#repeal gun laws

[ablogofcourage]

[sapphia]

USA please listen to me: the price of “teaching them a lesson” is too high. take it from New Zealand, who voted our Labour government out in the last election because they weren’t doing exactly what we wanted and got facism instead.

Trans rights are being attacked, public transport has been defunded, tax cuts issued for the wealthy, they've mass-defunded public services, cut and attacked the disability funding model, cut benefits, diverted transport funding to roads, cut all recent public transport subsidies, cancelled massive important infrastructure projects like damns and ferries (we are three ISLANDS), fast tracked mining, oil, and other massive environmentally detrimental projects and gave the power the to approve these projects singularly to three ministers who have been wined and dined by lobbyists of the companies that have put the bids in to approve them while one of the main minister infers he will not prioritise the protection of endangered species like the archeys frog over mining projects that do massive environmental harm. They have attacked indigenous rights in an attempt to negate the Treaty of Waitangi by “redefining it”; as a backup, they are also trying to remove all mentions of the treaty from legislation starting with our Child Protection laws no longer requiring social workers to consider the importance of Maori children’s culture when placing those children; when the Waitangi Tribunal who oversees indigenous matters sought to enquire about this, the Minister for Children blocked their enquiry in a breach of comity that was condemned in a ruling — too late to do anything — by our Supreme Court. They have repealed labour protections around pay and 90 day trials, reversed our smoking ban, cancelled our EV subsidy, cancelled our water infrastructure scheme that would have given Maori iwi a say in water asset management, cancelled our biggest city’s fuel tax, made our treasury and inland revenue departments less accountable, dispensed of our Productivity Commission, begun work on charter schools and military boot camps in an obvious push towards privatisation, cancelled grants for first home buyers, reduced access to emergency housing, allowed no cause evictions, cancelled our Maori health system that would have given Maori control over their own public medical care and funding, cut funding of services like budgeting advice and food banks, cancelled the consumer advocacy council, cancelled our medicine regulations, repealed free prescriptions, deferred multiple hospital builds, failed to deliver on pre-election medical promises, reversed a gun ban created in response to the mosque shootings, brought back three strikes = life sentence policy, increased minimum wage by half the recommended amount, cancelled fair pay for disabled workers, reduced wheelchair services, reversed our oil and gas exploration ban, cancelled our climate emergency fund, cut science research funding including climate research, removed limits on killing sea lions, cut funding for the climate change commission, weakened our methane targets, cancelled Significant National Areas protections, have begun reversing our ban on live exports. Much of this was passed under urgency.

It’s been six months.

[wilwheaton]

The GOP wonders why young people (and others) don't want to vote for them. Some wise scribe assembled this list.

1.) Your Reagan-era “trickle-down economics” strategy of tax breaks for billionaires that you continue to employ to this day has widened the gap between rich and poor so much that most of them will never be able to own a home, much less earn a living wage.

2.) You refuse to increase the federal minimum wage, which is still $7.25 an hour (since 2009). Even if it had just kept up with inflation, it would be $27 now. You’re forcing people of all ages but especially young people to work multiple jobs just to afford basic necessities.

3.) You fundamentally oppose and want to kill democracy; have done everything in your power to restrict access to the ballot box, particularly in areas with demographics that tend to vote Democratic (like young people and POC). You staged a fucking coup the last time you lost.

4.) You have abused your disproportionate senate control over the last three decades to pack the courts with religious extremists and idealogues, including SCOTUS—which has rolled back rights for women in ways that do nothing but kill more women and children and expand poverty.

5.) You refuse to enact common sense gun control laws to curb mass shootings like universal background checks and banning assault weapons; subjecting their entire generation to school shootings and drills that are traumatizing in and of themselves. You are owned by the NRA.

6.) You are unequivocally against combatting climate change to the extent that it’s as if you’ve made it your personal mission to ensure they inherit a planet that is beyond the point of no return in terms of remaining habitable for the human race beyond the next few generations.

7.) You oppose all programs that provide assistance to those who need it most. Your governors refused to expand Medicaid even during A PANDEMIC. You are against free school lunches, despite it being the only meal that millions of children can count on to actually receive each day

8.) You are banning books, defunding libraries, barring subject matter, and whitewashing history even more in a fascistic attempt to keep them ignorant of the systemic racism that this nation was literally founded upon and continues to this day in every action your party takes.

9.) You oppose universal healthcare and are still trying to repeal the ACA and rip healthcare from tens of millions of Americans and replace it with nothing. You are against lowering the cost of insulin and prescription drugs that millions need simply to LIVE/FUNCTION in society.

