New Mexico prosecutors on Tuesday said they intended to recharge actor Alec Baldwin with involuntary manslaughter for the fatal shooting of "Rust" cinematographer Halyna Hutchins in 2021.
Morrissey said if new testing of the gun showed it was working, she would recharge Baldwin.
The right has been pretty open about what kind of America they want to live in and what they’re willing to do to get there. We should all believe them and take them seriously, because they are fucking serious.
Fascist militias are popping up left and right, and the only gun control measures that pass end up restricting the rights of citizens in blue states while red states continue expanding their own. Unless you can magically disarm the entire nation simultaneously that cat is out of the bag.
I’m optimistic about the future and hold no deluded fantasies of armed conflict, but there may come a time where you’ll wish you had access to normal capacity magazines and non-nerfed rifles. Jon Stewart is not going to come rescue you when they have you on your knees in front of a ditch.
Disarming the working class under the current hyper-capitalist regime doesn’t really work in our favor either, and in most instances gun control is proven to be a political loser that equals to nothing more than a waste of time/effort and only serves to cripple a campaign.
Pro 2a isn’t a single sided issue and should not be treated as such.
Listen, I get it. I’m a multiple gun owner. I grew up with guns and have shot competitively. But make no mistake, as a country we have decided that the right to own a weapon designed to kill people is more important than the children that are killed every year by gun violence. Gun deaths are not a mental health problem, nor a magazine problem, nor a “scary looking rifle” problem. It’s a gun problem. I highly recommend Malcolm Gladwell’s recent 6 part podcast series on this topic. And for the record, while I am a gun owner, I would happily accept common sense gun regulations or even a ban if our country ever collectively decided that they give a shit about human lives and each other. Will it happen? No.
Nah, you can search for yourself; the problem is we can’t understand it for you.
Gladwell has always been pseudointellectual trash, but you’re not gonna change your mind. You’d rather believe anyone who criticizes him is a “2A-er” or whatever-the-fuck
None of that is true of course. What is true is that your desire to have a deadly instrument of death is more important than thousands of children’s lives. At least be a man and own it.
Ok, bud. Keep eating up what any pseudo-intellectual digests and throws up into your mouth like a good little birdie. It’s ok to tout the virtues of grifters when they agree with you.
Uh huh. Whatever you say must be reasonable. You’re the guy that believes their right to own a deadly weapon is more important than the lives of thousands of children. Who can argue with that?
people who have different opinions that you are not “trolls” they just disagree with you
do you think pro 2A folks think that people that commit gun crimes shouldn’t be punished?
One thing they rightfully always bring up is that in many of these shootings, the existing laws weren’t even being followed, yet they always spur cries for new laws that would only hurt law abiding citizens.
I am going to ask you to actually consider the following situation. Let’s say in the future hate speech is criminalized. If someone goes and says something very evil, would you support removing the first amendment rights of all citizens based on their actions?
Sorry, I said hate speech as an example, but you are correct, hate speech is generally only used as a way to increase sentences of people that commit other hate crimes.
However, there are many instances that speech is limited by the government, and they don’t violate the first amendment.
We currently have limitations on free speech, and yet we still have free speech. And we currently have limitations on the second amendment (you can’t own a nuclear or biological weapon legally).
So how would a couple more limitations completely remove the right to own arms?
I think you may have missed the connection to the first amendment.
I assumed you believed in the conspiracy theory “slippery slope”, I was wondering why you think the slope isn’t slippery for the first amendment, but just the second?
Would be great if all the pro 2a trolls in this thread had the same outrage for all the dead kids in the US from firearms. Smh.
The right has been pretty open about what kind of America they want to live in and what they’re willing to do to get there. We should all believe them and take them seriously, because they are fucking serious.
Fascist militias are popping up left and right, and the only gun control measures that pass end up restricting the rights of citizens in blue states while red states continue expanding their own. Unless you can magically disarm the entire nation simultaneously that cat is out of the bag.
