- cross-posted to:
- guns@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- guns@lemmy.world
A federal judge has blocked the state of Hawaii from enforcing a recently enacted ban on firearms on its prized beaches and in other areas including banks, bars and parks, citing last year’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling expanding gun rights.
You must log in or register to comment.
Apart from the “why do you need it” question, the beach is specifically a place people often leave items that can’t be taken in the water unattended. Sure, legislators can write laws about how a gun must not be left unattended and gun nuts can swear up and down about how they would never do that, but they will. No matter how much you think “there’s a lot of people around” or “I’ll just be in and out” or “I’ll watch my stuff from the water”, thefts happen, and now a mundane occurrence has turned a supposedly (not really) “safe” and “legal” gun into one of those dangerous “illegal” guns they can’t be held responsible for.
We were perfectly happy with our gun laws, and they worked, and now fringe nutcases and a politically captured courts are telling us we can’t implement common sense restrictions because the nuts have a panic attack if they’re not constantly armed.
the nuts have a panic attack if they’re not constantly armed.
That’s the real issue, here. These guys are absolutely fucking terrified 100% of the time. They pack heat in order to feel like something besides a helpless babyman.
I have never even once felt like I couldn’t possibly pick up a head of lettuce and some yogurt from the supermarket without some moral support from a gun. It’s just fucking bizarre.
Why do you assume they are absolutely fucking terrified vs thinking better safe than sorry?
I know the risk of a violent encounter is low, but I carry because it’s the only reliable way to not be at a disadvantage in a fight.
Having a plan to avoid being assaulted isn’t the same as living in terror.
Protip - if some group seems totally ridiculous, there’s a good chance you don’t understand something important.
Why do you assume they are absolutely fucking terrified vs thinking better safe than sorry?
Because they are too afraid to go to a grocery store without a gun. That means they’re really, really bad at risk assessment. And that makes them dangers to themselves and others.
I know the risk of a violent encounter is low, but I carry because it’s the only reliable way to not be at a disadvantage in a fight.
Do you? Do you actually know that? Because your odds of being a shooting victim are way, way higher as a handgun owner than as a grocery shopper. You’re more likely to be hit by lightning than to be in a violent confrontation at the supermarket, and yet you don’t go around in a rubber suit to be “better safe than sorry.”
Having a plan to avoid being assaulted isn’t the same as living in terror.
And yet you’re not wearing a rubber suit. Your risk aversion needs calibration if the gun that objectively makes you less safe makes you feel more safe.
Protip - if some group seems totally ridiculous, there’s a good chance you don’t understand something important.
Or they could be members of the Westboro Baptist Church, and they are totally ridiculous.
For the record, I don’t think all gun owners are ridiculous - certainly not to the level of the WBC. I don’t even think people who feel the need to pack heat while going out for milk are ridiculous. But they’re definitely scared, and bad at assessing risks.
Protip - if some group seems totally ridiculous, there’s a good chance you don’t understand something important.
Yeah seriously what a ridiculous attempt at the “both sides” defense. Has this guy never heard of scientology, flat earthers, 911 truthers, and all the other various cults and such? There is very much such a thing as morons in large groups.
The other day I was at the grocery store and someone shouldered me and my cart out of the way when I was comparing cantaloupes. He looked at me funny like he was gonna start some shit so I blew him away. Motherfuckers not going to take me out without a fight. #alphamale #iamverybadass
There are a large number of people who carry, they’re not who you think they are and they’re not afraid or paranoid. Just like you put on your seatbelt and have a smoke detector and fire extinguisher in your home…they carry and think nothing of it.
The amount of white privilege shit shows how much propaganda you lot drink.
Ouch. Guess I touched a nerve. Look, carry if it makes you feel better, but statistically, you’re in more danger from your own guns than you are from anyone else. The same cannot be said for seat-belts, smoke detectors, and fire extinguishers.
Damn Lemmy doesn’t alert on posts replies properly. So replying late to this one.
That is completely false. You’re more likely to never use the firearm than be in danger of it. That myth was created by the anti-gun groups using suicides as their stats.
In Canada almost nobody carries a gun.
We also rarely have shootings.
That is how it works in all civilised countries.
