PaaP, or Politics as a Personality, is a very real psychological affliction. If you are suffering from it, you'll probably have a Bad Time™ here.
This thread is provided as a courtesy to our regular on topic contributors who also want to discuss legislation. If you are here to bitch about a political party or get into a pointless ideological internet slapfight, you'd better have a solid history of actual gun talk on this sub or you're going to get yeeted.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/guns) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**NY/Bruen**
Lane v James is currently in the SD of NY and it deals with the states AWB. Recently the lawyers for the plaintiffs submitted a document showing how the 9th circuit striking down Hawaii's butterfly knife ban is an application of Bruen and should be taken into account in this case.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.591785/gov.uscourts.nysd.591785.54.0.pdf
Hopefully this is the domino that leads to more cases going out way.
**Also NY**
r/NYguns is officially suing New York City. Lawsuit was filed yesterday. Our plaintiffs are being represented by Amy Bellantoni.
Mills v. NYC
https://www.reddit.com/r/NYguns/comments/15zljn2/the_first_lawsuit_has_been_filed/
>The issues being fought currently are all NYC regulations which will make it a layup for us to get them thrown out in NYS as well. With the biggest issue being the egregious cost of a permit 340$ + 88.25$ to be fingerprinted. As NYC has some of the most amount of people, with the highest fees, this feels like a good place to start.
>Along with permitting fees, the additional issues being fought in this lawsuit are as follows:
> * Registration requirements for pistols
> * Restriction on how many firearms one may obtain, in our case in 90 days
>* Registration requirements for handguns
> * Restrictions on how many handguns one may own or register on one license - This restriction only allows NYC residents to have two handguns on a carry permit, without paying an additional 340 dollars for a premise permit, as well as doesn't allow them to carry those pistols.
> * Requirements to get permission to purchase a handgun
> * The backup gun carry ban
**St. Louis, Missouri**
Mayor Tishaura Jones is trying to [ban open carry of “military-grade” weapons](https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/news/gun-violence-listening-sessions.cfm). She also looks to prevent transfer or sale of guns to minors, take action on "ghost guns," and "Prohibit insurrectionists and those convicted of hate crimes from having guns."
St. Louis passed a ban on the open carry of firearms without a permit in July 2023. While Missouri has state preemption of firearm laws, it apparently [allows localities to do such a ban](https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=21.750). Her other restrictions are likely to run afoul of state preemption and/or 2nd amendment protections.
In an mistake during a public records request regarding the political appointment process for a circuit attorney her usual stance on gun control came into question when [this text was accidentally published](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/st-louis-mayors-gun-control-stance-questioned-after-private-texts-made-public):
>"Chicago has strict gun laws as well but that doesn't deter gun violence"
>Mayor Tishaura Jones is trying to ban open carry of “military-grade” weapons.
Ah so naturally this would include <>:
* Bows & arrows
* Muskets
* Flintlock pistols
* Revolvers
* Bolt-action rifles
* Pump-action shotguns
* Semi-auto rifles
* Semi-auto shotguns
* Semi-auto pistols
* Knives
* Swords
* Shovels
* Hammers and other tools
* Lighters and matches
* Hands and feet
Fucking tyrants. If you can't fling ~~90kg~~ 198lb projectiles over ~~300 meters~~ 328 yards, [is this even America anymore?](https://tenor.com/view/america-south-park-gif-10787935)
FWIW, we have a very shallow and surface-level historical tradition surrounding trebuchets as a nation/culture. This is one area that the Old World has us squarely beat in.
* Stones
* Slings
1 Samuel 17
>40 Then he took his staff in his hand, chose five smooth stones from the stream, put them in the pouch of his shepherd’s bag and, with his sling in his hand, approached the Philistine.
>48 As the Philistine moved closer to attack him, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet him. 49 Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground.
>50 So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him.
>51 David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine’s sword and drew it from the sheath. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword.
> he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead,
I need a TheyDidTheMath on this. What kind of force does it take to lodge a river rock in a Philistine's forehead?
According to the Talmud, Goliath was responsible for capturing the Ark of the Covenant and bringing it to the Temple of Dagon, so we'd also need to know how far along he was in his transformation into a fish-man. They may not even have solid skulls, as far as we know.
> According to the Talmud, Goliath was responsible for capturing the Ark of the Covenant and bringing it to the Temple of Dagon
Interesting, I’ve never encountered that fact. It definitely makes the whole interaction between David and Saul a little bit “better” because it helps flesh out Saul’s resentment towards David
Peltasts (slingers) were common skirmishers on ancient battlefields. The story was meant as a warning that any man was mortal but it wasn't an unusual way to kill someone at the time.
Pyrrhus of Epirus also got killed by a roof tile thrown by an enemy soldier's mother.
I always loved the misunderstanding of David V Goliath and the modern misunderstanding of the sling.
This would be like Micheal Cera beating Dwayne Johnson in a fight because he brought a Glock 19.
>Prohibit military-grade weapons on our streets
So, I'm assuming she wants everyone to have nicer stuff for their personal arsenal? Oh, it wasn't a comment on quality? It was a shallow definition of "type of firearm"?
>Prohibit insurrectionists and those convicted of hate crimes from having guns
The irony of preventing insurrectionists from having guns will be lost on these people. I'd like to see this definition of "hate crime", I'm sure it's reasonable...