I’m optimistic about the future and hold no deluded fantasies of armed conflict, but there may come a time where you’ll wish you had access to normal capacity magazines and non-nerfed rifles. Jon Stewart is not going to come rescue you when they have you on your knees in front of a ditch.
Disarming the working class under the current hyper-capitalist regime doesn’t really work in our favor either, and in most instances gun control is proven to be a political loser that equals to nothing more than a waste of time/effort and only serves to cripple a campaign.
Pro 2a isn’t a single sided issue and should not be treated as such.
Listen, I get it. I’m a multiple gun owner. I grew up with guns and have shot competitively. But make no mistake, as a country we have decided that the right to own a weapon designed to kill people is more important than the children that are killed every year by gun violence. Gun deaths are not a mental health problem, nor a magazine problem, nor a “scary looking rifle” problem. It’s a gun problem. I highly recommend Malcolm Gladwell’s recent 6 part podcast series on this topic. And for the record, while I am a gun owner, I would happily accept common sense gun regulations or even a ban if our country ever collectively decided that they give a shit about human lives and each other. Will it happen? No.
lost me at Scamwell
Typical 2a er - too fucking lazy to lift a finger so just defaults to party line comments.
Thanks for confirming for all of use that you believe your right to own a deadly weapon is more important than a few thousand children’s lives. POS.
Fuck guns and fuck the 2a but isn’t Gladwell known to be a bit trash?
Let us all know with sauce why you think “Gladwell known to be a bit trash”?
Would love some supported argument as opposed to opinionated trash.
Nah, you can search for yourself; the problem is we can’t understand it for you.
Gladwell has always been pseudointellectual trash, but you’re not gonna change your mind. You’d rather believe anyone who criticizes him is a “2A-er” or whatever-the-fuck
None of that is true of course. What is true is that your desire to have a deadly instrument of death is more important than thousands of children’s lives. At least be a man and own it.
Ok, bud. Keep eating up what any pseudo-intellectual digests and throws up into your mouth like a good little birdie. It’s ok to tout the virtues of grifters when they agree with you.
Uh huh. Whatever you say must be reasonable. You’re the guy that believes their right to own a deadly weapon is more important than the lives of thousands of children. Who can argue with that?
Assumptions, assumptions. Part of that is why you listen to Scamwell.
You’re not even man enough to admit your tiny dick need for a killing weapon is more important than the lives of thousands of children. Coward.
stupid comment:
One thing they rightfully always bring up is that in many of these shootings, the existing laws weren’t even being followed, yet they always spur cries for new laws that would only hurt law abiding citizens.
I am going to ask you to actually consider the following situation. Let’s say in the future hate speech is criminalized. If someone goes and says something very evil, would you support removing the first amendment rights of all citizens based on their actions?
Hate speech is currently criminalized, in certain situations. And it hasn’t resulted in the first amendment rights of all citizens being removed.
So why would “well regulat[ing]” purchases of fire arms lead to the removal of 2nd amendment rights?
No, it is not.
Sorry, I said hate speech as an example, but you are correct, hate speech is generally only used as a way to increase sentences of people that commit other hate crimes.
However, there are many instances that speech is limited by the government, and they don’t violate the first amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#%3A~%3Atext%3DCategories_of_speech_that_are%2Claw%2C_true_threats%2C_and_commercial?wprov=sfla1
So, I ask again with the new context:
We currently have limitations on free speech, and yet we still have free speech. And we currently have limitations on the second amendment (you can’t own a nuclear or biological weapon legally).
So how would a couple more limitations completely remove the right to own arms?
it is an obvious slippery slope.
there will never be a time in which people who seek to restrict the 2A will go:
“ah, yes, this is enough limitations, we are done”
that’s why it’s important to put your foot down and stop it in its tracks.
I think you may have missed the connection to the first amendment.
I assumed you believed in the conspiracy theory “slippery slope”, I was wondering why you think the slope isn’t slippery for the first amendment, but just the second?
“conspiracy theory”
my brother, it is simple pattern recognition.
Do you not answer because you can’t explain?
finally, some reasonable thoughts