Gun Political Issues Megathread. (Control for or Against?)

bullethead said:
Here's what New York thinks will "comply" with Bruen:
Article:
Permits would, among other things, require four references and "a list of current and former social media accounts" from the last three years:

FWlV6-LWAAAVGbs
Click to expand...

A list of former and current social media accounts from the past three years to confirm the applicants "character and conduct" and in particular that it "attest to the applicants good moral character and that such applicant has not engaged in any acts or made any statements that suggest they are likely to engage in conduct that would result in harm to themselves or others."
 
Husky_Khan said:
A list of former and current social media accounts from the past three years to confirm the applicants "character and conduct" and in particular that it "attest to the applicants good moral character and that such applicant has not engaged in any acts or made any statements that suggest they are likely to engage in conduct that would result in harm to themselves or others."
Click to expand...
Yeah, that part is full of crap too.
 
The other fun one is to simply create a few thousand social media accounts and provide them all. And, of course, make a fair percentage of them (including whatever your real ones are) set to private for the duration.

For extra hiliarity, look at creating foreign focused social media accounts as well.
 
Bear Ribs said:
Gavin Newsom making more gun control in California. I couldn't stop chuckling at "An AR-15 is a weapon of mass destruction."
Click to expand...

Wow, wonder what will the many movie and videogame companies in California have to say about this thing. Plenty of guns shown in those...
 
Battlegrinder said:
"I committed more crimes because I couldn't have a gun" sounds.....less than plausible.
Click to expand...
More, "I committed more crimes because I couldn't find a job or a place to live because people convicted of felonies are treated like undesirables." The issue with gun rights is just an example of how ex-cons, no matter what crime they committed, continue to be punished even after they've served their time.
 
Battlegrinder said:
"I committed more crimes because I couldn't have a gun" sounds.....less than plausible.
Click to expand...
More like "I committed more crimes, because people like you kept demanding that of me". It's not just about this one right you're arguing we should try to strip from them; it's the latest in a long series of rights stripped in the name of keeping you safe from people you insist should always be treated like a threat. Freedom of movement, freedom of association, their right to vote, their ability to find gainful employment; all stripped from those who supposedly have paid their debt to society in full. If they're that irredeemable, why are you so adamant that the one thing we must never do to them is lock them up forever?

Besides, let's be honest; stripping them of their right to own firearms is a placebo, an utterly useless gesture. The only people it'll actually affect are those who really are trying to be better people; the rest will be able to get guns easily enough.
 
KilroywasNOTHere said:
So in other words the common man needs to get some gonads and learn how to defend themselves. An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure and two tons recompense. No one is going to save you except your own grit and a heart of steel.
Click to expand...

Precisely.
 
Terthna said:
More like "I committed more crimes, because people like you kept demanding that of me". It's not just about this one right you're arguing we should try to strip from them; it's the latest in a long series of rights stripped in the name of keeping you safe from people you insist should always be treated like a threat. Freedom of movement, freedom of association, their right to vote, their ability to find gainful employment; all stripped from those who supposedly have paid their debt to society in full. If they're that irredeemable, why are you so adamant that the one thing we must never do to them is lock them up forever?

Besides, let's be honest; stripping them of their right to own firearms is a placebo, an utterly useless gesture. The only people it'll actually affect are those who really are trying to be better people; the rest will be able to get guns easily enough.
Click to expand...

I'll go one step further. Either let them pay their debt to society or kill them. If someone is so dangerous that their debt is beyond redemption and they are essentially a rabid dog, put them down like such. locking them up and forgetting about them beyond bare necessities just seems like a slow weaselly indirect way of killing them so we don't have to feel the guilt of getting our own hands dirty, but the guilt is still there anyway, if you're going to kill them anyway at least be efficient about it.

but no let's just jail people without any form of consistency because its way easier just to jail someone then it is to actually try to rehabilitate criminals into productive citizens, (Probably more profitable for the politicians too.)

maybe removing easy jailing will make us force on actual violent crimes.
 
Last edited:
UPS against guns

BREAKING: UPS cancelling gun dealers’ accounts, destroying packages in transit

United Parcel Service is terminating the accounts of gun dealers across the country. Any packages currently in the UPS system may be “seized and destroyed.”

In a letter sent to one Florida gun dealer, Ghost Firearms, UPS said they were terminating the account because they “may be violating” laws concerning homemade firearm parts.

“We write to inform you that UPS has learned that your company may be violating applicable laws concerning the shipment of “ghost guns” to unauthorized locations,” the letter states. “In light of our concern, UPS has determined that it will cancel your account, effective immediately.

Ghost’s owner, Joe Zatar was told all scheduled pickups will be cancelled, and that he cannot reopen another UPS account or ship anything from a UPS store or website.

He is most concerned about the packages already in the UPS system, which he may have already lost.

“Please note that any package found in the UPS system determined to have been tendered by GHOST FIREARMS may be seized and destroyed,” the letter states.
Click to expand...
 
Their reasoning is that gun dealers ''might violate the laws''. It's ludicrous, but within the current zeitgeist.
 
Accusation is all the evidence they need, it is the way of the witch hunts and it is quite likely that it is covered by the lawyerspeak in their terms of service.
 
Even liberals think New York's new permitting scheme is stupid:
Article:
In other words, how applicants get to exercise their Second Amendment rights may depend on how they exercised their First Amendment rights — and whether government officials approve.

But free speech isn't free if government authorities can impose consequences even for speech that is otherwise perfectly legal. What's more, New York's law leaves open the troubling possibility that applicants could be denied for political speech or opinions that happen to be unpopular with licensing authorities.

...

Given its disregard for the First Amendment, the law is almost certainly unconstitutional. It will also be ineffective in preventing potentially bad actors from acquiring concealed-carry permits. They could simply refuse to reveal the existence of social media accounts, especially anonymous ones, that might cast them in a bad light. Or they may delete accounts prior to applying for the permit. Only honest and law-abiding applicants are likely to have their speech analyzed by authorities.

The social-media mandate, then, serves little purpose and seems to illustrate the overreach lawmakers risk when they rush through legislation without deliberation and input from the public. Lawmakers must reconsider the social-media mandate, before courts inevitably force them to.
[/articles]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top