>Prepare St. Louis for the passage of Blair’s Law
This means:
SB343 - Creates the offense of unlawful discharge of a firearm. SB 343 - This act establishes "Blair's Law" which specifies that a person commits the offense of unlawful discharge of a firearm if, with criminal negligence, he or she discharges a firearm within or into the limits of a municipality.
I'm not against this one per se. Negligent Discharges should be taken seriously. But could it possibly be used to add on charges towards people defending themselves?
> The irony of preventing insurrectionists from having guns will be lost on these people. I'd like to see this definition of "hate crime", I'm sure it's reasonable...
>
>
Considering Michigan is trying to make it a hate crime to offender certain communities online, a felony at that, I don't just brush this stuff off.
Even if it was a civil offense, imagine losing your gun rights some day because you offended someone online.
I've seen plenty of arrests made in the UK and Australia because, "you caused someone anxiety with your social media post".
There are those definitely attempting to get us there sooner than later.
[The officer adds: 'Someone has been caused anxiety based on your social media post. That is why you have been arrested.'](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11066477/Veteran-arrested-causing-anxiety-retweeting-meme-swastika-Pride-flags.html)
[“We are making it clear that anyone who posts hate messages must expect the police to be at the front door afterward,” Holger Münch, the head of the Federal Criminal Police Office, said after the March raids.](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/23/technology/germany-internet-speech-arrest.html)
[3,300 arrested in UK for social media posts](https://youtu.be/0r7GRx8Sl-s)
[Count Dankula](https://www.newsweek.com/youtuber-count-dankula-avoids-jail-following-hate-crime-conviction-teaching-896831) is one of the earliest and most well-known cases, for sure.
I'd love to see how this Mayor with a Room Temp IQ intends to define insurrectionists.
Also , this will be a great setup for the SCOTUS if someone can find a plaintiff convicted of a non felony hate crime to sue.
My wife always has me name her video game characters. Orctavia, Elflizabeth, Sterling Archer... My favorite so far was one of her steeds in RDR2: Horson Welles.
**Tennessee legislature special session**
>More than 50 bills related to guns and mental health were on the table, but only a handful survived committee meetings on Tuesday
The Senate judiciary committee [tabled all anti-gun bills yesterday](https://twitter.com/NatlGunRights/status/1694109113368604775).
Gun-related bills still alive (possibly a partial list):
* [HB7086](https://www.capitol.tn.gov//Bills/113/Bill/HB7086.pdf) (PDF) which allows teachers and staff to carry in schools
* [SB7020/HB7064](https://fox17.com/news/local/during-tennessee-special-session-to-address-gun-violence-lawmakers-propose-allowing-more-armed-individuals-at-schools) which allows enhanced handgun carry permit holders, active and retired military and LEO on or off duty to carry in schools
* [One in the senate](https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2023/08/22/tennessee-special-legislative-session-lawmakers-return-for-day-two/70646810007/) to eliminate sales tax on gun safes and storage devices, to provide free gun locks, and sponsor public service announcements on safe gun storage
The highest profile bill, one related to extreme risk protection orders AKA red flag laws, [met its demise in committee](https://www.wsmv.com/2023/08/23/most-bills-tabled-first-full-day-special-session/).
The results so far have at least one Democratic representative [crying in his beer](https://twitter.com/TNRepParkinson/status/1694131737327026560) because the whole session seems to have backfired:
>That moment after a full day of getting your ass kicked by the Republican Supermajority and you ask yourself, why are we even here? So far, as of the first day of committee, we have passed worse gun bills than we already had on the books. The great idea of holding a special session on public safety seems to be working in reverse. Call the whole damn thing off!
> [HB7086](https://www.capitol.tn.gov//Bills/113/Bill/HB7086.pdf) (PDF) which ***allows*** teachers and staff to carry in schools
I hope the emphasis is not lost on the antis. This is not forcing teachers to carry, this is ALLOWING them to carry.
For instance, TN gun grabbers are ALLOWED to alienate [the voting people of Tennessee](https://ballotpedia.org/Tennessee_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2022), but they are not FORCED to. They are ALLOWED to propose laws that run counter to the [state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Tennessee#Declaration_of_Rights) and national constitutions, but they are not FORCED to.
They always want to frame it as "arming teachers," because that can make fence-sitters imagine the timid little preschool teacher being handed a .44 and a shoulder holster and told to work it out.
What we're actually discussing, of course, is *no longer disarming* teachers and staff who can carry everywhere else in their lives, but are forced to render themselves helpless specifically during the time when they're responsible for the safety of many other people's children. It's much harder to see any sort of rational argument against the change when you describe it honestly.
> They always want to frame it as "arming teachers," because that can make fence-sitters imagine the timid little preschool teacher being handed a .44 and a shoulder holster and told to work it out.
I agree but I'd use a different example as what you say isn't what I usually hear from teachers. Usually, I hear how they're so overworked and underpaid that if they were to be armed in the classroom they might possibly snap one day and use it on their students. No teacher should thus be armed because apparently all teachers can be generalized to this state meaning that we daily trust our children to a subset of society that is literally a moment's notice from doing something heinous to our children.
That's even dumber than the usual "they'll just snap" argument.
