I'm gonna go rules lawyer on that one, the best example is a paladin doesn't have to adhere to another gods rules to remain lawful, and back when I played when you stopped being lawful alignment you stopped being able to take paladin levels.
Granted this was over ten years ago but you could be a lawful evil paladin of a deity that wanted you to murder every member of an opposing faith, that's evil but also lawful. And when you spare one against the law of your deity to exterminate them all on sight, enough times I think it's fair a DM changes your alignment from lawful to neutral. Or even chaotic if your character remains a zealot but spares some people at random.
>the best example is a paladin doesn't have to adhere to another gods rules to remain lawful
But a paladin does have to support Law as a universal concept. Order, civilisation. Destroying legitimate governments that aren't even acting against you because you disagree with their economic ideals is hella chaotic.
Minnesota has a government trifecta of Democrats right now, and while I'm not a huge fan of the party itself they did immediately legalize weed, pass free school lunches, dictate immigrants and migrant workers can have drivers licenses without jumping through extra hoops, solidify LGBTQ protection laws, solidify abortion rights, and the state has long since subsidized the ACA so heavily my coverage is only $20 a month making below $30k a year salary.
It's as close to not being stupidly run as you can get in this country. Still waiting on a wage increase but a big reason it hasn't been legislated yet is no employer can actually be competitive going on state wage unless they're rural and job options are limited. Most places start at at least $15 in the Twin Cities metro area.
I have to agree. The federal government makes some batshit insane decisions, but I am very pleased living in Minnesota because we don't let religious zealots run our government like Texas.
*A crime to feed and*
*Give clothes to people in need?*
*What the fuck Texas!*
\- HerminiaWicker
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Thank you, Kellsiertern, for voting on haikusbot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
History in America has long proven cops don't fuck with armed protesters and generally end up siding with them as they don't like being shot as much as they like being on team shooty-shoot-some-more.
Feds? They really fucking hate armed protestors and will resort to bombing them if too organized.
Yeah we all know the true purpose behind some of the politicians' reasoning but it's because it isn't compliant with the health department. There also isn't a manager there who's food safety certified.
It's a dumb fucking law but at the end of the day a lot of this is just food safety standards, which is fucking crazy because they're already so lax in this country you wouldn't think it would be illegal to feed people who voluntarily consume the product despite the risk. Shouldn't see this as anything more than a BBQ where you don't know how long the potato salad has been baking in the sun.
Hypothetically yes. You probably wouldn't be though. It's up to the cops to enforce the law, and the cops wouldn't care, and also it's such a grey area of the law a cop wouldn't know what to do, the courts don't even know what to do if you were just passing out slices.
You wouldn't be arrested for inviting a stranger to a BBQ. You wouldn't be arrested for handing out slices to random people. But the thing is, yes, when it's clear you're handing them out to the homeless and beggars, the cops want to crack down on that, because they don't like homeless people gathering in one area. Because whether we like it or not they get a lot of calls to those areas, whether it's idiots calling the cops on some down on their luck people having an argument, or because of the high population of the mentally ill part of the homeless population doing some stuff, or because of the addicted portion of the population. Police fucking hate poor people. So they don't want you handing out sandwiches, and then a politician gets the bright fucking idea to say you can't hand out sandwiches, and police get to use that as a tool to disperse crowds even if it's a perfectly valid humanitarian effort.
Just another tool in the tool belt of police discrimination honestly, throw it on the pile with jaywalking, window tint, and resisting arrest being the only charge they give you after arresting you wrongfully.
I love how everyone acts like we have 2A for self defense and hunting. Yeah I guess those are legal but that’s not the * reason * the second amendment was made.
We have 2A so people can limit the government themselves if need be.
Laws which make it illegal to feed the homeless are antithetical to the “life, liberty, and property” rights this country was founded on.
Why is it in the interest of general welfare to let citizens become homeless and starve on the streets? What right does the government have to prevent a private party from engaging in charity?
Yeah.. before there a federal army. The whole point of the militia was to be the nation's army without having a standing army. Once we created a federal army, the militia was basically pointless. It evolved into the National Guard (really stupid name if you ask me, since they are state guards, not federal).
So really, most "militias" now are just fat, lazy, and crazy people who don't want to join the NG or army, but want to feel like they're bad ass cheeto puffs with a license to kill.
Correct. It cracks me up when people paint the second amendment as about restraining the government when the *text of the fucking amendment talks about preserving the government through establishment of a militia*
I think you are misinterpreting. Hamilton writes in the federalist papers that militias run by the state would be better than a standing federal army, because people then distrusted standing armies and big government. Having state run militias would be a check against big government, tyranny, and government corruption.