10.) You embrace white nationalists, Neo-Nazis, and other groups that are defined by their intractable racism, xenophobia, bigotry, and intolerance. You conspired with these groups on January 6th to try to overthrow the U.S. government via domestic terrorism that KILLED PEOPLE.

11.) You oppose every bill aimed at making life better for our nation’s youth; from education to extracurricular and financial/nutritional assistance programs. You say you want to “protect the children” while you elect/nominate pedophiles and attack trans youth and drag queens.

12.) You pretend to be offended by “anti-semitism” while literally supporting, electing, and speaking at events organized by Nazis. You pretend to hate “cancel culture” despite the fact that you invented it and it’s basically all you do.

13.) Every word you utter is a lie. You are the party of treason, hypocrisy, crime, and authoritarianism. You want to entrench rule by your aging minority because you know that you have nothing to offer young voters and they will never support you for all these reasons and more.

14.) You’re so hostile to even the notion of helping us overcome the mountain of debt that millions of us are forced to take on just to pay for our post K-12 education that you are suing to try to prevent a small fraction of us from getting even $10,000 in loan forgiveness.

15.) You opened the floodgates of money into politics via Citizens United; allowing our entire system of government to become a cesspool of corruption, crime, and greed. You are supposed to represent the American people whose taxes pay your salary but instead cater to rich donors.

16.) You respond to elected representatives standing in solidarity with their constituents to protest the ONGOING SLAUGHTER of children in schools via shootings by EXPELLING THEM FROM OFFICE & respond to your lack of popularity among young people by trying to raise the voting age.

17.) You impeach Democratic presidents over lying about a BJ but refuse to impeach (then vote twice to acquit) a guy whose entire “administration” was an international crime syndicate being run out of the WH who incited an insurrection to have you killed.

18.) You steal Supreme Court seats from democrats to prevent the only black POTUS we’ve ever had from appointing one and invent fake precedents that you later ignore all to take fundamental rights from Americans; and even your “legitimate” appointments consist of people like THIS (sub-thread refuting CJ Roberts criticisms of people attacking SCOTUS' legitimacy).

19.) You support mass incarceration even for innocuous offenses or execution by cop for POC while doing nothing but protect rich white criminals who engage in such things as tax fraud, money laundering, sex trafficking, rape/sexual assault, falsifying business records, etc.

20.) You are the reason we can’t pass:—Universal background checks—An assault weapons ban—The ‘For the People/Freedom to vote’ Act or John Lewis Voting Rights Act—The ERA & Equality Act—The Climate Action Now Act—The (Stopping) Violence Against Women Act—SCOTUS expansion.

21.) You do not seek office to govern, represent, or serve the American people. You seek power solely for its own sake so you can impose your narrow-minded puritanical will on others at the expense of their most fundamental rights and freedoms like voting and bodily autonomy.

22.) Ok, last one. You are trying to eliminate social security and Medicare that tens of millions of our parents rely on and paid into their entire lives. And you did everything to maximize preventable deaths from COVID leaving millions of us in mourning.

Source: https://imgur.com/gallery/e8DBZLH

[unrelaxing]

From a country where voting is not a choice, but a duty, it's interesting seeing American discourse every four years on whether or not voting matters. This year there's an added layer, because Joe Biden has been supporting Israel's genocide against Palestine. Now there's a pervading sentiment - both in and out of the US - that voting for Joe Biden supports Palestinian genocide, and it's an American's moral duty to withhold their vote in support of Palestine.

I guess the question I ask is: how is withholding your vote effective activism?

If you don't vote, and Trump wins, he says he will deport pro-Palestine demonstrators. He says he supports Israel's right to defend itself. If you vote independent, and Trump wins the same thing happens.

If Biden wins, he will continue his support of Israel.

So: Is voting really the battleground for the Palestinian genocide, when either outcome leads down the same road?

And what other battles are being fought in this presidential race?

Gun laws - Biden passed "the most significant gun safety legislation in more than two decades", the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. It includes enhanced background checks for gun purchasers, and prohibits individuals convicted of domestic violence towards a romantic partner from purchasing a gun (wherein the past a 'boyfriend loophole' had existed, wherein the law only applied if an individual was convicted of domestic violence against a spouse or cohabitant). Trump has promised to overturn Biden's new laws.

Healthcare - Uninsured Americans are at an all-time low under Biden's administration, with only 7.6% of Americans being uninsured in the second quarter of 2023. The number of people who signed up to Obamacare in 2024 is at 21.3 million - and Trump plans to repeal it.