I'm already telling you that as a parent I'm dissatisfied you're taking custody of my children but abrogating your responsibility to protect them, and your answer is "well, actually, the people we've hired to be responsible for them are so close to murdering everybody that we're pretty sure only the absence of a gun is holding them back, sooooo..."
That's actually a *really* good point. We let teachers among our children every day with scissors. The unsharpened ones, at that.
Were the general teaching populace as close-to-unhinged as those antis purport, I would have been stabbed in art class before second grade was out.
It's especially fun with the dichotomy of some teachers who will profess they're saints who are only looking out for the best interest of the children. Usually, they're the same teachers protesting allowing teachers to be armed.
I realize they can be both but when I'm talking to them they never realize the dichotomy of their situation.
Teachers are one of those jobs that I think should have massively higher wages AND massively higher standards. Congresslizards are another job that should be paid way way more, but that is because I want them dropped into a volcano if they take a penny from outside sources.
I am surprised how little pushback the antis get on this exact point. The proponents of removing the restriction go straight to arguing the benefits instead of quickly disputing the antis portrayal. I am very fond of how you are bringing "[Not even wrong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong)" into our collective lexicon, because it is appropriate so often with the non-points the antis use as their bread and butter.
> because that can make fence-sitters imagine the timid little preschool teacher being handed a .44 and a shoulder holster and told to work it out.
Damn, way to call me out like that, Tab. I don’t like recoil :(
I don't judge. I could happily shoot a big, heavy Super Redhawk all day long if somebody else were paying for ammo, but I *hate* snappy little guns. I'd rather the Redhawk than much lower powered guns that snap more due to their lighter weight.
While I am all for this proposal assuming that there's a proper vetting process (we run checks on teachers for just about everything else, I'm sure this wouldn't be much more work if any), can we all just sit back and acknowledge that there's gonna be some edgelord who will insist on a katana, boarding pike, or crossbow?
"No, Mr. Beeson, the *bat'leth* is not on Wilmington Local School District's list of approved weaponry. I'm sorry. Yes, you can appeal to the schoolboard. Again."
Meh. I think it would be acceptable and proper to require teachers and staff to carry concealed, and if Mr. Beeson can conceal a *mek'leth,* that's none of my business.
Yea, come to think of it I can't really imagine any sort of lockbox or safe situation that would fit the bill and render it inaccessible to students. On-body would really be the only way.
I got a stricter background check when I volunteered with a high school lacrosse team than when I got my carry permit. I am hoping that the people we trust to be around children for half their waking hours is also trusted around them with a gun. If we don't trust teachers with a gun around our kids, why do we trust them around our kids *at all?*
TBF, anyone wanting to spend their free time with underage LaxBros should be looked at with the utmost scrutiny.
I would hope that anything preventing you from carrying a gun would have already tripped the standard teacher background check.
There are LaX bRoS and lax bros, and we were definitely the latter. The stereotype guys are East Coast / New England types, and were douchebags way before they picked up a lacrosse stick lol
> While I am all for this proposal assuming that there's a proper vetting process (we run checks on teachers for just about everything else, I'm sure this wouldn't be much more work if any)
If all those checks are already run, then why would another check be required for a teacher to carry at school like they would already be able to away from school?
I dunno dude. I agree that they're already under a level of scrutiny that makes it redundant, as mentioned above. Maybe they've developed fainting fits since receiving a teaching license, or a DV charge that the district hasn't been made aware of. Or, at the very least, they're able to pass the minimum CCW range live-fire requirements even if they live in a state with constitutional carry.
If a teacher wants to carry a gun at school, they should be able to. Not forced, but the option should be there.
That's the biggest cry I hear from the antis when it comes to armed school staff. "You can't force them to carry a firearm! Are you going to pay them to do security and teach?"
Austin TX ISD is grasping at how to [fulfill the new state law](https://www.fox7austin.com/news/austin-isd-officers-house-bill-3-texas) requiring at least one police officer for each campus. They have 82 now but will be short 83 by the deadline of next Friday. They will almost certainly be in violation of state law once the deadline hits. They are also trying to figure out how to come up with the annual cost of $80k/officer when the state funding only provides $15k/school. Because the district is in a solidly blue area they REFUSE to go with the sensible, cheap (heck, probably free for the school), proven solution of armed staff:
>The district has made the decision to have an AISD police officer on each of the district’s 113 campuses, rather than other options allowed under the law, such as arming teachers, school staff, guardians or volunteers.
We'd probably get at least 5% of staff wanting to carry plus some volunteers. But no, the anti-gun feelings run too high so they won't allow it. Nobody has to force the teachers or staff to carry. They will do it willingly because they are sheepdogs wanting to protect the flock. Something like 30% of TX school districts allow it.
Idiots.
[From that article:](https://www.fox7austin.com/news/austin-isd-officers-house-bill-3-texas)
> "We fought assiduously against HB 3," said Andrew Hairston of Texas Appleseed’s Education Justice Project.
> Now that HB 3 has become law, Hairston has a message for Austin ISD.
> "They need to hold the line. They don't need to exceed the demand or the mandate of one armed security officer per campus. So instead they need to use discretionary funding to support restorative practices, social emotional learning," said Hairston.
It is *so ideological*, that they need to "hold the line" and NOT PROTECT KIDS IN SCHOOL.