Same in the UK, we had a couple of school shootings and then collectively decided children’s safety isn’t worth trading for the freedom to own guns and that was that. There was very little pushback from any side of the asile.
You also have safety nets, which helps with your crime level. There is a lot more we here in the states could do to curb our violence overall that doesn’t require new gun laws, but a loud majority are idiots who just call everything that involves safety nets and reforming criminals socialism/communism.
No, it’s really nothing to do with safety nets and Canadians don’t have any better mental health then Americans.
We don’t open carry and we have strict handgun laws so we don’t have the amount of shootings as the states.
That’s it, that’s all.
There are a large number of people who carry, they’re not who you think they are and they’re not afraid or paranoid.
The fact that they do “carry” unequivocally shows that they are indeed afraid and paranoid, no matter how many times they say “not afraid, bro” out loud. Believe their actions, not their lying words.
I’m genuinely curious what you mean by your white privilege comment. Can you explain? What’s the relation?
You and the rest of the anti-gun tools here think that only white people carry. You live in bubbles with no outside experience of what other races have to deal with on a daily basis. It’s actually quite hilarious how disconnected from reality a lot of you are.
Such constructive interracial dialogue. Makes me warm and fuzzy. Thank you, my cherished non-white person.
How many times have you used your gun to resolve a situation that couldn’t have been solved without one? I legitimately don’t understand the mindset. What situation are people like you “preparing” for? Cause it honestly just seems like you’re afraid.
The same amount of times I’ve had to use my fire extinguisher in my home. Zero. And I hope that number stays that way forever.
I feel sorry for these people you describe, I can’t imagine living in such constant fear that I need to carry around a lethal weapon.
OP’s take makes me wonder: am I a badass for walking around completely unarmed and also not afraid?
My dad said the same thing. He carried a 357 on him. A man, he wasn’t scared… Well, that’s what he said, but in the end he was a racist baby that was afraid a poc was going to car jack him in his fucking chevy equinox. I don’t need a gun to defend myself, it’s getting there though with cult45, that’s a scary bunch of halfwits.
This dude is back with dumb takes.
I’m not sure which is worse, someone who intentionally straps a deadly weapon to themselves in full view to be paraded around in public as a show of machismo, or someone who does so thoughtlessly as one would buckle a seatbelt.
deleted by creator
we can’t implement common sense restrictions because the nuts have a panic attack if they’re not constantly armed.
Do you honestly think that panic attacks by gun carriers is the blocker to reasonable gun laws? The number of people that carry firearms regularly is not statistically significant, let alone those with panic attacks.
I carry a concealed firearm because I think it’s important for at risk groups to be able to defend themselves. I don’t panic when I don’t carry, but I recognize that I’m less prepared to defend myself from assault.
It’s important to understand those you disagree with.
I can’t think of any at-risk group that has meaningful influence on gun legislation, but many of the groups propping up the Republican party have been convinced they are in mortal danger.
Though, frankly, I do find someone who thinks restrictions to carrying a gun at a beach in peaceful and multicultural Hawaii aren’t reasonable to be a bit of a nut regardless of whatever risks you have in your personal life.
Guns can absolutely be safe, and if they’re bringing it to the beach, it’s probably safe to assume it’s legal.
However, why the fuck anyone needs a gun at a beach is beyond me (or a grocery store, or library, or any number of other ridiculous places to bring a gun). America really needs to get their priorities straight, because it’s not really funny anymore, it’s scary.
Guns, by definition, are not safe. They’re literally made to kill people. You can take all the precautions in the world to mitigate the risks, of course, but the safest gun is the one that nobody can touch.
They’re made to kill, what they kill is up to the person holding it. They aren’t something people should be toting around at the beach, you take them hunting, or to a range.
Genuine question, does anybody ever hunt with pistols?
Long guns are one thing, handguns are pretty explicitly anti-personnel weapons from my understanding.
Occasionally, but no, not really.
The hunters I know who carry a pistol do so do put down the animal in the case that the first shot didn’t do it but I don’t think it’s that common especially now that it’s virtually impossible to get a permit for pistol in my country
They’re made to kill. Hence, unsafe
What if I put one inside a safe?
How often do you take a safe to the beach?