Climate change - Biden's Inflation Reduction Act invests 300 billion dollars towards clean energy. Electricity generation from renewable energy sources — including wind, solar and hydropower — surpassed coal-fired generation in the electric power sector for the first time in 2022, making it the second-biggest source behind natural gas generation. At a recent dinner with oil executives and lobbyists, the Republican promised to eliminate Mr Biden's new climate rules and environmental regulations if they donated $1bn to his campaign.

Much has been said about Trump's second term beyond the above three points. @batboyblog posted a very clear and concise graphic on Trump's plans for his second term.

The BBC has also posted about Trump's plans for his second term, which I'll screenshot:

Trump is now a felon, but I was really shocked to learn about how little impact this has on his ability to run as president. His supporters are likely to stay by his side, because they believe in these policies.

Biden does not have the same luxury. I don't think he should have the same luxury. Still, I feel like it's important to point out that Trump and Biden's opinions on Israel and Palestine align, but there are a plethora of other issues they do not align on. As a voter, as an activist, when given two political parties, why would you choose based on the similarities as opposed to the differences?

Ways to help Gaza.

Vetted gofundmes.

Other links to help Palestine.

[arctic-hands]

Webbon and the TheoBros have been clamoring more loudly in recent months about their wish to strip women, especially their own wives, of the right to vote. "You won't let women vote? Well, our society doesn't let five-year-olds vote," Webbon explained in a May podcast. He added that "a woman is like a child" and that "God has appointed men to protect them." As Sarah Stankorb at the New Republic documented, there has been growing support in Christian nationalist circles "for the repeal of the 19th Amendment and support a 'household vote' system in which men vote on behalf of their families." Hegseth's former sister-in-law reports she heard him echo similar sentiments. 

The Serena Joys are in the Finding Out stage of Fucking Around with fascists

[1001aus]

okayokayokay last bit of unsolicited flailing I am most definitely not stealing your idea I won't be writing this it's just giving me brainrot

Ice convinces the Pentagon that they're time travelers. He wants wanted to be an admiral and to that end spent a lot of time studying the history and evolution of modern warfare. He knows dates and names and locations which is convincing because why would a spy know so much about every front of the war? What the Japanese are doing and the Germans and the Russians and and and.

But little of that information is useful even if it's convincing. What good does it do them to know Operation Overlord will be a success or the exact day Italy surrenders? How does it help them to know the name of the man who will demystify the enigma machine?

It's Mav who convinces the Pentagon they can be useful. There isn't a plane flown by any military that he doesn't know something about. For the more common ones—his knowledge of the planes flown by the Luftwaffe and Japanese Imperial pilots are especially interesting to them—Mav knows how fast they are, how much force they can withstand, what kind of weapons they usually carried and with how much ammo.

Once he's been questioned for every scrap of information he can remember about planes it's decided that they're already commissioned navy officers and pilots so they may as well take advantage of their competence. It helps that Mav wants to fly so badly he'll agree to just about anything and Ice won't leave his wingman to his own devices.

Ice has put the pieces together already about Blizzard and Wild Thing.

For him the comparison was always complimentary so he didn't fight it as much. He didn't train himself to dismiss all thought of the famous aviators so it's easy for him to read the writing on the wall even before they get their new callsigns. He already knows they won't make it to the end of the war.

Maverick gets blindsided when they get their names painted onto their new planes. Even then he doesn't quite put the pieces together.

I had the goddamned strangest dream which led to a weird story idea but I have no clue if I'll ever get around to writing it:

TimeTravel!AU where post Layton IceMav end up back in time in WWII, and after convincing the US that they're not spies (Ice: I'm a goddamned Polish Jew you think I'd willingly spy for the Axis? Interrogator: That's fair) they convince the Navy to let them fly for them.

It's a little rocky at first, having to get used to much slower aircraft, but once Ice and Mav settle in, they're deadly. Their kill counts quickly soar past Ace to Ace-of-Aces, with whoever is in the top spot swapping dogfight to dogfight.

It takes three years for the Luftwaffe to finally take out the two deadliest pilots to ever fly, sacrificing 20 of their brand new jet fighters to bring them down, losing over half in the process.

Iceman and Maverick wake back up in the future and finally understand why everyone had always compared them to the legendary WWII pilots 'Blizzard' and 'Wild Thing'.

[wolfjackle-creates]

Ghost!Robin Part 13

THE DINNER ENDS!!!!!! Dear god, I need to write something that has less than seven characters present in the currently-being-written scene. This segment will be a bit longer than most previous ones simply because I was so close to the end.