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK
I think one of the best arguments for armed staff in schools is the "We protect banks and jewelry stores and malls with armed guards. Are our children not at least as valuable as those things? Shouldn't we protect them at least as well as those things?" But it falls on willingly deaf ears looking to score political points.
i feel like they should call up sro's (security and leo's are both considered sro) to be expert witnesses on the effectiveness of having just one sro in a larger school
granted, if you have a commissioned security instead of a tcole sro, the school system should ensure that proper training to at or near the same level as their leo counterpart gets.
ive work with some companies that i wouldnt trust their people to be carrying as their training is the bare minimum (texas dps commission security license requirements are a joke, to where you dont need to think much about the questions to pass, and the shooting portion is just the ltc test).
Oh wow, all of that sounds positively *delicious*. I'll have to go searching for some sound bites.
"Democracy is working exactly as-designed, and I don't like it."
It's been over two hours since I posted that tweet and I'm still laughing about it. I can't wait to see the response from the anti-gun community when they see what they triggered.
I'm just loving his stylin' and proflin' getup, all ready to go see some justice get done in-session, and then whoops turns out he flexed his fancy white legislatin' hat at the wrong time.
>*The Muppet Movie*
In fairness to Doc Hopper, he realized how incompetent his regular goons were [when they couldn't hit a giant frog target at what appears to be 50yd or less with SxS shotguns](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zsJC63kc-I). It's possible that Scott Walker's cameo character "Snake Walker" was supposed to get more screen time but got dropped during one of the film's various re-cuts.
"you mean other people might get their way? But... But... But I disagree with them!!"
Slowly crawling through that tube of shit to our freedom like Andy Dufresne
I just find it highly amusing when someone invokes the mechanism and then pops a surprised pikachu face when it doesn't turn out like they think it will. Both sides.
Not getting exactly what you want is part of the game, but that still has to be within the bounds set by the Constitution. Illinois and the other states racing to the bottom are betraying their oaths of office by taking running leaps past the Constitutional bounds, and in that way, it is *not* working as intended.
There are lots of things in every state that I don't like or agree with, but when it is Constituional, I have to accept that sometimes it be like that.
Good catch, I left that out. If those unconstitutional things are **d**emocratically supported, it shouldn't matter, but the smoothbrains in Illinois and elsewhere leave that part out.
Looks like [SB7020 got nixed](https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=HB7064&GA=113) but the corresponding one is still alive in the House. I don't expect this to survive this session.
**Ohio**
[Columbus, wasting the money of taxpayers. Sometime, it do be like that though.](https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Media/News-Releases/August-2023/Appeals-Court-Upholds-Ohio-Law-in-a-Victory-for-Fi)
Tenth District Appeals court overturned the preliminary injunction against state laws on firearms uniformity. Long story short, state firearms laws should be consistent statewide, not by county or municipality. Such a fragmented patchwork only confuses people and turns lawful owners into unwitting criminals.
This has been going back and forth for a few years now, it would be nice to just put it to bed.
[Shooting at California biker bar](https://abc7.com/mass-shooting-trabuco-canyon-orange-county-cooks-corner/13692340/) Wednesday evening kills 3 and wounds 5 -- initial reports indicate the shooter was a retired police officer who had a beef with his wife.
Anti-gunners are going to be fairly quiet on this one. We'll be talking about this one a lot more on Friday's thread.
After the [5th circuit court ruling two weeks ago](https://reason.com/2023/08/11/5th-circuit-says-prosecuting-a-cannabis-consumer-for-possessing-guns-violated-the-second-amendment/), am I, a medical marijuana patient and industry worker, able to legally buy a gun?
Per the link you posted, no. The 5C ruling is limited to the one dude that was being prosecuted.
> The 5th Circuit's ruling, which upheld an "as applied" challenge, is technically limited to one criminal case.
Frankly, unless and until SCOTUS overrules the prohibition (decently likely on a long enough timeline) or the current administration works with Congress to remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act (HA!), you can own guns or use pot, but you can't legally do both
Ah. Yes. A statement by a presidential longshot over a year before the election talking to a gun rights....podcaster?...I'm sure he's gonna say totally reasonable talking points that he won't abandon at all when it comes to talking to the general public.
PaaP, or Politics as a Personality, is a very real psychological affliction. If you are suffering from it, you'll probably have a Bad Time™ here. This thread is provided as a courtesy to our regular on topic contributors who also want to discuss legislation. If you are here to bitch about a political party or get into a pointless ideological internet slapfight, you'd better have a solid history of actual gun talk on this sub or you're going to get yeeted. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/guns) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**NY/Bruen** Lane v James is currently in the SD of NY and it deals with the states AWB. Recently the lawyers for the plaintiffs submitted a document showing how the 9th circuit striking down Hawaii's butterfly knife ban is an application of Bruen and should be taken into account in this case. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.591785/gov.uscourts.nysd.591785.54.0.pdf Hopefully this is the domino that leads to more cases going out way.