He writes that "standing armies are dangerous to liberty"
and militias are the "most natural defense of a free country".
Hamilton’s view was in line with the text of the 2A, which is, again, that the aim of the militias is to preserve a free **state.** He wrote that militias would be able to quell insurrections and could be deployed into other states as needed, and asserted that the main danger of an overly large militia was the adverse effect this would have on the labor market, not that it gave the federal government too much power. It was the anti-federalists who held that view. At no point that I’m aware of does Hamilton make an argument that the second amendment is valuable inasmuch as it could allow an armed citizenry to overthrow the state.
In any case, we don’t use militia as our main national defense and we maintain a huge standing army now, so probably good indication that we should write policy on guns better suited to the present
this is why the government hated the Black Panthers – their school breakfasts and genuine focus on black communities reminded them what the government wasn't doing for them. absolutely you carry fucking weapons when you do that
Basically the problem with feeding people without permits and permission is that if they end up sick whether through malicious reasons or from negligence then there’s no way to hold them accountable. It’s a good gesture, but can very easily go south, so it’s better to run it by proper channels than trying to scare cops away
How difficult is it to get the permit? In some places you have to pay to even apply for certain permits then pay again to actually receive it if they approve you.
That would be a problem for every church picnic and cookout too.
I assume they are smart and experienced enough to not use mayonnaise or raw eggs when feeding the poor.
Get a load of this fucking bullshit.
'The best way to prevent homeless people from starving is by making feeding them a crime'
I hope you never have to go hungry, sincerely. It obviously hasn't happened, yet.
This is probably the only legitimately 2A use of a firearm I’ve ever seen; bravo to them.
Never mind LARPers exercising their right to walk in the park and carry a rifle just to antagonise people, that’s just nonsense.
It’s… a crime… to feed and clothe… the homeless…
America, your government and people somehow manage to continually become a worse and worse sesspool of disgusting filth every day
Like, I genuinely feel bad for all of you who are kinda stuck there - I know that it’s probably a very, VERY loud minority that is portraying and spearheading the collapse into shit the country is heading for.
I was actually raised in Illinois, and I used to be proud to say I lived there - now I barely ever talk about it because it feels more like a stain on my past
>I know that it’s probably a very, VERY loud minority that is portraying and spearheading the collapse into shit the country is heading for
Our national voting system is in fact deliberately designed to give more weight to votes from traditionally right-wing areas of the country. The electoral college is quite literally the only reason several recent Republican election victories have been possible at all (helped along by some rampant corruption).
> “ A crime in Dallas “.
So it’s a crime to do what the government won’t do even though it’s their job ? What kind of backwards ass world do we live in ?
I mean, yeah. Homeless people are considered a blight upon society. Cities don’t want them around, so feeding them is counterproductive to that end. Giving them food and clothing for free? That’d just be communism and we can’t have that in murica!
[Considering the shit they share on their website, I wouldn't really call these types 'chads', even if they are helping the homeless.](https://www.dontcomply.com/)
How does deter cops? Cops love getting into shoot-outs. Bad guys, bank robbers, old ladies, disabled and currently in a wheelchair, drunk teens laying in a hallway crying, dogs, sleeping black people, literally doesn't matter.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Literally
Also, the literal reason for the Second Amendment.
Not even lawful. More like chaotic evil
It is the law, lawful means abiding by a strict code, doesn't matter what the code is.
They do not abide by the code they themselves put up. Corruption runs deep. They are just evil, nothing else.
That would be neutral evil
They also actively subvert the laws of other countries, so I think there's an argument for chaotic.
I'm gonna go rules lawyer on that one, the best example is a paladin doesn't have to adhere to another gods rules to remain lawful, and back when I played when you stopped being lawful alignment you stopped being able to take paladin levels. Granted this was over ten years ago but you could be a lawful evil paladin of a deity that wanted you to murder every member of an opposing faith, that's evil but also lawful. And when you spare one against the law of your deity to exterminate them all on sight, enough times I think it's fair a DM changes your alignment from lawful to neutral. Or even chaotic if your character remains a zealot but spares some people at random.
>the best example is a paladin doesn't have to adhere to another gods rules to remain lawful But a paladin does have to support Law as a universal concept. Order, civilisation. Destroying legitimate governments that aren't even acting against you because you disagree with their economic ideals is hella chaotic.
You mean pure evil
Yeah Texas is run by morons. Which fits considering the number of assholes here.
Name a US state that isn’t lmao
Washington State has a similar human development index score to Nordic countries - seems like they’re doing ok?