Story Summary: Danny was invited to dinner at Wayne Manor to meet Jazz's boyfriend and his family for the first time. He worked hard to make sure no ghost business would interrupt the evening. But when he arrived, all he could focus on was the ghost of the dead Robin that seemed to haunt Jason. Looks like he was breaking his promise.

First, Previous

Word Count: 1.9k

-----

“Look, I’ve faced both an evil future version of me and have had to deal with mind control.” He looked to Bruce and, serious now, said, “As soon as the Anti-Ecto Acts are repealed and the Guys in White disbanded, I will help you write those plans myself.”

Bruce gave a single nod. “Do you know what caused you to turn evil in the alternate time stream?”

Danny sighed and nodded. “Believe it or not, I cheated on a standardized exam.”

“Okay, what?” asked Tim, incredulous. “What sort of 2000s PSA life do you live? How did that lead you down the path to evil?”

Danny frowned. “I got caught, my teacher met with Jazz, my partners, and my parents at a local restaurant to discuss it. There was an explosion and the entire place blew up killing every single person I was close to. I was then sent to live with Vlad where things got worse.”

Duke let out a low whistle. “Damn. I think I’d go evil, too, under that pressure.”

Robin flew over to him and draped himself over Danny’s back, hugging him as tightly as he could. Jazz reached over and gripped his hand. He gave her a smile and squeezed back.

Bruce nodded. “But it sounds like a future that is unlikely to happen again.”

“Grandpa says the same thing. And since he’s the Ghost of Time, I try to believe him.”

Tim made a noise of agreement. “Be glad you have that assurance. I’ve an evil future self as well. He’s such an asshole.”

Danny forced a laugh, recognizing the attempt at levity. “I’m sure. How’d you get yours to go away?”

He shrugged. “The obvious way. Threatened to kill myself so I could never grow up into him.”

Dick spluttered from his spot next to Damian. “I’m sorry, you did what? Tim! How could you?”

Tim shrugged. “Better than having an evil, gun-using Batman running around.”

Bruce was now sitting with his head in his hands. The rest of the table also started yelling at Tim, the references and names making no sense to Danny who looked over to Jazz. She just shrugged at him.

Leaning over, he whispered in her ear, “At least your in-laws won’t be too freaked out when weird things happen around you.”

She laughed. “Yeah. Honestly, I’m glad this is how the evening ended. It means no more secrets between Jason and me.”

“Guys, enough!” shouted Tim. “Look, I’m fine. This happened ages ago. But I promise I’ll update my incident report so you can all snoop on it later. Now, if you’ve all forgotten, we have guests. And ones who can help us with our League troubles. Danny, you had questions about the Lazarus pits?”

“Yeah, uh, you said it can be used to heal people? How does that work?” To Jason, he added, “And how did you interact with it?”

“I was dunked in it,” said Jason with a shrug. “After I’d been revived. I wasn’t in my right mind and Damian’s mom thought it might help.”

Robin nodded and signed something.

Dick translated for the ghost. “Baby Jason says the pit tied him and Big Jason together, but also prevented them from actually combining into one person again.”

Danny looked between them. “You were submerged in a pool of bubbling ectoplasm? How the hell did that not kill you? That shouldn’t be possible for a human. I doubt it’d be good for a ghost!” No wonder his future brother-in-law was split in two. That was probably the best that could be expected.

Danny hadn’t even realized how hard he was projecting concern until Robin trilled back at him to calm him down. Danny took a deep breath and pulled in his aura. “Sorry, Robin. I do think I’d like to get you both in to see my doctor as soon as possible, though.”

Jazz cleared her throat. “We can discuss that at home.”

Bruce stared at him. “Do you think they can help Jason?”

Danny shrugged. “He knows the most about ghost-human hybrids of anyone. If anything can be done, he’ll know.”

“I will go with you,” Bruce said.

Danny immediately shook his head. “Nope. I won’t bring anyone from Earth into the Realms until the Anti-Ecto acts are repealed. And only Jason can invite people to his private medical check up.”

Steph pouted. “But Jason is from Earth. Sure, he’s got some weird thing going on, but why does he get to go exploring other dimensions?”

“Cause he’s dead. He belongs to the Infinite Realms just as much as he belongs to Earth. I’m not gonna block someone from accessing their home.”

“I’m not dead!” yelled Jason. “I’m alive.”

Danny winced. He’d have to talk to Jazz about that. Death wasn’t really a thing that could be recovered from. Not fully. But it wasn’t his place to tell Jason he was still dead if he wasn’t ready to hear that. Jazz or Frostbite could have that conversation. “Of course you’re alive. And Earth is your home, too. But you’ve got one in the Realms if you ever need or want it. Think of it like dual citizenship.”