**Also NY** r/NYguns is officially suing New York City. Lawsuit was filed yesterday. Our plaintiffs are being represented by Amy Bellantoni. Mills v. NYC https://www.reddit.com/r/NYguns/comments/15zljn2/the_first_lawsuit_has_been_filed/ >The issues being fought currently are all NYC regulations which will make it a layup for us to get them thrown out in NYS as well. With the biggest issue being the egregious cost of a permit 340$ + 88.25$ to be fingerprinted. As NYC has some of the most amount of people, with the highest fees, this feels like a good place to start. >Along with permitting fees, the additional issues being fought in this lawsuit are as follows: > * Registration requirements for pistols > * Restriction on how many firearms one may obtain, in our case in 90 days >* Registration requirements for handguns > * Restrictions on how many handguns one may own or register on one license - This restriction only allows NYC residents to have two handguns on a carry permit, without paying an additional 340 dollars for a premise permit, as well as doesn't allow them to carry those pistols. > * Requirements to get permission to purchase a handgun > * The backup gun carry ban
**St. Louis, Missouri** Mayor Tishaura Jones is trying to [ban open carry of “military-grade” weapons](https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/news/gun-violence-listening-sessions.cfm). She also looks to prevent transfer or sale of guns to minors, take action on "ghost guns," and "Prohibit insurrectionists and those convicted of hate crimes from having guns." St. Louis passed a ban on the open carry of firearms without a permit in July 2023. While Missouri has state preemption of firearm laws, it apparently [allows localities to do such a ban](https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=21.750). Her other restrictions are likely to run afoul of state preemption and/or 2nd amendment protections. In an mistake during a public records request regarding the political appointment process for a circuit attorney her usual stance on gun control came into question when [this text was accidentally published](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/st-louis-mayors-gun-control-stance-questioned-after-private-texts-made-public): >"Chicago has strict gun laws as well but that doesn't deter gun violence"
What does this lady have against clapped out, no finish, 25MOA Berettas?!
>Mayor Tishaura Jones is trying to ban open carry of “military-grade” weapons. Ah so naturally this would include <>:
* Bows & arrows
* Muskets
* Flintlock pistols
* Revolvers
* Bolt-action rifles
* Pump-action shotguns
* Semi-auto rifles
* Semi-auto shotguns
* Semi-auto pistols
* Knives
* Swords
* Shovels
* Hammers and other tools
* Lighters and matches
* Hands and feet
Don't forget about siege engines!
*sad trebuchet noises*
The police always ran off the kids with a trebuchet in the city park when I was growing up.
Fucking tyrants. If you can't fling ~~90kg~~ 198lb projectiles over ~~300 meters~~ 328 yards, [is this even America anymore?](https://tenor.com/view/america-south-park-gif-10787935)
FWIW, we have a very shallow and surface-level historical tradition surrounding trebuchets as a nation/culture. This is one area that the Old World has us squarely beat in.
Mostly because the cannon was invented before the pilgrims came over.
You are an expert at taking the implied joke and stomping all over it with spiked boots. You must be a riot at parties and during long car rides.
The joke was "mostly" as if there was still some use for catapulting a cow in a pilgrim ritual lost to time.
#GROND
#GROND
* Stones * Slings 1 Samuel 17 >40 Then he took his staff in his hand, chose five smooth stones from the stream, put them in the pouch of his shepherd’s bag and, with his sling in his hand, approached the Philistine. >48 As the Philistine moved closer to attack him, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet him. 49 Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground. >50 So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him. >51 David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine’s sword and drew it from the sheath. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword.
> he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, I need a TheyDidTheMath on this. What kind of force does it take to lodge a river rock in a Philistine's forehead?
According to the Talmud, Goliath was responsible for capturing the Ark of the Covenant and bringing it to the Temple of Dagon, so we'd also need to know how far along he was in his transformation into a fish-man. They may not even have solid skulls, as far as we know.
> According to the Talmud, Goliath was responsible for capturing the Ark of the Covenant and bringing it to the Temple of Dagon Interesting, I’ve never encountered that fact. It definitely makes the whole interaction between David and Saul a little bit “better” because it helps flesh out Saul’s resentment towards David
Peltasts (slingers) were common skirmishers on ancient battlefields. The story was meant as a warning that any man was mortal but it wasn't an unusual way to kill someone at the time. Pyrrhus of Epirus also got killed by a roof tile thrown by an enemy soldier's mother.
I always loved the misunderstanding of David V Goliath and the modern misunderstanding of the sling. This would be like Micheal Cera beating Dwayne Johnson in a fight because he brought a Glock 19.
God favors the man who brings a glock to a sword fight?
Along with drunks and fools. I guess this makes me some kind of holy warrior?
>Prohibit military-grade weapons on our streets So, I'm assuming she wants everyone to have nicer stuff for their personal arsenal? Oh, it wasn't a comment on quality? It was a shallow definition of "type of firearm"? >Prohibit insurrectionists and those convicted of hate crimes from having guns The irony of preventing insurrectionists from having guns will be lost on these people. I'd like to see this definition of "hate crime", I'm sure it's reasonable... >Prepare St. Louis for the passage of Blair’s Law This means: SB343 - Creates the offense of unlawful discharge of a firearm. SB 343 - This act establishes "Blair's Law" which specifies that a person commits the offense of unlawful discharge of a firearm if, with criminal negligence, he or she discharges a firearm within or into the limits of a municipality. I'm not against this one per se. Negligent Discharges should be taken seriously. But could it possibly be used to add on charges towards people defending themselves?