Then you can throw the safe at someone. Safe is unsafe. Unsafe all the way down
As soon as a gun is introduced anywhere, safety automatically drops. That is a statistical fact.
I don’t know if they can really be safe at the beach though. You go in the water with your gun, or you leave it under your towel and hope a kid doesn’t find it?
I totally agree it’s not safe at a beach, I was just stating that they can be safe, if treated with the proper respect.
Guns can’t be safe unless they’re unloaded or broken
And gun safety 101 teaches you a gun is always loaded.
deleted by creator
What happened to respecting states rights? So sick of the judicial branch in the US, the most untethered and corrupt branch of them all. Which is saying a lot considering the state of the legislative branch.
Republicans only care about state’s rights when they can use state law to push one of their terrible policies at state level because they can’t force it nationally.
i.e. slavery
Republicans want all power consolidated at the level they can most effectively control. They were only ever about “states’ rights” because they typically are better at capturing state governments than national institutions.
States’ rights only exists in the eyes of Conservatives if it’s related to owning other humans.
Nothing else matters when something like MUH GUNS are at stake
It was never a thing, and the GOP has never given a shit about it.
Republicans have no political platform, but they do have a judicial agenda.
Ummmm, pretty sure the fucking bill of rights trumps state right ffs.
Until 15 years ago, there wasn’t an individual right to bear arms, so talking about “the Bill of Rights” really just means “the Conservative Supreme Court”.
The rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are natural rights and predate the document.
And nothing in the Bill of Rights says you have an individual right to constantly be armed for personal safety.
Pretty sure that the “shall not be infringed” part of bearing arms covers that. The 2nd amendment is an individual right, so there you go. If you are trying to say that the 2nd is somehow the only non-individual right in the Bill of Rights, I’d argue poor context interpretation. If you are trying to say that it requires militia affiliation, I’d argue that the Militia Act that required the people to supply their own guns and ammo pretty effectively proves the people were supposed to be armed before being called to the militia. If you are arguing that you just don’t like the 2nd, then get ~75% of the country and state governments to agree with you and update or repeal it with the required constitutional amendment.
If the Second Amendment was clear in its individual right to bear arms for personal protection (a much different thing from just owning guns), then it wouldn’t have taken until 2008 for it to be recognized, and anyone pretending the Second Amendment is a clearly worded amendment with broadly agreed on meaning is just delusional.
Previous supreme courts have ruled that the constitution only applied to the federal government, allowing states to restrict the rights of their citizens to vote, speak, assemble, etc. Does that mean that it isn’t clear that our individual and constitutional rights were intended to apply at a state or local level? I am not saying that it is broadly agreed upon, but I do think that the founder’s documents and correspondence surrounding the Bill of Rights, along with contemporary laws like the Militia Act, provide enough context for it being an individual right.
In 1792 the government required that the individual would have their own rifle, bayonet, gunpowder, and ammunition to bring with them if they answered the called to join the militia, which is hard to do if they didn’t have the right to individually own said guns and ammo. Same with the fact that every other amendment in the BoR is an individual right.
If it was only the ability to own guns so that they could be brought in case the owner was called to join a militia, but not to use them in any other way why would it specify the right to bear those arms and not just to keep or own them? If the individual right is to own guns and use them as tools for hunting and sport, where does the limitation on using them for defense come from? Are knives or any other tools that can be used in a fight included in any of this? I’d consider knives under the right to bear arms, plus it is a frequent argument that they serve other purposes so get an exception.
Hawaii is a colonial project and isn’t respected by the federal court circuits in the same manner that continental states are. It’s closer to Guam and Puerto Rico than other states in that it carries disproportionate financial and military burdens, including the effects from the Jones act for example.
I gotta say, my understanding of MLism is pretty spotty, but a Lemmygrad user opposing the Jones Act seems really weird.
Anti-Jones arguments are generally just raw-freetradeism – advocating to remove protectionist regulations so businesses can off-shore (literally off shore) their shipping to cheaper foreign crews, with the (supposed) benefit being that they will save money and then pass the savings on to the consumer. Were you a big NAFTA fan as well?