“I don’t want it.”

Danny sighed. “Look, then the part of you that is manifesting as Robin has a place there and you two can’t be separated so you’re allowed to follow him. It’s the only way I’ll be able to get you in to see the best doctor to help you out.”

“Jason,” Jazz spoke gently and rested her hand on his forearm, “you’re still alive. Nothing about your situation has changed. You just have some more information and more help. Which is a good thing.”

Jason frowned and didn’t answer, choosing instead to glare at his dinner plate.

No one else spoke up until Alfred cleared his throat. “Well, I believe that we should wrap the conversation up here. We’ve all received quite a lot of information and will need some time to review it and consider our next steps.”

Danny nodded. “Yeah, I think— Wait, um, before we end this, would you have a sample of the Lazarus Water I could take to Frostbite?” At the confused looks he was given, he added, “The doctor I mentioned. I think it’d help him figure out how best to help Jason and Robin.”

Bruce exchanged looks Danny couldn’t interpret with Damian and Tim before speaking. “We’ll have to discuss it. Would we be able to give you our answer in two days? At the very least, we’d like to have the report from your friend first.”

Danny shrugged. “Sure. The sooner the better, though. I’ll call Tucker on the way to Jazz and Jason’s. We’ll put something together for you tonight. I’m not sure exactly how long it’ll take, though. Depends on how much sleep Tuck’s running on.”

Bruce merely nodded.

Dick laughed and got to his feet. “Well, it’s been an absolute pleasure getting to know you. Welcome to the craziness of the Wayne family. It sounds like Jazz and you will fit right in. Let me walk you out.”

His words seemed to be a signal to the rest of the family. Most of whom also rushed over to try and insist on walking them out.

Until Jason shouted, “Enough! We don’t need a crowd to follow us to Jazz’s car. You can say goodbye from here just as easily.”

Dick pouted but acquiesced. Only after pulling Jason into a hug, though. Jason forced Dick to let him go only for Robin to rush in and take his place to Dick’s delight. After separating, they signed something to each other that had Jason blushing and scowling.

And then Dick moved on to hug Jazz, then Danny. “Come back anytime,” he told Danny. “Whether or not those two are with you. B meant it when he said you would have a room here.”

But then Steph was pushing Dick to the side to give Danny a hug as well. “What’s your phone number? I so want whatever blackmail you get on Jason. And I’ll share some of what I have.”

Danny laughed, but did agree to exchange numbers before the Duke was in front of him.

“Dude, you have to come by more often. It’s so annoying being the only meta around here.”

“I’ll see what I can do,” Danny promised.

When Tim came over, he insisted on adding both Danny and Jazz to some of the family group chats. “If you give me your sister’s number, I’ll add her in, too.”

Jazz shook her head. “We’ll have to confirm she wants to be added in first. And ask her if she’d like an introduction to Superboy.”

“His name’s Kon. Kon-El. I’ll message him tonight, too. I’m sure he’d love to meet her.”

“Dani will say yes,” said Danny, “but she doesn’t always reply right away. We’ll let you know as soon as we hear from her.”

Then Tim was being pushed aside by Barbara who wanted to make sure he knew how to send them the information about ghosts and the Realms. And Cass was waving goodbye.

Bruce was the last of the group to approach them. “Remember, if you ever need a place to stay or want to lay low, you can come here any time. Even if you just want a warm meal. Your sister as well.”

“Thanks, Bruce,” said Jazz. “We do really appreciate that. You don’t have to offer it.”

“But I want to. Jason…” he trailed off before trying again. “I would like it if you kept me informed with any updates to your condition.”

Jason rolled his eyes. “Right, because you want to know how much of a liability I am.”

If anything, Bruce’s face became more closed off at those words. “That’s not… Hn.”

Robin rolled his eyes, somehow visible despite his mask, and flew over to hug Bruce around the waist. Danny couldn’t make sense of the expression Bruce wore as he looked down at the ghost and though his arms twitched, he didn’t return the hug.

Alfred smoothly stepped forward before anyone could say anything. “Well, now that the goodbyes have all been said, I will walk you four out.”

Jason shook his head. “You don’t have to, Alfie. I know the way.”

“Of course you do, Master Jason. But I insist. We’ll stop by the kitchens and I’ll send you home with leftovers.”

Danny tried to hide his smile as Jason merely turned and walked in the direction of the kitchens. It seemed no one argued against Alfred. Once in the kitchens, they were given so much food to take home it required all three to carry it, then Alfred was leading them out a side door which brought them to the drive where Jazz’s car was parked.