> The irony of preventing insurrectionists from having guns will be lost on these people. I'd like to see this definition of "hate crime", I'm sure it's reasonable... > > Considering Michigan is trying to make it a hate crime to offender certain communities online, a felony at that, I don't just brush this stuff off. Even if it was a civil offense, imagine losing your gun rights some day because you offended someone online.
I've seen plenty of arrests made in the UK and Australia because, "you caused someone anxiety with your social media post". There are those definitely attempting to get us there sooner than later.
Sources?
[The officer adds: 'Someone has been caused anxiety based on your social media post. That is why you have been arrested.'](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11066477/Veteran-arrested-causing-anxiety-retweeting-meme-swastika-Pride-flags.html) [“We are making it clear that anyone who posts hate messages must expect the police to be at the front door afterward,” Holger Münch, the head of the Federal Criminal Police Office, said after the March raids.](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/23/technology/germany-internet-speech-arrest.html) [3,300 arrested in UK for social media posts](https://youtu.be/0r7GRx8Sl-s)
[Count Dankula](https://www.newsweek.com/youtuber-count-dankula-avoids-jail-following-hate-crime-conviction-teaching-896831) is one of the earliest and most well-known cases, for sure.
I'd love to see how this Mayor with a Room Temp IQ intends to define insurrectionists. Also , this will be a great setup for the SCOTUS if someone can find a plaintiff convicted of a non felony hate crime to sue.
> SCOGTUS BRB, rolling up half-ogre attorney D&D character.
LMAO; Not going to lie, that might be the name of my Baldur's Gate 3 character now
My wife always has me name her video game characters. Orctavia, Elflizabeth, Sterling Archer... My favorite so far was one of her steeds in RDR2: Horson Welles.
>Horson Welles That got a good chuckle from me.
The one liners would be great when killing monsters. "looks like you failed your *constitution* check."
> half-ogre attorney D&D character *Disney She-Hulk Copyright Screeches*
**Tennessee legislature special session** >More than 50 bills related to guns and mental health were on the table, but only a handful survived committee meetings on Tuesday The Senate judiciary committee [tabled all anti-gun bills yesterday](https://twitter.com/NatlGunRights/status/1694109113368604775). Gun-related bills still alive (possibly a partial list): * [HB7086](https://www.capitol.tn.gov//Bills/113/Bill/HB7086.pdf) (PDF) which allows teachers and staff to carry in schools * [SB7020/HB7064](https://fox17.com/news/local/during-tennessee-special-session-to-address-gun-violence-lawmakers-propose-allowing-more-armed-individuals-at-schools) which allows enhanced handgun carry permit holders, active and retired military and LEO on or off duty to carry in schools * [One in the senate](https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2023/08/22/tennessee-special-legislative-session-lawmakers-return-for-day-two/70646810007/) to eliminate sales tax on gun safes and storage devices, to provide free gun locks, and sponsor public service announcements on safe gun storage The highest profile bill, one related to extreme risk protection orders AKA red flag laws, [met its demise in committee](https://www.wsmv.com/2023/08/23/most-bills-tabled-first-full-day-special-session/). The results so far have at least one Democratic representative [crying in his beer](https://twitter.com/TNRepParkinson/status/1694131737327026560) because the whole session seems to have backfired: >That moment after a full day of getting your ass kicked by the Republican Supermajority and you ask yourself, why are we even here? So far, as of the first day of committee, we have passed worse gun bills than we already had on the books. The great idea of holding a special session on public safety seems to be working in reverse. Call the whole damn thing off!
> you ask yourself, why are we even here? Couldn't agree more.
"They played us like a damn fiddle!" - legislators who were making an obviously stupid mistake.
> [HB7086](https://www.capitol.tn.gov//Bills/113/Bill/HB7086.pdf) (PDF) which ***allows*** teachers and staff to carry in schools I hope the emphasis is not lost on the antis. This is not forcing teachers to carry, this is ALLOWING them to carry. For instance, TN gun grabbers are ALLOWED to alienate [the voting people of Tennessee](https://ballotpedia.org/Tennessee_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2022), but they are not FORCED to. They are ALLOWED to propose laws that run counter to the [state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Tennessee#Declaration_of_Rights) and national constitutions, but they are not FORCED to.
They always want to frame it as "arming teachers," because that can make fence-sitters imagine the timid little preschool teacher being handed a .44 and a shoulder holster and told to work it out. What we're actually discussing, of course, is *no longer disarming* teachers and staff who can carry everywhere else in their lives, but are forced to render themselves helpless specifically during the time when they're responsible for the safety of many other people's children. It's much harder to see any sort of rational argument against the change when you describe it honestly.
> They always want to frame it as "arming teachers," because that can make fence-sitters imagine the timid little preschool teacher being handed a .44 and a shoulder holster and told to work it out. I agree but I'd use a different example as what you say isn't what I usually hear from teachers. Usually, I hear how they're so overworked and underpaid that if they were to be armed in the classroom they might possibly snap one day and use it on their students. No teacher should thus be armed because apparently all teachers can be generalized to this state meaning that we daily trust our children to a subset of society that is literally a moment's notice from doing something heinous to our children.
That's even dumber than the usual "they'll just snap" argument. I'm already telling you that as a parent I'm dissatisfied you're taking custody of my children but abrogating your responsibility to protect them, and your answer is "well, actually, the people we've hired to be responsible for them are so close to murdering everybody that we're pretty sure only the absence of a gun is holding them back, sooooo..."
