should have been allowed to break through barricades to kill members of congress.

afraid_of_zombies ,

I probably won’t see it because it sounds gruesome to watch a 100 people get mowed down trying to install a dictator.

charade_you_are ,

Yeah, no, any stupid fox news brainwashed terrorist who tries to break in and take over the capital needs to get shot in the fuckin’ face. No one needs to care what the fuck other traitors think.

afraid_of_zombies ,

She presented a threat and I don’t know what mental gymnastics you have used to argue that she didn’t.

You don’t fucking accidentally invade the capital building. No one has ever called their spouse and said “hey honey I was trying to buy milk at 7-11 and for some reason I am in the Speaker of the House’s office. She seems mad at me.”

bloodfart ,

hey i’m just gonna copy and paste this into my reply to everyone else who got in after the first person: i’m not arguing about the state’s justification of its actions i’m asking what happens to americans perception of our government when we see whats her name get shot x100 during the next january 6. if you wanna talk about that i’ll reply but if not i won’t.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Ok your worry about that

BlitzoTheOisSilent ,

If you’re referring to the woman who was killed during the January 6th Insurrection, she was a traitor. She was an Air Force veteran who took an oath upon enlistment that she would faithfully defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

And then when her guy didn’t win, she decided she would forget her oath and try to overthrow the very Constitution she swore to protect. Honestly, fuck her, I don’t wish she had died, but she’s not a martyr, nor should she be.

Your reasoning is why Democrats never fucking do anything: it’s all about the what-ifs. Republicans don’t give a fuck about the what-ifs and they’ve accomplished countless numbers of their goals over the years.

So enough: if people want to try Insurrection 2.0: Electric Boogaloo, fucking mow them down like they so badly want to do anyone who isn’t a fucking white, cis, heterosexual male who dry humps their Bible every fucking night thinking that makes them a good Christian.

Your logic and your comment are asinine, and you’re completely oblivious to the other side of your coin: We should just do nothing because stopping fucking traitors from overthrowing their government because their dipshit lost may hurt the perception the American people have of their government. Yep, better just let fascism happen then because people may look at the government, the same one that drone strikes women and children in the Middle East, what, may be too fucking tough on terrorists and insurrections?

Please.

Schadrach ,

She was an Air Force veteran who took an oath upon enlistment that she would faithfully defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I’m sure from her thoroughly deluded, brain-rotted perspective that’s exactly what she was doing - protecting the Constitution from a domestic enemy seeking to steal the election.

Practically no one sees themselves as the villain of their own story.

BlitzoTheOisSilent ,

Then her death rests at the feet of the politicians who sold her the big lie. But that would hold Republicans accountable, and for some fucked up reason, we just can’t have that in this country.

frunch ,

This is the kind of intellectual laziness i expect from maga chuds 🥂

MedicPigBabySaver ,

Shut up.

PsyDoctah9Jah ,
@PsyDoctah9Jah@lemmy.world avatar

The “person” doesn’t look human at all…

funkless_eck ,

haunted vent dummy

alarratt ,

I am shocked… SHOCKED I tell you!

Varyk ,

I wonder if they’re actually dumb enough to try the false electors scheme twice in a row?

They got caught are being convicted right now for doing it in 2020, and everybody is expecting it now.

Maggoty ,

If it works then you get to convict the other side for being fake.

Varyk ,

Sure. But there are less idiotic and more effective ways to try to seize power.

Literally forging documents and sending them in two institutions that verify documents is pretty dumb.

Resulting in legal consequences already.

Maggoty ,

You’re still assuming those bodies operate in good faith. Democrats must win the house and senate to ensure that.

Varyk ,

Nope, I’m not assuming these bodies operate in good faith.

I’m taking what happened before into account and the outrage and legal culpability for a large scale, lazy conspiracy, and making a prediction based on that.

m13 ,

Whatever the result they’re going to keep trying again. Why wouldn’t they when there are virtually no consequences? Fascists don’t give a damn about what election results say, they’re always going to try to gain power by any means necessary.

Varyk ,

Well that’s what I mean.

There are so far very severe consequences. Lawyers have been disbarred, dozens of people have been charged, the trials are ongoing right now and more charges are occurring from more agencies. there are a whole lot of legal consequences which is why i am wondering if they’re going to do it again.

They don’t care about election results, but they do care about legal consequences.

Censored ,

They only care about the legal consequences that affect THEM. There’s always another idiot lawyer ready to get disbarred.

Varyk ,

Right, that’s the nice part about legal consequences for them. They care about those legal consequences.

eestileib ,

The trials are being sandbagged by republican judges, nobody is actually getting punished for trying to steal the election. They’re gonna do it again.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

Uh… If you don’t want your election stolen, you, uh, you gotta vote. Vote so hard they can’t steal it. Make your friends vote. Make your friends’ friends vote.

Because if we don’t win this year, we don’t get to have any more elections. No more voting. We’re getting rid of it because your don’t vote good.

joostjakob ,

I’m pretty sure they’ll do increasingly farcical votes for some time after.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

That’s basically Texas and Florida right now

shottymcb ,

You sound like a MAGA moron. Also encouraging people not to vote, and encouraging people to not vote for Biden elsewhere in the thread. Sus.

eestileib ,

I, uh, have voted in every election I’ve been eligible to vote in.