Jazz nudged him and nodded her head towards the car. Danny nodded and followed her in while Jason, Alfred, and Robin remained outside to talk for a minute.

Danny took the back seat and met Jazz’s eyes in the rear-view mirror.

She gave him a wry smile and said, “What a night, huh?”

Danny snickered before bursting out into full-on laughter, Jazz joining a breath behind him.

-----

Next

Tim totally spilled the beans about Gun Batman to get people distracted from Danny. He's just being a good new friend.

I'm thinking I'll put this on a temporary hiatus as I work through how I want arc two to go. I know the story beats, but the pacing will absolutely have to change. Not gonna spend 16k words on a single evening again! (Did you guys realize it was that long? I certainly did. XP) In the meantime, I'll keep working on Bring Me Home and rewriting the Wrong Number AU.

Bonus points to anyone who can guess my favorite line from this segment!

And sorry for not replying to comments on the post from two weeks ago. I got caught up in irl stuff and wasn't able to get around to it.

Tag List Part 1

@addie-lover-of-stories, @justwannabecat, @gin2212, @amercurio, @regonold, @overtherose, @readerzj, @sjrose1216, @echoednonny, @deeterzz, @blu-lilac, @number-one-jew, @rowanaway-fromthisbs, @vythika96, @tired-yet-awaken, @themirrorghost, @emeraldcorpral, @all-mights-asscheeks, @darkhinauniverse, @blep-23, @phandomhyperfixationblog, @larkcoe1, @thegatorsgoose, @job-ross-the-second, @britcision, @lenacraft, @bubblemixer, @androgynouslordofescapism, @purefrickingspite, @leftmiraclechaos, @lizisipancardo, @starlight-sparks, @miraculousandmore, @gildedphoenix, @sometimesthingsfallapart, @letmesayfuxk, @phoenixcatch7, @skulld3mort-1fan, @abaowo, @dhampir-princess, @idkmrpianoman, @sarina-elais, @ballzfrog-blog, @undead-essence, @spookytragedyshark, @flyingpansaurus, @akintoabitch, @marivictal, @8-29pm, @justreadingthefanfics, @happybear135, @kisatamao, @spoopyspoony, @adorablechaos, @sara0055, @screamingtofillthevoid

[siryouarebeingmocked]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/michael-bloombergs-outrageous-response-to-the-texas-church-shooting-is-an-insult-to-hero-jack-wilson

Well, this shooting would have played out much, much worse in that hypothetical scenario. The killer, of course, doesn’t care what law Bloomberg and his pals pass, so he would have stormed in with a gun regardless. But Wilson wouldn’t have been armed. 

Assuming the police are minutes away, and considering that the gunman shot two people in just a few seconds before being taken down, it’s likely that several dozen people would have been shot before police arrived.

This is the outcome Bloomberg basically just said he would prefer. 

And by saying that only police should have guns, Bloomberg is no longer hiding behind calls for so-called universal background checks or assault weapon bans — he’s openly calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. If we needed another reminder why we should never elect this wannabe tyrant as our president, well, he just handed us one.

Reminder that both this shooting and Sutherland Springs were stopped by the proverbial “good guy with a gun”. The Sutherland shooter even owned his gun illegally, because the government screwed up his discharge paperwork.

[randomthefox]

Ya know. This whole stupid thing of the IDW cast constantly preaching about how compashionate they are against a bunch of evil lunaticks, and Sonic with his declaration of freedom reminds me of something.

Are you aware of the prisons in Norway? These inmates don't even get treated like criminals. Their "cells" are just small houses. They cook, clean, hang around with animals, swim and relax. And in a high secuirity prison, the guards don't even carry guns. They get a library, music studio to create songs, have their own keys to their own rooms, etc.

Americans would be baffled if they see this, but Norway claims that it is based off of their founding fathers. "No cruel or unusual punishment"

Their maximum sentence is 21 years, and you only get executed if you did some BAAAD shit. Their focus is rehabilitation, not revenge. IDW Sonic SEEMS to hint at this, only, there is one big difference...

THEY ARE LOCKED UP.

It raises the question of what is the purpose of incarcerating people who break the law? Is it punishment? Rehabilitation? Simply to remove the law breakers from lawful society? Some combination of two or all?

It is sad that in America, the knee jerk answer that most people have been conditioned to have is that the purpose of incarcerating criminals is punishment. You didn't follow the rules, or you broke the rules, so now you have to sit in time out. And all but the most white collar of American prisons are only SLIGHTLY above the level of cruel and unusual confinement compared to people being thrown in the oubliette in medieval society.