Prices in US territories such as Guam, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico are sky-high due to the Jones Act to protect American industries at the expense of colonized people. It’s more about the where the ship was built and who operates them than the workers themselves.
Yes, I am a big fan of NAFTA as well. The only parts I dislike are the parts that allow free movement of capital, disallow free movement of people, and protection of IP.
Wild. And the unions who argue against free-tradeism are the bad guys?
Labor is almost always the largest contributor to any business’s costs and offshoring it is very popular with capital, so waving away the 75% American crew requirement as “not about the workers” is wrong. From a DOT study, in 2010 an American crew costs 5x what a foreign crew does.
I live in Hawaii and while I don’t like paying more to subsidize US domestic shipbuilding (if the government wants to subsidize our shipyards, they should do it themselves), but when the major voices advocating for this (in Hawaii) are Republicans, libertarians, and business-oriented Democrats like Ed Case (one can argue those aren’t really three separate categories), I get wary. Because this sure looks like every other time capital wanted to stop having to pay so many expensive Americans with their benefits and labor protections when they could instead offload to foreign workers without any of that. And they pinky swear promise they’ll give us cheaper stuff in return rather than just pocketing the difference.
Your bad guy, good guy view of the world is myopic.
American labor vs International labor is a false dialectic that is used to pit working class against each other by the capital. You do realize that right? How is the Jones Act about the workers as you state when it doesn’t stipulate better working conditions, better pay, or ownership in the business itself? I don’t think you’re seriously arguing that the main reason for the price gouging that is happening in Hawaii is due to higher pay for American crew members, so I’ll ignore that.
In general, Marxists are internationalists and we don’t care about protecting American workers over other workers. I would be a syndicalist if I argued for the supremacy of the union.
You can talk all you want about an international brotherhood, but these are people’s livelihoods you’re dismissing as unimportant.
And requiring American labor IS stipulating working conditions, because there is a very real difference between the working conditions of Americans and foreign sailors. This sounds like all you ever engage in is theory, while capital favors foreign workers because they don’t have the same power (and expense) that American workers have.
Much of the American owned fishing fleet is entirely staffed by much cheaper foreign labor unable to leave their ships because their American company can get away with not applying for work visas. They didn’t just happen to end up with foreign crews effectively held captive during port calls, they do it because they’re cheaper and unable to easily challenge their bosses on conditions.
This isn’t a case of an open labor market where everyone is on an equal footing and Americans simply choose not to do this work. Americans simply can’t work for 70 cents an hour and bosses prize workers that don’t have worker protections and can’t demand more.
For many boat owners, the fishermen are a bargain: Bait and ice can cost more than crew salaries. Some of the foreign workers in Hawaii earn less than $5,000 for a full year. By contrast, the average pay for an American deckhand nationwide last year was $28,000, sometimes for jobs that last just a few months, according to government statistics. Experienced American crew members working in Alaska can make up to $80,000 a year.
An American crew has recourse and the force of law when an employer just refuses to pay their workers.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard routinely inspect the Hawaiian boats. At times, fishermen complain they’re not getting paid and officers say they tell owners to honor the contracts. But neither agency has any authority over actual wages.
When your labor solidarity philosophy leads you to support and defend the position of capital, a position known to depower workers and empower abuse, it feels like that’s the point where you should be thinking about what the whole point is.
So you are deliberately ignoring your previous point about how the main business cost and therefore the reason for the high prices in Hawaii is due to higher wages for American sailors. It’s curious how you weren’t actually arguing in good faith then.
You do realize that America as a country can simply change its regulation to stipulate equal pay and treatment for foreign crew members who dock in American ports or are employed by American companies, right? You are arguing that Americans and American companies are allowed to treat foreign workers under horrible conditions, so it is labor solidarity to employ only American workers. Do you see how deranged that sounds when we get down to the meat of it?
How big of a coward do you have to be to feel the need to bring a gun to the beach?
Have you met a conservative man lately? They’re scared of everything. Especially their own feelings
I think I know why… They’re criminals.
Pretty much only criminals have people trying to kill them everyday.
Maybe America just has a lot of criminals Maybe so many that it’s starting to show in our politics and democracy.
I wish this post wasn’t so believable. …it was supposed to be sarcasm.
