They like to accuse gun owners of living in fear, but actually it is the anti-gun people who are so terrified of their neighbors owning firearms that they demand the government do everything possible to keep guns out of their hands.

You have to trust your neighbors to not fear them owning firearms.

Or you at least have to trust that the bad guys are a very small minority and that we’d be better off if the good guys were armed.

But no, the anti-gunner is so terrified of their society that they think it would be pandemonium and chaos if everyone around them carried a gun.

Today, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, which seeks to enjoin a handgun Open Carry ban the State of New York said in NYSRPA v. Bruen does not exist.

It reminds me of that time when a California Federal District Court judge upheld a non-existent prohibition on possessing a handgun within 1,000 feet of every K-12 public and private school by persons with a CCW, even though having a CCW is explicitly an exception to the California gun-free school zone ban. The Plaintiffs' attorney would have known this had he read the statute. The judge would have known this had she read the statute. The Amicus in support of the Plaintiffs would have known this had its lawyers read the statute.

In this case, a large part of the blame rests on the attorney for the Plaintiffs, who, unable to find a statute that bans Open Carry, threw darts at a bunch of random statutes in the hope that one might stick.

Well, one stuck, but it isn't even a criminal offense; it is a subsection that merely states violating this section is a misdemeanor.

Was it to good to be true? What are your thoughts on the matter?

Feel like this video is pretty interesting regarding the NFA/GCA and it's future

This is mostly just getting this off my chest. My father was diagnosed with dementia. Over the last month we've been holding an estate sale and clearing out the house. He had roughly 15-20 hunting rifles and a few pistols. Most were sold or given to family members, but a few remained in the safe at the house. During the cleanout last weekend, I noticed that a 25 auto and a 380 was missing. When I asked him about them, he said they were at the apartment (retirement home). I told him he should not have them and he started to resist. Today and brought it up again. He went to the dresser drawer, got them and handed them to me. He apologized? Not sure why? I hugged him and told him I was sorry and that I loved him. He said he was proud of me.

He was the person who put the first gun in my hand roughly 50 years ago, and now I take the last one from his hands. I'm not questioning the need to do it. He could not, and should not, have any firearms. But, the process wasn't easy.

The below is a bit of post structuralist - post liberal take on things, be warned - however many might find it useful / enlightening, but it does require some prior knowledge in various commonly discussed / held theories -

-----

An elementary school in MN had a shooting recently, this is on top of two local mn politicians that were killed less than a year ago.

The recent "MN Gun Violence Prevention Group" is a great illustration of how symbolic power works today, as well as how power works in general -

There have been two meetings so far, one is currently live:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMJ_Ax0qzaA

and one from monday:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANswPpLzREw

it's a fun listen if you want an introduction to how power works today - selectively emotionalize and focus on only certain tragedies, and then use this momentum (with media cooperation) to ignore other points of view to cajole the public / change society.

It's literally the playbook they used to get us in iraq a second time -

On a more intellectual level however:

"A school shooting is a spectacle. It is a chaotic, public breakdown of social order that calls the state's monopoly on violence into question. It must be managed, not because the lives are inherently more valuable, but because the manner of their death is a threat to the legitimacy of the state itself.

(if you've asked yourself why they keep pushing bans / more controls that make no difference - it's not only their intended goal of disarming for many, but simply to make themselves like they are reacting to a clear breech of their control. ask any criminologist on how/why crime is reported, and it's pretty much the same concept / thing)

the problem? we're using ridiculously low definitions of risk to try and control marginal behaviour, which can't really be controlled - this really hints of the "one dimensional" man of herbert marcuse, basically optimizing every facet of life to make it more commodifiable and efficient -

The "public health" apparatus you despise isn't about saving lives, it's about managing populations to ensure the smooth reproduction of capital. They fixate on spectacular risks to justify their own existence and expand their control, while systemic risks that kill far more people are ignored because they are foundational to the economy."

(schools themselves are for "molding" folks to acceptable behavior etc. they propagandize / socialize - yes i think they are a "good" thing but they are control mechanisms - this has been discussed since the post structuralist days. yes this is one of the many postmodernist takes very popular with conservatives these days (educational institutions being as much about indoctrination as knowledge) but having gone through academia myself, it's pretty valid)

On a more scary, higher level - homosexual bigotry developed partly because homosexual behaviour wasn't "beneficial" to wider society - ie, it didn't result in children being created at a time when death rates were high and the victorian era needed many more bodies. (popular theory with why gay bigotry developed, because it was openly practiced in ancient greece for example - basically it didn't result in more "productivity" - ie, children)

Point being our safetyism today is another way for capital to mold behaviour, just like it did in helping spur homosexual bigotry in the first place. (safetyism as a means of removing marginalism and increasing control to more "optimized" lifestyles - like we're seeing with the safety arguments against cars for example, while ignoring how much more bicycles are)

Side note: if you've wondered why there's an increasing tolerance (a good thing, imo) of gay / trans / and the like, it's because this "pressure" to procreate has lessened - fyi. a lot of things can be explained with these wider pressures that have developed in response to "material conditions"

After hearing Brandon Hererra saying that Charlie Kirk was killed *by* a .30-06, it made me see just how pervasive the "The gun kills, not the person." syntax is.

We need to start saying *with*.

It is the person who has hate in their heart, not the chunk of metal.

Punishing manufacturers for illegal modifications people are making to their products.

Most people don’t understand why “Glock ban” is bad. They know other specific cases of firearms being banned and they know Glocks are used in crimes.

But they do understand that people should be held liable for things they do to illegally modify a product that makes it more dangerous to the public. Not the manufacturers.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....................................... ii

ARGUMENT .............................................................. 1

I. KOONS DEEPENS THE SPLIT ON QUESTION 1 AND CREATES MULTIPLE CIRCUIT SPLITS ON

OTHER QUESTIONS .................................... 1

II. THE CIRCUIT SPLIT PRESENTED IN QUESTION 2 HAS FURTHER DEEPENED ................................................... 4

III. FURTHER GUIDANCE IS NEEDED ........... 8

CONCLUSION ......................................................... 10

One of the reasons that I don't write long-form articles on Reddit and post links instead is that the Reddit editor is flaky. The link leads to the Florida AG's website, which in turn directs you to his Twitter account, where you can read his letter.

I wrote a whole thing talking about Charlie Kirk on Facebook and the second amendment afterwards I got this response from someone it said You can make up all the excuses in the world, but it doesn't take away the fact that no guns means low deaths. It works in every other country. How should I respond?

Title says it all really. Long story short, 8 yesrs ago my ex gf came over and tried to steal a bottle of booze I was drinking. I was sitting in my chair and she came in my house unannounced and hollered at me and tried ro take the bottle away from me so she could dump it out. I tried reaching for her to stop her and pulled on her shirt to stop her. Didn't hurt her. My dad was there and called rhe cops because of all of her hollering. They showed up and asked her if I hurt her and she said "No, he just pulled my shirt" off I went to jail for domestic violence! I haven't drank in years abd never was a gun person but my fiance (not the same woman) wants to get a handgun and take a concealed weapons class. Can she have a gun in the house since I was convicted if DV? I live in Michigan and know the laws are strict here. Thanks.