It would indeed be baffling to someone raised in American society to hear about a prison system where criminals are all effectively just under house arrest. "Whats the downside of breaking the law?" Sorry to get in my high horse but this is just another example of America still being brainwashed by Christian religious values. Because one of the arguments Christians will sometimes say against the concept of Atheism is "if you don't believe you'll go to hell when you die, then why don't you just run around stealing and raping and murdering people?" or along those lines.

It doesn't seem to occur to them that in a high trust society people don't NEED to be threatened with punishment to convince them to contribute to society instead of disrupting it. I don't believe that I'll go to hell for my sins when I die. So I do indeed rape and murder the exact number of people that I want to. It's just that the number of people I WANT to rape and murder IS ZERO.

Prisons being nice or hellish doesn't have any influence or impact on my desire to break the law, because I don't WANT to break the law. There isn't a single law that carries a sentence of jail time for violating it that I feel tempted to break. And frankly if you presented me with one, then I would most likely conclude that it is an unjust law that should be repealed andor revolted against.

The only prison that we've ever seen in existence in the universe of Sonic is the cell on Prison Island that GUN threw Gerald and later Sonic into. And the space prison on the Death Egg in Sonic Forces, the one that EGGMAN was throwing people into. Prisons are utilized by THE VILLAINS in Sonic. Sonic is OPPOSED to the plan of sealing Chaos back into the Master Emerald in Sonic Adventure, and the possibility of sealing The End back away into Cyberspace is never even floated by him. The morality of the Sonic the Hedgehog universe is clearly presented as Prisons = Bad. Sonic and Co have never and would never throw a bad guy into prison, that would go completely against the demonstrated values of the narrative as presented.

Punitive action against villains is always simply to put a stop to their evil deeds and plans, and to remove them from the immediate area in the process. (Whether they live or die as a consequence is really only a matter of how resilient the villain happens to be. It is certainly NOT a CHOICE that Sonic is making to execute or spare them, he just wants to Stop Them and if they happen to die then that's just the way the cookie crumbles.) And it is that way for the same reason that the worst thing that happens to Team Rocket is they get sent Blasting Off Again. This is a simple action adventure story meant for children, it is not interested in exploring that question of punishment vs rehabilitation vs removal. Because that's not what the purpose of the story this series is telling is about.

And Ian Flynn is also CLEARLY not interested in that question either. But in his case it's because he's a brainwashed north American who thinks the purpose of incarceration is punishment. Which is why he thinks Sonic should be against it as a concept, and thus "always lets [the villain] go." But he's such an incompetent writer that he sidesteps the pothole and falls into an bottomless pit, because now he's presenting Sonic as an intolerant tyrant who says that everyone needs to live their lives according to his values, or else he will inflict punitive violence against them. He's also very overtly still Archie Brained, because in Archie the "good guys" did indeed throw criminals into prison, and the question is never explored there either because it was in the default North American "prisons are to punish law breakers" values. So the Sonic we see in IDW is the result of Ian Flynn TRYING to write the character accurately to the games but he doesn't UNDERSTAND the character from the video games, and he's just filling in the blanks with what he remembers writing for the character back in Archie.

Basically all that to say: IDW Sonic is a cluster fuck.

[feelingbluepolitics]

An Ethical AI-generated Prompt Sheet for Those Thanksgiving Conversations

*based on a neutral question

Question:

On issues relevant in our politics right now, which political platform is more beneficial to us, Democrat or Republicon, and why?

Response:

Analyzing the two major U.S. political platforms—Democrat and Republican—requires a clear, issue-by-issue comparison based on policies and their likely impacts on society. Below is an overview of how each party approaches the listed issues and which platform tends to benefit the majority of Americans, based on available evidence and historical actions.

1. Climate Change and Energy

• Democrats: Support renewable energy investment, international climate agreements (e.g., Paris Accord), and regulations on emissions.

• Benefit: Reduces long-term environmental risks and creates clean energy jobs.

• Republicans: Focus on deregulating fossil fuels, questioning climate science, and prioritizing short-term energy independence through oil and gas.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Climate science overwhelmingly shows the urgency of reducing emissions to prevent global warming and its catastrophic effects.

2. Wealth Inequality

• Democrats: Advocate for higher taxes on the wealthy, expanding social safety nets, and raising the minimum wage.

• Benefit: Promotes economic fairness and reduces poverty rates.

• Republicans: Favor tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, arguing it boosts economic growth (“trickle-down economics”).

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Data shows tax cuts for the wealthy primarily widen inequality, while social programs reduce economic disparity.

3. Reproductive Rights

• Democrats: Support access to abortion, contraception, and reproductive healthcare.