Can I carry one into the court where the justices meet? Or is safety just something the “little people” need to work about?
Another awful law 6 years in the making, all thanks to people being too lazy to go out and vote.
We are going to be feeling the repercussions of that laziness for decades to come.
In today’s world, we can still see the results of Reaganomics and the terrible Reagan administration and what it did to this country some 4 decades later. Allowing Trump to enter the White House 6 years ago has, and will, continue to have a similar profound negative effect on the trajectory of this country for a long, long time.
You guys sure showed us!
Lazy?
Have you forgotten about the gerrymandering and voter suppression that’s been going on?
This is a result of a SCOTUS decision. SCOTUS membership is determined by the president and control of the senate at the time of vacancies. Neither of those are influenced by gerrymandering.
At the core of it this comes down to 2016 when a larger than typical number of people on the left lied to themselves and said “eh, they’re all teh same” and tossed their vote at a third party or just didn’t vote at all. Following that, SCOTUS went from a 4-4 tie (with 1 vacancy) to 6-3 conservative advantange.
I wouldn’t blame laziness, but instead a combination of apathy and people who are more interested in ideological purity than in accepting the available-better such that they would rather complain about the unavailable-best.
RBG refusing to retire in 2012-2014 also shares blame. She could have retired then and the court would be 5-4 instead.
That 1 vacancy should have been Obama’s pick. It was fucking stolen from him, and now we’re paying the price of “decorum”.
Of course, Republican hypocrites shoved another conservative justice on the bench before RBG’s body was even cold, even after Trump lost the election (not to mention impeached).
It wasn’t just 4 years of Trump that we had to endure, it’s now three lifetime conservative appointments to the supreme court. So progressive legislation is stalled for another 30+ years. Our generation will be as old as the fucking Boomers are now before we get another chance at kicking out the conservatives, whose ideology is literally killing the planet. Gen Z and the generation that follows them will rightfully blame us for our inaction.
Or instead of giving up we could make court expansion and reform a litmus test in future Democratic primaries. And/or normalize the idea that judicial rulings need to be enforced by someone else and they too have agency.
Because allowing this to continue for much of our remaining lives is also decorum. We live in an unjust system, but it’s not just how life has to be for the next 30 years.
I don’t entirely disagree, but I’d like to see an actual roadmap for how such changes would be implemented. Voting for somebody who promises court expansion and reform, but doesn’t have the support of either the legislative or judicial branches and doesn’t have a concrete method of implementing it, seems like they are set up to fail.
I want to see more ruthless politicians on the left as well, but not if they can’t actually follow through with their promises.
Easy:
- Vote in better Democrats
- Abolish the filibuster
- Pass law changing the number of justices on the court
Support from the legislature is all that’s important. If the justices say “you can’t do it”, then ignore them because clearly they can. The constitution says very little about the supreme court and its size has been changed multiple times before. This is just doing history again.
The president and senate aren’t affected by gerrymandering?
Whaaaaa?
Since you actually seem to be asking… There is no gerrymandering at the federal level in the presidential election. You could argue that the electoral voting system is somehow a form of this, but it isn’t the same as intentionally drawing districts to mathematically skew the advantage to the party drawing the map. That said, because electoral votes are based upon congressional representation, they do weigh smaller, emptier states more heavily. US senators are entirely free from gerrymandering as they are directly elected by popular vote. Small, empty states do have more power as a result and by design, for better or worse.
The Represenitives of House of Represenitives are affected by jerrymandering tho.
And they have 0 say in the Supreme Court. They have a minor say in creating other courts, but it’s been a long time since anything has meaningfully changed there either.
presidential election
electoral votes are based upon congressional representation
This thread is not about the supteme court. This thread was about presidential elections.
The SC is its own issue with plenty of threads discussing it already.
I think they have a good point though. Sure, at a basic level, you can’t gerrymander a senate election. But you start with the state, draw the district lines. Now the state is gerrymandered, often packing dense districts with democrats. Now your state legislature (gerrymandered as hell) passes a law that says 2 voting machines per district. You bet your ass that affects national elections. Ol’ Jim-Bob has to share his two voting machines with 150 other people, whereas a city dwelling Democrat has to share theirs with a few thousand.