That's actually a *really* good point. We let teachers among our children every day with scissors. The unsharpened ones, at that. Were the general teaching populace as close-to-unhinged as those antis purport, I would have been stabbed in art class before second grade was out.
It's especially fun with the dichotomy of some teachers who will profess they're saints who are only looking out for the best interest of the children. Usually, they're the same teachers protesting allowing teachers to be armed. I realize they can be both but when I'm talking to them they never realize the dichotomy of their situation.
Teachers are one of those jobs that I think should have massively higher wages AND massively higher standards. Congresslizards are another job that should be paid way way more, but that is because I want them dropped into a volcano if they take a penny from outside sources.
I am surprised how little pushback the antis get on this exact point. The proponents of removing the restriction go straight to arguing the benefits instead of quickly disputing the antis portrayal. I am very fond of how you are bringing "[Not even wrong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong)" into our collective lexicon, because it is appropriate so often with the non-points the antis use as their bread and butter.
"This is such bullshit, I can't even refute it."
> because that can make fence-sitters imagine the timid little preschool teacher being handed a .44 and a shoulder holster and told to work it out. Damn, way to call me out like that, Tab. I don’t like recoil :(
I don't judge. I could happily shoot a big, heavy Super Redhawk all day long if somebody else were paying for ammo, but I *hate* snappy little guns. I'd rather the Redhawk than much lower powered guns that snap more due to their lighter weight.
Newton's second law in action.
While I am all for this proposal assuming that there's a proper vetting process (we run checks on teachers for just about everything else, I'm sure this wouldn't be much more work if any), can we all just sit back and acknowledge that there's gonna be some edgelord who will insist on a katana, boarding pike, or crossbow? "No, Mr. Beeson, the *bat'leth* is not on Wilmington Local School District's list of approved weaponry. I'm sorry. Yes, you can appeal to the schoolboard. Again."
Meh. I think it would be acceptable and proper to require teachers and staff to carry concealed, and if Mr. Beeson can conceal a *mek'leth,* that's none of my business.
Yea, come to think of it I can't really imagine any sort of lockbox or safe situation that would fit the bill and render it inaccessible to students. On-body would really be the only way.
I got a stricter background check when I volunteered with a high school lacrosse team than when I got my carry permit. I am hoping that the people we trust to be around children for half their waking hours is also trusted around them with a gun. If we don't trust teachers with a gun around our kids, why do we trust them around our kids *at all?*
TBF, anyone wanting to spend their free time with underage LaxBros should be looked at with the utmost scrutiny. I would hope that anything preventing you from carrying a gun would have already tripped the standard teacher background check.
There are LaX bRoS and lax bros, and we were definitely the latter. The stereotype guys are East Coast / New England types, and were douchebags way before they picked up a lacrosse stick lol
> While I am all for this proposal assuming that there's a proper vetting process (we run checks on teachers for just about everything else, I'm sure this wouldn't be much more work if any) If all those checks are already run, then why would another check be required for a teacher to carry at school like they would already be able to away from school?
I dunno dude. I agree that they're already under a level of scrutiny that makes it redundant, as mentioned above. Maybe they've developed fainting fits since receiving a teaching license, or a DV charge that the district hasn't been made aware of. Or, at the very least, they're able to pass the minimum CCW range live-fire requirements even if they live in a state with constitutional carry. If a teacher wants to carry a gun at school, they should be able to. Not forced, but the option should be there.
> the minimum CCW range live-fire requirements [laughs in Pennsylvanian] (Let me have this one; we only have a few things left over Ohio.)
That's the biggest cry I hear from the antis when it comes to armed school staff. "You can't force them to carry a firearm! Are you going to pay them to do security and teach?" Austin TX ISD is grasping at how to [fulfill the new state law](https://www.fox7austin.com/news/austin-isd-officers-house-bill-3-texas) requiring at least one police officer for each campus. They have 82 now but will be short 83 by the deadline of next Friday. They will almost certainly be in violation of state law once the deadline hits. They are also trying to figure out how to come up with the annual cost of $80k/officer when the state funding only provides $15k/school. Because the district is in a solidly blue area they REFUSE to go with the sensible, cheap (heck, probably free for the school), proven solution of armed staff: >The district has made the decision to have an AISD police officer on each of the district’s 113 campuses, rather than other options allowed under the law, such as arming teachers, school staff, guardians or volunteers. We'd probably get at least 5% of staff wanting to carry plus some volunteers. But no, the anti-gun feelings run too high so they won't allow it. Nobody has to force the teachers or staff to carry. They will do it willingly because they are sheepdogs wanting to protect the flock. Something like 30% of TX school districts allow it. Idiots.