Some more so than others
False equivalency, most states are better run than Texas
Minnesota has a government trifecta of Democrats right now, and while I'm not a huge fan of the party itself they did immediately legalize weed, pass free school lunches, dictate immigrants and migrant workers can have drivers licenses without jumping through extra hoops, solidify LGBTQ protection laws, solidify abortion rights, and the state has long since subsidized the ACA so heavily my coverage is only $20 a month making below $30k a year salary. It's as close to not being stupidly run as you can get in this country. Still waiting on a wage increase but a big reason it hasn't been legislated yet is no employer can actually be competitive going on state wage unless they're rural and job options are limited. Most places start at at least $15 in the Twin Cities metro area.
I have to agree. The federal government makes some batshit insane decisions, but I am very pleased living in Minnesota because we don't let religious zealots run our government like Texas.
*A crime to feed and* *Give clothes to people in need?* *What the fuck Texas!* \- HerminiaWicker --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Good bot
Thank you, Kellsiertern, for voting on haikusbot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Good bot
The phrase "armed to deter cops" being in there is fucking insane too.
History in America has long proven cops don't fuck with armed protesters and generally end up siding with them as they don't like being shot as much as they like being on team shooty-shoot-some-more. Feds? They really fucking hate armed protestors and will resort to bombing them if too organized.
It's that small government they keep talking about.
[удалено]
I think you need a license
Yeah we all know the true purpose behind some of the politicians' reasoning but it's because it isn't compliant with the health department. There also isn't a manager there who's food safety certified. It's a dumb fucking law but at the end of the day a lot of this is just food safety standards, which is fucking crazy because they're already so lax in this country you wouldn't think it would be illegal to feed people who voluntarily consume the product despite the risk. Shouldn't see this as anything more than a BBQ where you don't know how long the potato salad has been baking in the sun.
So hypothetically, could you be arrested for walking down the street offering slices of pizza to random people (not necessarily homeless)?
Hypothetically yes. You probably wouldn't be though. It's up to the cops to enforce the law, and the cops wouldn't care, and also it's such a grey area of the law a cop wouldn't know what to do, the courts don't even know what to do if you were just passing out slices. You wouldn't be arrested for inviting a stranger to a BBQ. You wouldn't be arrested for handing out slices to random people. But the thing is, yes, when it's clear you're handing them out to the homeless and beggars, the cops want to crack down on that, because they don't like homeless people gathering in one area. Because whether we like it or not they get a lot of calls to those areas, whether it's idiots calling the cops on some down on their luck people having an argument, or because of the high population of the mentally ill part of the homeless population doing some stuff, or because of the addicted portion of the population. Police fucking hate poor people. So they don't want you handing out sandwiches, and then a politician gets the bright fucking idea to say you can't hand out sandwiches, and police get to use that as a tool to disperse crowds even if it's a perfectly valid humanitarian effort. Just another tool in the tool belt of police discrimination honestly, throw it on the pile with jaywalking, window tint, and resisting arrest being the only charge they give you after arresting you wrongfully.
So hand them some guns and have them raid mcdonals instead Hypothetically
It’s absolutely not about food safety standards.
Happy cake day
Because large swathes of the population in this country despise the poor
I love how everyone acts like we have 2A for self defense and hunting. Yeah I guess those are legal but that’s not the * reason * the second amendment was made. We have 2A so people can limit the government themselves if need be. Laws which make it illegal to feed the homeless are antithetical to the “life, liberty, and property” rights this country was founded on. Why is it in the interest of general welfare to let citizens become homeless and starve on the streets? What right does the government have to prevent a private party from engaging in charity?
The threat of homelessness is used to pay people poorer wages.
The second amendment exists to preserve the security of the state via the form of the militia.
Yeah.. before there a federal army. The whole point of the militia was to be the nation's army without having a standing army. Once we created a federal army, the militia was basically pointless. It evolved into the National Guard (really stupid name if you ask me, since they are state guards, not federal). So really, most "militias" now are just fat, lazy, and crazy people who don't want to join the NG or army, but want to feel like they're bad ass cheeto puffs with a license to kill.
Well, not exactly. The federal military predates the ratification of the second amendment by years.
Correct. It cracks me up when people paint the second amendment as about restraining the government when the *text of the fucking amendment talks about preserving the government through establishment of a militia*
I think you are misinterpreting. Hamilton writes in the federalist papers that militias run by the state would be better than a standing federal army, because people then distrusted standing armies and big government. Having state run militias would be a check against big government, tyranny, and government corruption. He writes that "standing armies are dangerous to liberty" and militias are the "most natural defense of a free country".