It doesn’t really matter if a state is “empty”, what matters is the population not the density.
And for what it’s worth: of the ten states with the least population, half generally vote for Democrats (HI, VT, DE, RI, ME). They are often overlooked in these discussions because they are mostly small in area too.
Population density absolutely matters, because when an ignorant person looks at an electoral map, by county, it looks like a couple small blue dots in a sea of red. If the wrong person shows them that map, it can become pretty simple to convince them that Democrats are cheating them because, “just look at all that red!”
It is also about how districts in larger, more empty states, use that mostly empty area to gerrymander their blue population centers. You can’t do that in smaller, highly dense, states.
And then, there’s this: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-01/how-the-density-of-your-county-affects-how-you-vote
I was responding to someone who said that “empty” states have disproportionate power in the electoral college and Senate. Their emptiness does not give them undue power, regardless of what ignorant people think.
Hawaii isn’t in the ten least populous states and Maine isn’t a blue state. It’s not a straight sort, but Republicans far and away benefit from the unequal representation of the Senate and Electoral College.
Maine has voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election in the past 30 years. It’s true that it has a Republican Senator, but if that means it’s a battleground state then by the same logic so are Montana and West Virginia. Those incumbents are popular despite their party, but when they finally leave the Senate they will be replaced by someone in the opposite party.
But you’re right that Hawaii is not one of the ten smallest. It’s eleventh. However, I left out New Hampshire, which voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election in the past 30 years except one. So of the eleven smallest states, six consistently send Democrats to the electoral college.
While it’s still arguable that Republicans have unfair representation in the Senate and EC, the issue is more complicated than simply blaming the small states. Or for that matter the big states: the top ten include three red (FL, TX, OH), three blue (CA, NY, IL) and four battlegrounds (GA, NC, MI, PA).
Read a book.
What do you believe gerrymandering is?
It means drawing legislative districts for political advantage. But elections for the Presidency and Senate ignore legislative district maps.
deleted by creator
Riiiight, always with the excuses. Most of those fall flat when you consider HALF the registered voters can’t be bothered to go vote on election day on most elections. Even in heavily trafficked ones, turnout rarely breaks 60 or 70%. Not saying voter suppression or gerrymandering doesn’t exist, but neither of those would swing an election if we had enough people voting. The excuses have long since gotten old.
Gerrymandering is half the reason people don’t vote. If an election isn’t competitive and there’s significant roadblocks put in your way, you might not vote either. Imagine having two jobs and kids and a long ass line at a voting precinct that isn’t within walking distance.
People like that person would rather hate and feel morally superior than spend 5 minutes understanding the reasons.
Lazy idiots like you rather come up with excuses than actually go do what you should be doing. You’re the typical “lazy American” stereotype that fascists count on to get into power. Congrats asswipe.
Lazy idiots like you rather come up with excuses than actually go do what you should be doing. You’re the typical “lazy American” stereotype that fascists count on to get into power. Congrats asswipe.
So I guess your voter outreach is nil then.
Keep it up, I’m sure it’ll work out great for you and the causes you champion.
citation needed on the first sentence
Instead of just flat out hating on them and calling them lazy, maybe do some research into why there are so many non-voters.
And yes, suppression IS a big enough reason to. Who the fuck on an hourly wage has the luxury of driving/transiting to a distant poll station and wait in line for 9+ hours to vote?
But hey, if it makes you feel better to dunk on them as “Lazy”, keep at it, that’s sure to convince them /s
Edit: Forgot to mention that you assume all these non-voters would vote for your party. Based on research, a very sizable portion would not.
That site didn’t give much info. It says they are hard working people who are underexposed to political info and don’t feel they can decide. Besides that making them fucking morons (sorry), that still doesn’t excuse their inaction.
That site didn’t give much info.
I’m guessing you only looked at the summary then.
It says they are hard working people who are underexposed to political info and don’t feel they can decide.
That’s not what it said.
Besides that making them fucking morons (sorry), that still doesn’t excuse their inaction.
There’s plenty of data there that explains their inaction. Your refusal to read it doesn’t make you right.
It all comes down to giving people a reason they can understand to take the time to vote.