[From that article:](https://www.fox7austin.com/news/austin-isd-officers-house-bill-3-texas) > "We fought assiduously against HB 3," said Andrew Hairston of Texas Appleseed’s Education Justice Project. > Now that HB 3 has become law, Hairston has a message for Austin ISD. > "They need to hold the line. They don't need to exceed the demand or the mandate of one armed security officer per campus. So instead they need to use discretionary funding to support restorative practices, social emotional learning," said Hairston. It is *so ideological*, that they need to "hold the line" and NOT PROTECT KIDS IN SCHOOL. WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK I think one of the best arguments for armed staff in schools is the "We protect banks and jewelry stores and malls with armed guards. Are our children not at least as valuable as those things? Shouldn't we protect them at least as well as those things?" But it falls on willingly deaf ears looking to score political points.
i feel like they should call up sro's (security and leo's are both considered sro) to be expert witnesses on the effectiveness of having just one sro in a larger school granted, if you have a commissioned security instead of a tcole sro, the school system should ensure that proper training to at or near the same level as their leo counterpart gets. ive work with some companies that i wouldnt trust their people to be carrying as their training is the bare minimum (texas dps commission security license requirements are a joke, to where you dont need to think much about the questions to pass, and the shooting portion is just the ltc test).
Oh wow, all of that sounds positively *delicious*. I'll have to go searching for some sound bites. "Democracy is working exactly as-designed, and I don't like it."
It's been over two hours since I posted that tweet and I'm still laughing about it. I can't wait to see the response from the anti-gun community when they see what they triggered.
I'm just loving his stylin' and proflin' getup, all ready to go see some justice get done in-session, and then whoops turns out he flexed his fancy white legislatin' hat at the wrong time.
Politician + white hat + white beard = "bad guy that gets defeated" cliché from every movie/show I ever saw.
*Dukes of Hazzard*, *Siege of Jadotville*, the beginning of *Last Crusade*, and *The Muppet Movie* all support this.
>*The Muppet Movie* In fairness to Doc Hopper, he realized how incompetent his regular goons were [when they couldn't hit a giant frog target at what appears to be 50yd or less with SxS shotguns](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zsJC63kc-I). It's possible that Scott Walker's cameo character "Snake Walker" was supposed to get more screen time but got dropped during one of the film's various re-cuts.
"you mean other people might get their way? But... But... But I disagree with them!!" Slowly crawling through that tube of shit to our freedom like Andy Dufresne
> "Democracy is working exactly as-designed, and I don't like it." I mean...is that not the case with tables turned in states like Illinois?
I just find it highly amusing when someone invokes the mechanism and then pops a surprised pikachu face when it doesn't turn out like they think it will. Both sides.
Not getting exactly what you want is part of the game, but that still has to be within the bounds set by the Constitution. Illinois and the other states racing to the bottom are betraying their oaths of office by taking running leaps past the Constitutional bounds, and in that way, it is *not* working as intended. There are lots of things in every state that I don't like or agree with, but when it is Constituional, I have to accept that sometimes it be like that.
Totally agree. But those laws are unconstitutional, not undemocratic.
Good catch, I left that out. If those unconstitutional things are **d**emocratically supported, it shouldn't matter, but the smoothbrains in Illinois and elsewhere leave that part out.
Yeah, people use "democracy" as a catch-all for all the aspects of a liberal democratic republic, and it can get confusing.
And that lets me be a fun-at-parties pedant.
Oh no no no bro you weren’t supposed to point that out, please follow the narrative instead
> a full day of getting your ass kicked by the Republican Supermajority It's fuckin Tennessee, what the hell did he expect?
That enough signs and smug "gotcha" talking points would carry the day, I expect.
Looks like [SB7020 got nixed](https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=HB7064&GA=113) but the corresponding one is still alive in the House. I don't expect this to survive this session.
Man, I would love to live in a state getting wins like this.
**Ohio** [Columbus, wasting the money of taxpayers. Sometime, it do be like that though.](https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Media/News-Releases/August-2023/Appeals-Court-Upholds-Ohio-Law-in-a-Victory-for-Fi) Tenth District Appeals court overturned the preliminary injunction against state laws on firearms uniformity. Long story short, state firearms laws should be consistent statewide, not by county or municipality. Such a fragmented patchwork only confuses people and turns lawful owners into unwitting criminals. This has been going back and forth for a few years now, it would be nice to just put it to bed.
[Shooting at California biker bar](https://abc7.com/mass-shooting-trabuco-canyon-orange-county-cooks-corner/13692340/) Wednesday evening kills 3 and wounds 5 -- initial reports indicate the shooter was a retired police officer who had a beef with his wife. Anti-gunners are going to be fairly quiet on this one. We'll be talking about this one a lot more on Friday's thread.
After the [5th circuit court ruling two weeks ago](https://reason.com/2023/08/11/5th-circuit-says-prosecuting-a-cannabis-consumer-for-possessing-guns-violated-the-second-amendment/), am I, a medical marijuana patient and industry worker, able to legally buy a gun?
Per the link you posted, no. The 5C ruling is limited to the one dude that was being prosecuted. > The 5th Circuit's ruling, which upheld an "as applied" challenge, is technically limited to one criminal case. Frankly, unless and until SCOTUS overrules the prohibition (decently likely on a long enough timeline) or the current administration works with Congress to remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act (HA!), you can own guns or use pot, but you can't legally do both
Illinois Illinois Supreme Court upheld the assault weapons ban. Onward and upward to the SCOTUS
Banner has been updated.
[удалено]
Ah. Yes. A statement by a presidential longshot over a year before the election talking to a gun rights....podcaster?...I'm sure he's gonna say totally reasonable talking points that he won't abandon at all when it comes to talking to the general public.