I hope my fellow Democrats are finally beginning to see why disarming ourselves was such a bad fucking idea.
No, I don’t want people to run around randomly murdering each other. These laws haven’t stopped that.
It’s going to be hard to fight fascism when only the fascists are armed.
Then you get the smug assholes posting questions like, “Hey gun owners why aren’t you standing against tyranny for me?” as though I could do shit alone.
I hate that goddamn question. Literally demanding others to die on their behalf.
I think its more that some folks have been saying they needed their guns in case the government overeached and curtailed freedom. The government is doing exactly that, and many of the “guns will save my family from Incle Sam” folks are cheering the changes instead of rising up. People are pointing out the hypocrisy, not demanding people die for them
The people who are asking that question are probably the people who believed they wouldn’t see a tyrannical government on US soil. If the Democrats hadn’t wasted so much political capital on bending over to billionaires and their gun control fantasy, more people on the left would be armed right now. Instead, they pushed the rhetoric that only crazy conservatives own guns. They pushed it so hard that now many crazy conservatives own guns. Of course they’re gonna love the Trump regime. One party spent decades saying they are horrible people for shooting paper, and did whatever they could to take that away from people. They don’t see what’s happening as tyranny because the Democrats told these gun owners they will face tyranny with a Democratic controlled government.
If anyone truly believes Trump is or is trying to be the American Hitler, then they are buying ammo and plate carriers.
I hope my fellow Democrats are finally beginning to see why disarming ourselves was such a bad fucking idea.
Normally I would disagree with you and continue to argue for gun control. But seeing how fucked America is at the moment you are kinda right.
It’s like the gun crazies in your country finally created a situation so bad that you actually need guns…
Can you share a meaningful number of examples showing Democrats with guns standing up to neo-fascists?
Because while your comment has an air of sensibility, the news stories that I’ve seen over the decades give the impression that the Americans who choose to own guns to protect their rights are overwhelmingly supporters of the very fascists that are in the spotlight now. I would love reason to believe otherwise, but since I don’t have one, I am skeptical of your argument.
None of those are examples of people using firearms to stand against tyranny. Not even at a small scale, let alone a meaningful one.
(Note that racist organisations are not governments. They’re awful, but they are not fascism and do not constitute tyranny.)
I misunderstood what you were after, since I consider neo-nazi’s to be neo-fascists. If you wanted examples of people resisting fascist or tyrannical governments only, there’s not many examples of that happening in the US specifically since those movements would be almost immediately and harshly quashed. I don’t know if you’d consider the Battle of Athens to count since it was only against a corrupt local town government. And the Battle of Blair Mountain, I assume, doesn’t really count either.
For larger scale conflicts, we’d have to go abroad and often farther back in history, which may disqualify it from what you’re looking for.
Examples:
-
Rojava using weapons to protect against tyrannical and oppressive neighbor states
-
The Spanish Civil War, which was leftists (even George Orwell joined in!) vs. the fascist army of Francisco Franco (plus Documentary with more detail)
-
Nestor Makhno’s Black Army during the Russian Revolution (plus short historical video)
-
these laws haven’t stopped that
What laws? You still get assault rifles with your eggs Benedict breakfast there in the US, so what fracking laws are you talking about?
Shoot mass shootings still happen all the time to the point where children get active shooter training because guns are more readily avait than butter.
What laws?
Your police forces receive regular arms shipments from the US army
What laws are you talking about? For all intents and purposes there are some laws that prohibit things like nukes, tanks, machine guns and other heavy weaponry but that’s about it.
The US is a gun nut country and the entire attitude you have about guns is the same attitude that is the problem in the US. All other countries have solved these issues and the US still pretends that all this is new, and there is no way to stop any of this!
The US could solve prettyuch of its problems within a year if it wanted to
It just doesn’t, it prefers to suffer a dnpull the rest of the world down with it
There are no laws that stopped gun violents in the US.
This shit only happens in your fucked up country. You’ve long lost the opportunity for distinguishing between good and bad gun owners. The whole world sees that y’all only have fascists with gun because America couldn’t give up their gun addiction in the first place.
That’s just the price we pay for freedom.
Holy crap, I can’t tell if you’re joking or not
Forgot /s? 😂
“It is difficult to see how Maryland’s categorical prohibition on AR-15s passes muster under this framework,” he wrote.
Oh, Clarence. There are SO many things that are difficult for you to see.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his
salarybribery depends upon his not understanding it!”get the man some reading glasses already!
Luxury RVs aren’t known for visibility.
That’s Motor Coach to you, pleb!
…but has also shown a reluctance in recent months to take up a new case on the scope of the right to bear arms under the Constitution’s Second Amendment.
Oh gee, I wonder why.
The AR-15 as well as magazines with more than 10 rounds are both in common use for lawful purposes, making any such blanket ban on either unconstitutional as per Heller.
That said, the Supreme court declines cases on the regular, which is not a judgement either for or against prior rulings. Though it does mean the prior ruling stands for now.
it’s wild to me that the Court struck down the ban on bump stocks in Cargill, which are obviously unusual devices without a history of use for self-defense (and strained to misinterpret the “by a single function of the trigger” language of the NFA) yet they decline to overturn this decision.
where’s the internal consistency? you’d think they’d at least follow precedent they themselves set.
Sometimes it’s just to let the various lower courts litigate every angle first, and other times it’s because they are waiting for a more perfect case. It’s very easy to make bad case law as SCOTUS, so they decline to hear even obvious cases on the regular.
read up a bit. there’s an interesting concurrence(!) from Kavanaugh, which basically said they’re too busy, come back later.
Traditionally (as in the decades after the 2nd was written) all concealed carrying of weapons was illegal. It was also not uncommon for law enforcement to disarm people when they entered town. Heller is a terrible ruling because it claims to hold to history while ignoring historical norms that are inconvenient for the pro-gun lobby.
It was common during those times to open carry however. It’s just that concealed carry is much, much more common now. Quite a bit of that has to do with people’s attitudes toward arms. It’s much easier to not upset people if they don’t know you are carrying.
And I can tell you from personal experience, even if you are printing, vanishingly few people notice. When I quit my last job, told my manager I had carried every day for the last years. He had never noticed.
Oh yeah, I know. I know it’s not a common take, but I am pro open carry, but anti concealed carry. I feel safer when I know who is and isn’t armed.
Conceal carry restrictions have a long history of being created and selectively enforced against the black population.
During Reconstruction, several states, especially Southern states, passed laws banning concealed carry. These laws were often aimed at disarming African-Americans, and though they did not explicitly say so because of the 14th Amendment, were not to be >enforced against whites.
Rivers H. Buford, associate justice of the Florida Supreme Court, said that the Florida law banning concealed carry, “[t]he original Act of 1893 … was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers … and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied. … [I]t is a safe guess to assume that more than 80% of the white men living in the rural sections of Florida have violated this statute. It is also a safe guess to say that not more than 5% of the men in Florida who own pistols and repeating rifles have ever applied to the Board of County Commissioners for a permit to have the same in their possession and there has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it >has been generally conceded to be in contravention to the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested.”[11]
In fact, Florida was not the only such state to ban the carriage of arms by blacks, nor was it the most explicit. The 1834 Tennessee Constitution, 1836 Arkansas Constitution, as well as the 1838 Florida constitution, stated “That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.”
This continued into the modern day, with Ronald Reagan and the NRA supporting and implementing the Mulford Act specifically to illegalize and target the Black Panthers and other black communities, who were exercising their rights to arm themselves to protect against police brutality and racists. Unfortunately the arming and legal targeting of the Black Panthers for that arming was very likely an FBI operation.
There were some concealed gun control laws in old west towns that were implemented against whites as well, but even then, only selectively against those the local Law Enforcement didn’t like.
Equality was an ideological principle woven throughout the Constitution, but it was selectively granted to only a few. That doesn’t mean we should throw out the idea of equality because it wasn’t applied correctly. In the same way we shouldn’t throw out firearm restrictions because they were applied selectively.
This is correct. There are several state appeals court cases working through their respective processes. I hope they result in a case that gets all state rifle bans and magazine restrictions invalidated forever, but as usual it takes mere minutes for restrictions to be put in, and decades for them to be judicially removed.
Luigi.jpg