Again, asking an hourly wage worker that can barely make ends meet already to travel/transit and then wait 9+ hours in line to vote is completely unrealistic and not something they should be blamed for.
But hey, like the other guy, keep calling them fucking morons, I’m sure it’ll work out great. /s
Pull your head out of your ass.
Remember how a lot of ML communities on Reddit (now on Lemmy) were banning people from their subreddits for saying to vote Biden
ML? I don’t know what that stands for, but I did see the absurdity of Bernie and so-called progressive subs that were trying to convince people that a vote for Trump would further Bernie’s agenda more than a vote for Hillary. They also were trying to convince people to “stick it to the DNC” and simply sit out the vote.
So the foreign agents running those subs were trying to flip some votes and push voter apathy onto others. Doesn’t take much to change an election and the stuff I saw was clearly just a teeny, tiny part of their larger misinformation campaign. A few key votes here or there and that would easily explain Trump’s victory.
There is no way this stuff isn’t happening on Lemmy now. In fact, I guarantee it is.
Why do they defend so hard for like the one weird out of 1000 who openly waves a gun around that makes everyone extremely uncomfortable. People around open carriers don’t think “wow freedom!”, they get super fucking uncomfortable.
Because that one out of a thousand is also the noisiest person at their local officials office
Why the fuck does anyone need a gun on the beach? I can’t think of one justifiable argument for needing one there.
Land sharks
Hmm. Fair point.
Your right, damn sandsharks.
But, what if someone sees an undesirable, having a good time, and simply wants to exercise their god-given right to harass them without fear of consequences?
How do you stand your ground at them without this most basic thing?
It’s really sad that a lot of Americans think that’s an actual valid argument.
Isn’t it? I got sad writing it.
My alternative was to point out that some sharks are black and there are cops on the beaches but I felt this line does a better job. Slightly more relevant.
It’s not a valid argument, because frankly both harassment and brandishing a firearm are both illegal everywhere in the USA, which means there actually is consequences.
Brandishing a firearm? Cops will shrug and say if you weren’t shot, there’s no issue and laugh at you.
A well tanned Militia, being necessary to the security of a free Shore, the right of the beachgoers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Best comment I’ve read on lemmy yet.
lol This one made me laugh.
To fight the dangerous riptide?
deleted by creator
Because they’re constantly pants shittingly terrified of anything they don’t understand and need a gun to feel anything other than the constant overwhelming feeling of cowardice in the face of normal life.
Good point.
🤣
Well duh how else are you going to protect yourself from all the other armed people on the beach?
And like, what about sandcrabs?
Beach moose.
“Beach moose! Everybody run for cover! I’ll take care of this!” and then I just started blastin’…
Seagulls
I guess. They are rats of the sky.
Well, what it someone really, really wants to get sand and salt water into all the little nooks and crannies and tightly clearanced areas in their gun?
The law in question prohibits licensed carry of firearms from a list of areas and premises, it does not only ban guns on beaches.
posted by @30mag@lemmy.world
It’s like that Taylor Swift song goes: “It’s like guns on the beach, weird but fuckin beau-POP POP POP POP”.
It’s an American classic.
Damn, the US annexation of Hawai’i continues to hurt their nation :-(
I hope one day they can win their freedom back.
If they can’t ban guns, they should ban conservatives instead. Problem solved.
Friendly Reminder: It is perfectly legal to discriminate based on political affiliation. Do your part to help fight conservatism by excluding conservatives in your daily life. It is not appropriate to conduct business or keep relationships with such people.
what about the liberal gun owners?
Liberal gun owners (like me) aren’t taking guns to beaches.
Good luck finding a liberal gun owner who is bringing it to a beach…
This is the twisted retarded logic that conservatives hold.
“I’m a piece of shit who wants to bring a gun to the beach, Liberals must want the same terrible things I do”
Removed by mod
look just cuz they have a life sentence doesn’t mean we can start killing each other’s politicians. we need that do-nothing POS controlled opposition party to expand the court
Oh yeah, well what about MY freedom to go to a beach and not be worried about getting fucking SHOT? Why do THEY get all these rights and freedoms while WE have to suffer the consequences? I don’t fucking get it. What about our rights to not get shot?
If someone wants to go to the beach with a gun, with the purpose of shooting at people, you think a law is going to stop them?
Two groups of morons both armed started a ruckus, pulled their guns, started shooting, and now an innocent bystander CHILD is fucking dead. Because idiots couldn’t leave their guns at home. It’s not all about active shooters.
Witnesses described the scene as two groups of Hispanic males shooting at one another, police said.
Don’t you just love all this freedom we have?!?
USA: Has major gun violence problem.
US legal system: yEw cANt tAYKE thUR fReeDUMB
“Who needs guns on the beach”
I’m trans. Id sooner never go. But if I had to, with the way things are going, you bet your ass I am afraid and would rather be armed
As a trans person, would you rather go to a beach where nobody is armed, or to a beach where everybody might be armed?
I’m not trans, but I’d rather go where everyone might be armed. Just because everyone is supposed to not bring a gun somewhere doesn’t mean there won’t be someone that does- how many shootings in the US happen in “gun free zones”?
Only in the US. When I go to the beach in my country, Australia, I’d never even consider the possibility of a gunman.
I’ll foolishly assume this is a comment posted by a human in good faith and not a troll or a bot.
Does fog of war mean anything to you? Go to a crowded place where everyone is armed. Person 1 is a baddie and kills person 2. Person 3 is a Good Guy and shoots person 1. People 4, 5, and 6 are also Good Guys With Guns and didn’t directly observe the original altercation, they only observed Person 3 shooting Person 1, and assume Person 3 shot Person 2 as well. People 4, 5, and 6, open fire on Person 3. They are bad shots though and the adrenaline dump makes them miss, so People 7, 8, and 9 get shot in the crossfire. At this point it is total chaos, everyone is either shooting at everyone else (fight), running in panic (flight), getting shot in the crossfire (freeze), or just shrieking their head off at the carnage in front of them (freak). Then the police arrive and shoot the survivors.
Congratufuckinglations, we now have a bunch of bodies and dozens of traumatized people because you morons couldn’t leave your fucking guns at home and enjoy the goddamn beach.
I hate this country so much sometimes.
Hell yes. Make guns a nonpartisan “nonissue.” Armed minorities are harder to oppress, and gun control disproportionately affects minorities in marginalized and overpoliced communities. One state just removed the requirement for pistol purchase permits because (as it was designed to be in the first place since it was a Jim Crow era law) racist sheriffs were denying black people’s permits, 60% of denials were to black people.
Yeah, famously, the US doesn’t oppress minorities because of all the guns.
There’s a reason California has so much gun control, and it is Ronald Reagan being racist in the 80’s because the Black Panthers were exercising their right to bare arms, because it was making it harder for the police to oppress them. In fact CCW and purchase permits were designed and are often still used as a way to keep POC from exercising their rights, as it makes them harder to oppress if they can carry. They use gun control to oppress those minorities, things like stop and frisk, or denying permits and charging them when they carry anyway. They enforce this gun control primarily in overpoliced marginalized minority neighborhoods, not in gated communities or majority white neighborhoods. Regardless of your intentions or perceptions, the real life effects of gun control are these, and it is harder to oppress a person/community/people who have guns than one who does not.
While Reagan was racist and was responsible for a lot of bad shit in the '80s, what you’re talking about with the Panthers was in the late '60s.
@sin_free_for_00_days @ArcaneSlime
Reagan was governor of CA in the 60’s. And he never changed his ways.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/gun-control-rights-restrictions-black-panthers-reagan-11663703535
Girlfreddy was quick with it! But yeah, that.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
just don’t go anywhere you’re likely to be shot. Like school, work, the grocery store, church, urban areas, suburban areas, rural areas, bars, restaurants, nightclubs, daycare centers…
Without even addressing the moral panic and domestic terrorism currently being whipped up against trans people the fact is that “just don’t go places where people are allowed to carry” is a bad solution even for the average person.
deleted by creator
Hang on… There is unlicensed carry that might be banned specifically on beaches? Isn’t unlicensed carry in general like… Illegal or something?
Yeah ok thats kinda ok.
deleted by creator
That Supreme Court case was a ridiculous rewriting of historical facts.
That can apply to just about every case the Supreme Joke have given the last few years