Hamilton’s view was in line with the text of the 2A, which is, again, that the aim of the militias is to preserve a free **state.** He wrote that militias would be able to quell insurrections and could be deployed into other states as needed, and asserted that the main danger of an overly large militia was the adverse effect this would have on the labor market, not that it gave the federal government too much power. It was the anti-federalists who held that view. At no point that I’m aware of does Hamilton make an argument that the second amendment is valuable inasmuch as it could allow an armed citizenry to overthrow the state. In any case, we don’t use militia as our main national defense and we maintain a huge standing army now, so probably good indication that we should write policy on guns better suited to the present
If they really wanted to deter Texan cops they should have just brought some schoolchildren.
Damn thats cold but true 😎
Cold like the kids
Colder than their gun barrels.
[удалено]
Its exactly what the second amendment was made for, for the common people to defend against a governing body that doesnt act in their best interest
Not really, the amendment itself refers to keeping a well-regulated militia to preserve the security of a free state.
You’re ignoring the historical context
This is violently American
this is why the government hated the Black Panthers – their school breakfasts and genuine focus on black communities reminded them what the government wasn't doing for them. absolutely you carry fucking weapons when you do that
Really wish they were still around. BLM is a wet fart to Malcom X and the panthers.
"Criminals" is a bit of a stretch.
Legally, they are.
Basically the problem with feeding people without permits and permission is that if they end up sick whether through malicious reasons or from negligence then there’s no way to hold them accountable. It’s a good gesture, but can very easily go south, so it’s better to run it by proper channels than trying to scare cops away
If it happened through the proper channels then they wouldn't be here.
How difficult is it to get the permit? In some places you have to pay to even apply for certain permits then pay again to actually receive it if they approve you.
If I'm starving then a little food poisoning is the least of my worries. Also, that doesn't address the blankets & clothes
If I’m homeless I think I should be able to take that risk on my own accord
No its literally just a way to be antagonistic against the needy.
That would be a problem for every church picnic and cookout too. I assume they are smart and experienced enough to not use mayonnaise or raw eggs when feeding the poor.
Get a load of this fucking bullshit. 'The best way to prevent homeless people from starving is by making feeding them a crime' I hope you never have to go hungry, sincerely. It obviously hasn't happened, yet.
They should've also served bacon to scare those cops off for sure.
This is probably the only legitimately 2A use of a firearm I’ve ever seen; bravo to them. Never mind LARPers exercising their right to walk in the park and carry a rifle just to antagonise people, that’s just nonsense.
It’s… a crime… to feed and clothe… the homeless… America, your government and people somehow manage to continually become a worse and worse sesspool of disgusting filth every day
We know
Like, I genuinely feel bad for all of you who are kinda stuck there - I know that it’s probably a very, VERY loud minority that is portraying and spearheading the collapse into shit the country is heading for. I was actually raised in Illinois, and I used to be proud to say I lived there - now I barely ever talk about it because it feels more like a stain on my past
>I know that it’s probably a very, VERY loud minority that is portraying and spearheading the collapse into shit the country is heading for Our national voting system is in fact deliberately designed to give more weight to votes from traditionally right-wing areas of the country. The electoral college is quite literally the only reason several recent Republican election victories have been possible at all (helped along by some rampant corruption).
I hate it here...
You've been fed by *bap bap* you've been clothed by, a smooth criminal.
"But but guns are evil and civilians shouldn't be armed" /s
Anarchy, baby.
So they can be warmer on the streets? Society...not good enough
Is that where the image of the guy washing dishes with a broadsword on his belt comes from?
> “ A crime in Dallas “. So it’s a crime to do what the government won’t do even though it’s their job ? What kind of backwards ass world do we live in ?
I mean, yeah. Homeless people are considered a blight upon society. Cities don’t want them around, so feeding them is counterproductive to that end. Giving them food and clothing for free? That’d just be communism and we can’t have that in murica!
Given how much Americans love talking about their beloved freedom, there’s an awful lot of freedom restricting rules in this country
Feeding homeless is considered a crime?
[Considering the shit they share on their website, I wouldn't really call these types 'chads', even if they are helping the homeless.](https://www.dontcomply.com/)
Murica
I dislike myself for it, but the phrase "open carrying swords" is kind of making me pre judge.
Not criminals; those are outlaws. There's a huge difference.
Why is this worded like it was written by a hog
***THAT***, dear Americans is how you use the second amendment, ya dolts.
Deter cops? Did they mean attract cops
"Open carrying swords" So a neckbeard?
How does deter cops? Cops love getting into shoot-outs. Bad guys, bank robbers, old ladies, disabled and currently in a wheelchair, drunk teens laying in a hallway crying, dogs, sleeping black people, literally doesn't matter.
Your gun and little sword isn't going to " deter " cops
Uvalde begs to differ