Varyk ,

That’s happening more with The classified documents case, not with the fake electors.

Good news, The fake elector charges and trials are actually going through without a hitch, have a lot of defendants informing on co-defendants. Several defendants have already pled guilty, participants are being arrested, more charges are coming, there’s actually a lot going on with this case.

Censored ,

But who is the defendant in the fake electors trial? This isn’t one where Trump himself is on the docket, right?

Varyk ,

It would be strange if he wasn’t eventually charged since he was definitely part of the plot.

This is a case that goes across eight states with dozens of defendants, some have already pled guilty, many are working with the prosecutors to provide testimony against peer and higher co-defendants.

Trump hasn’t been charged yet, but people are still getting charged for the fake electors scheme every month, and since he was on the phone with these people convincing them to forge and mail in the documents, I can’t see why he wouldn’t be charged.

It’s being investigated right now as to how to charge Trump, since he was personally involved in this scheme.

He’ll probably be one of the last people charged.

Especially now that he was already convicted once and it isn’t taboo or anything to charge him with felonies.

There are so many defendants, this was such a huge conspiracy that most of the trial still haven’t started, and several defendants haven’t been arraigned.

But it’s going forward!

eestileib ,

What about the one in DC run by Judge Chutkan that’s on indefinite hold thanks to the Supreme Court?

What about the one in Georgia that is on indefinite hold thanks to the Georgia Supreme Court?

Those seem pretty hitched to me.

Varyk ,

As far as I’m aware, the supreme Court we’re not indefinite.

The supreme Court is a piece of s*** don’t get me wrong, but I’m pretty sure that trial is still going on.

And Trump’s lawyer admitted that “private acts of a sitting president are not entitled to immunity”.

Yeah, so that’s going well.

Georgia, that one is currently on hold, but it doesn’t negate all of the other ongoing cases against him and none of the charges are going away.

Scotty_Trees ,
@Scotty_Trees@lemmy.world avatar

They will. And they’ll take it to the Supreme Court, where <checks notes> they’ll just install Trump as the winner of the election. Mark my words.

Varyk ,

Humbug. I take cynicism lightly.

They didn’t get past mailing in the forged documents last time, and they have a worse chance this time.

They’d have to do something different, like state legislatures passing laws that say they don’t have to listen to appointed electors.

That’s already failed, but that’s the tack I think they’ll try to refine, since they’re approaching it so poorly right now and direct forgeries don’t work

Asafum ,

I would think that failure just exposes points of improvement. They failed before, but now they know how to succeed. :(

Varyk ,

I think that’s just distant fatalism.

It’s not like they can forge the documents better this time.

They’ll have to try completely different, like changing State legislatures to somehow ignore election results or claim that the state can use their own electors.

Most of the people who forged the documents or participated in the conspiracy the last time are going to be pretty busy in trial or testifying in trials.

Dozens of people, anyone significantly involved in the fake electors scheme is facing charges or will be facing charges soon, many of them have already pled guilty.

Asafum ,

I hope you’re right!

HubertManne ,

yeah. I doubt they would do that unless there was a precedence set for a court to determine a presidential election.

stringere ,

There is. Bush v Gore

Censored ,

That was technically a procedure to allow or disallow a recount of a specific vote in a specific district in Florida. And yes, the Supreme Court will be ruling on those again.

Natanael ,

Gore vs Bush…

HubertManne ,

them? double down?! surely not.

Censored ,

Who is being convicted? It sounds like nobody’s been convicted yet, so they’re wiling to try it again. Also who cares if some false elector goes to jail? Not Trump. Not the dirty ratfucker.

Varyk ,

Well, as a personal conspirator in this game, dumps is certainly liable.

He’s been indicted in Georgia. And by the doj, so dumps will have to fight those charges of conspiracy.

This is such a huge case investigated by so many agencies that everyone isn’t even charged yet 4 years later.

So the convictions will take time, but at least eight people, including chesebro and other planning-level agents, have actively been working with every investigation testify to the involvement of the others.

The trials and convictions are still ongoing, but a few trials have finished.

I only know about the ones that have pled guilty and are informing on others. But none of this is halted or not happening, it’s just that the trials and sentencing are still going on.

rayyy ,

They are dumb enough to try a bunch of other stuff, including violence, again though.

chiliedogg ,

No. Instead they’re gonna have state legislature throw out the results of the election. Which they can probably do, Constitutionally-speaking.

The State legislature pick the electors. Just because they all use a popular vote to do it doesn’t mean they can’t change the law in between the voting in November and the actual election in December.

Varyk ,

Ha, I’ve answered that two or three times to other people here!

I agree that changing or interpreting the law to pick stricty conservative electors is their next strategy， but I don’t think it’s going to be as simple or successful as they imagine.

Sort of like how they didn’t realize sending in forged documents was very likely to fail.

chiliedogg ,

Forged documents are illegal. Changing laws regarding how electors are selected isn’t.

Heck - way back in 2000 the Supreme Court hinted at the tactic in the majority opinion in Bush v Gore, saying that the Florida legislature probably could have just selected electors directly after the vote.

Varyk ,

Actually, a lot of the fake electors tried to use the defense that there’s no specific law against fake elector documents.

Colorado just signed a law that says fake electors are illegal.

Landscape’s a lot turnier then it looks

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •