And how, exactly, are they going to assess if anyone is "undocumented" at 200, 300, 400 yards?
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
269 points (96.5% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2384 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Well, they're BROWN. Clearly! /s
Just like the door gunner in Full Metal Jacket.
Anyone who runs is an illegal. Anyone who stands still is a well disciplined illegal.
With a color swatch strip that runs from beige to brown. Anywhere darker than tan and it's open season.
The law change as far as I can tell allows you to shoot intruders on your property right away.
Heading north
These mofos always looking for excuses to hunt people, especially minorities.
What are they supposed to do with all those guns, just look at them? Come on bro, be chill. They just want to do a lil brownperson hunting.
And what the fuck are you gonna do to stop em?
As a canadian, all I can do is feel sad and angry about it and post while chugging maple syrup
As an american, I'll be chugging nacho "cheese."
You should be voting in local elections so chuds like this don't get a chance.
At least we Canadians get a sugar high with the maple syrup, I feel bad for your arteries....
Nah don't worry about our arteries. With any luck capitalism will crush our souls enough that stress will kill us faster than eating a pint of queso a day could
It's kind of funny how it sneaks up on you...
I never thought I'd own a gun, but had an apartment in a bad neighborhood, lots of drugs and crime, loose pit bulls running around.
So I bought a gun:
https://www.beretta.com/en-us/product/92fs-FA0043
Roll forward 20 years, my grandfather passes away, leaves his guns to my dad. My dad passes away... suddenly I'm the owner of 14 guns. O_O
I consider myself left of center, in the US at least. I’m in favor of a more careful and measured approach to gun ownership in general. That all being said, when I watched an angry mob attempt to overthrow the federal government, my liberal ass went out and bought a gun. Those lunatics proved they’d happily lynch politicians from their own party, I sleep sounder with my gun safe nearby.
I keep repeating: Women, POC and LGBT folks have been the largest gun purchasing demographic in America for the past few years. Maybe liberal suburban boys should wonder what those people are seeing?
And I repeat again: Owning a gun does NOT make you safe. Unless you practice, train, practice some more and carry (carrying is another form of practice), you're less safe. If you haven't put 1,000 rounds through your weapon, in varying conditions, keep going.
It's a big responsibility. If you don't want to take it on, that's your right. I chose to take it on, as is my right. If they start loading trains, I'll fight for you all, best I can anyway, which ain't much.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Living in Proud Boy Central, I agree. Though things have calmed down a bit since the arrests. Hard to tell though if it were that or the rainy season. :) I guess we'll find out in the Spring.
https://www.opb.org/article/2024/01/24/marc-bru-proud-boys-january-6-portland/
And that is 100% understandable despite the fact that the mere act of owning a firearm increases your chances of being involved in gun violence. What a world we live in
Perhaps the people who own guns are more prone to violence, or live in more violent areas? Believed that stat for years, but since I started shooting, I've read a lot more and now question it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
I'm definitely of the mindset that I want more guns and I could easily afford them. I don't buy them because I am likely inheriting dozens of firearms when certain family members pass. It's still decades away (hopefully), but I don't want to have to deal with so many multiples of similar firearms.
Owning a firearm is a big responsibility, using one on a person will change a decent person's life dramatically, but being murdered or watching your family be murdered is not an option.
That was kind of the position I was in when I inherited...
Dad left me this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Standard_Derringer
OK, that's cute, but come on... Bought one of these...
https://www.bondarms.com/bond-arms-handguns/ranger-ii/
Then, going through everything, I was like "Wait, no shotgun?"
Fine!
I would love to inherit 13 guns. I'd turn them in at the first local buy back so they could be destroyed.
Yes, my immediate thought was "Melenated people are targets more than ever in my lifetime. I'm the same age as people who still weren't allowed in designated schools, hospitals, despite federal laws. Yes, one of those states
load more comments
(1 replies)
ETA to ranchers selling slots on their ranch for anyone to come in and hunt humans.
You can bet your ass Kyle Rittenhouse would be begging his mom to drive him to Arizona.
Bold of you to assume they aren't already
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
It's important, I think, to remember that our nation, and much of civilization chooses to put property rights over human rights. Some nations do not, many of which are the happiest on Earth according to the world happiness index.
We choose, to be vindictive, petty, murderous monsters, many of which are willing to kill over their pile of crap, and some of which are extremely eager, going by their door signs, to kill over their pile of crap.
But Freedom to roam countries tend to be societies, whereas we're more of a burlap sack fillled with turds, Metaphorically speaking.
pro life.
How do you morally justify allowing yourself to kill other people? Where does that authority come from?
It's been a while, but I do vaguely recall a footnote on the sixth commandment about how it doesn't count if you really don't like the person you are killing or something.
Same people who really insist that the bible and the ten commandments are the immutable word of god and that alone is a justification for things being illegal.
Well the thing is that after the commandment to not kill thing, there come something like three whole books where that same god directly instructs his chosen people to commit one tribal genocide after another after another after another. There's even a cool story in there where he gives such an instruction and his chosen ones are like, "Nah, they have more people and better resources and we're going to all die if we try to genocide them." And that god says, "If you don't go kill them right now, I'll just kill you right here and now." And then within a book or so after that he's all, "Actually it's bad to kill again, starting... NOW!" Can't expect consistency or logic from people who think these are true stories.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm a food delivery driver in rural AZ. This is horrifying.
Yeah no, you are an ex food delivery driver. You just don't know it yet. By that I mean quit. Don't put yourself at risk for these people's sake. Tell the company they cannot pay you enough on hazard pay to justify working there anymore
load more comments
(2 replies)
Remember the parable of the man who was beaten on the road to Damascus? In the New Republican Version, it ends with the Samaritan gunning him down from 100yds, just in case.
Scene: The road to Damascus
Samaritan: laying on the ground, beaten and bloody
Repub: GET ON THE GROUND GET ON THE GROUND!!!!
Samaritan: lifts head slightly to see who is yelling
Repub: HE'S COMING RIGHT AT ME!! pew pew pew
Samaritan: dies
Repub: you guys all saw that right? He was coming right at me, I had to stand my ground! (from 100 yards away)
what's hilarious about that (OG) parable was... it's original purpose.
some cultural context is important there; not rendering aid if it could be rendered was viewed every bit as much as stabbing a dude would have been. It was the only commandant that could have been broken by inaction.
now the merchant and the pharisee were both seen as righteous men. So as jesus was telling the story; everybody expected him to stop. When the merchant kept going by, everyone thought (more or less,) "oh, the pharisee had it."
When the Pharisee kept going... he was literally calling the rich fucks and their puppets (the pharisees) murderers. The point of the parable was that those two were worse than the "unclean" and broadly despised Samaritans. (which were viewed in very similar manner to how Trumpian broke-dicks view migrants seeking asylum, in point of fact.)
Reminder that illegally crossing the border is only a misdemeanor.
Where's the bill to remove everyone who's not a Native American from this stolen land? Oh, right.
Wasn't but a few hours ago that I was telling someone elsewhere in the fediverse that food is a human right and directly causing famine (Palestine) is unacceptable use of human rights as weapons.
Fortunately, when Israel couldn't quite be offensive enough at that exact moment, Arizona sat up and said "Hold my beer, y'all!"
There's some nuance here. INAL, but I'm reading that this bill would allow someone to confront a trespasser, far from home, yet on their property, and call it castle doctrine. If that's the case, I disagree mightily. Fuck around outside? That's for 911, even if they're far away. Don't care what you do outside, I'll wait on law enforcement. Inside? FAFO.
If passed, the change of “and” to “or” in state law would give a much broader defense to people who use deadly force, as property would only have to satisfy some of the requirements instead of all of them, said criminal defense attorney Jack Litwak. [emphasis mine]
“The idea with the Castle Doctrine is that you are supposed to be able to defend house and home,” he said.“This seems to broaden it to say you can shoot someone that’s just on your actual property.”
On the surface, this doesn't seem like much of a change. But I've seen cases revolve around seemingly minor details. Words have very specific meanings in law. Very specific.
Remember the guy who shot a YouTube bully who was fucking with him in a food court? And we all cheered him on? Here James Reeves, gun nut and attorney, breaks it down. Yes, being somewhat cheesy is part of his shtick. In any case, he's expert on both firearms and related law (ex-military and a practicing attorney.)
Murder is against federal law.
but somehow, I get the feeling the spineless idiots running the show won't enforce it.
In committee, Rep. Alex Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, praised the bill for protecting people who could be accused of using excessive force in these situations.
“This is a great Second Amendment bill, that is also protecting the rights of the accused to make sure we are taking ambiguity out of our law,” Kolodin said.
These people are absolute acorns.
load more comments
(1 replies)
We aren't quickly becoming the Imperium, we're already there. The hottest and most abundant commodity is bodies, exploited to the last sinew. Whether your shot dead, or worked to death in dangerous conditions, you will serve. It is beyond time we've dealt with our demostic terrorism, the politicians that enable them, and the corporations that fund it all.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Well, you have to admit, it's one way to ensure these republiQan dickhead office-holders will never set foot near the border again.
When will it extend to 10" from wherever your car happens to be? I mean, why not right? The car is clearly more valuable as long as it isnt a sissy commie electric.
/s for sadcasm
load more comments
(2 replies)
What's the point into selling guns to people if you can't made an excuse to kill some unarmed brown people with them?
view more: next ›