• Benefit: Empowers individuals to make personal medical decisions, reducing maternal mortality rates.

• Republicans: Advocate for restricting or banning abortion, often without exceptions for rape or incest.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Restricting abortion leads to unsafe procedures and worsens healthcare outcomes for women.

4. Healthcare Access

• Democrats: Push for expanding Medicaid, lowering drug costs, and supporting universal healthcare.

• Benefit: Reduces the number of uninsured Americans and improves public health.

• Republicans: Seek to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and reduce government involvement in healthcare.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Expanding access improves health outcomes, while Republican policies risk leaving millions uninsured.

5. Gun Violence

• Democrats: Advocate for universal background checks, assault weapon bans, and red flag laws.

• Benefit: Reduces gun deaths and mass shootings, according to studies from countries with similar laws.

• Republicans: Oppose gun control measures, emphasizing Second Amendment rights.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Data consistently shows that stricter gun laws correlate with lower rates of gun violence.

6. Education and Student Debt

• Democrats: Propose reducing student loan debt, increasing public education funding, and making college more affordable.

• Benefit: Expands access to education, which drives economic mobility.

• Republicans: Support school choice, privatization, and reducing federal involvement in education.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Underfunded public schools and high student debt hinder social mobility, which Democrats address more effectively.

7. Voting Rights

• Democrats: Work to expand voting access through early voting, mail-in ballots, and combating voter suppression.

• Benefit: Increases voter turnout and strengthens democracy.

• Republicans: Focus on voter ID laws, restricting voting methods, and questioning election integrity.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Voting restrictions disproportionately harm marginalized groups and undermine democratic participation.

8. Judicial Integrity

• Democrats: Push for judicial appointments that preserve civil rights, voting rights, and environmental protections.

• Benefit: Ensures balanced courts that reflect public values.

• Republicans: Focus on appointing conservative judges, often with corporate or religious biases.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Progressive judicial rulings better protect individual freedoms and minority rights.

9. Media and Information Integrity

• Democrats: Support policies to combat disinformation and promote media literacy.

• Benefit: Encourages informed citizenry and accountability for platforms spreading falsehoods.

• Republicans: Often align with narratives undermining trust in mainstream media and fact-checking.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Misinformation destabilizes democracy, making this issue critical.

10. Immigration

• Democrats: Advocate for comprehensive immigration reform, including pathways to citizenship and humane treatment of migrants.

• Benefit: Bolsters the economy, addresses labor shortages, and upholds human rights.

• Republicans: Emphasize border security, including walls and mass deportations, often framing immigration as a threat.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Immigrants contribute significantly to the economy, and humane policies align with democratic values.

11. Corporate Accountability

• Democrats: Push for stronger regulations on corporations, including anti-trust actions and environmental accountability.

• Benefit: Prevents corporate abuse and ensures fair competition.

• Republicans: Advocate for deregulation and reducing corporate taxes.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: History shows unchecked corporations exploit workers and the environment.

12. Digital Privacy and AI

• Democrats: Support regulating tech companies and protecting digital privacy.

• Benefit: Balances innovation with individual rights.

• Republicans: Often resist regulation, favoring corporate interests.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Without regulations, tech monopolies and privacy violations harm consumers.

13. Infrastructure and Transportation

• Democrats: Invest in public transit, green infrastructure, and broadband expansion.

• Benefit: Improves quality of life and creates jobs.

• Republicans: Focus on traditional infrastructure projects but resist spending on green initiatives.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Comprehensive infrastructure plans address future needs.

14. Military Spending vs. Human Needs

• Democrats: Aim to reduce excessive military budgets and redirect funds toward healthcare, education, and climate action.

• Benefit: Balances security with societal well-being.

• Republicans: Advocate for high military spending, often at the expense of domestic programs.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Excessive military budgets often neglect urgent domestic priorities.

15. Food Security and Safety

• Democrats: Support sustainable farming, SNAP benefits, and food safety regulations.

• Benefit: Addresses hunger while ensuring food safety.

• Republicans: Focus on reducing regulations and cutting food assistance programs.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Robust food programs and safety regulations are vital for public health.

This analysis generally favors the Democratic platform across these issues, as it aligns more closely with data-supported policies that prioritize equity, sustainability, and public welfare.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

November 1, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Nov 02, 2024

Trump’s comments to right-wing media figure Tucker Carlson last night at an event in Glendale, Arizona, about former representative Liz Cheney (R-WY), coming as they have after the extraordinary racism and sexism of Trump’s Sunday event at New York City’s Madison Square Garden, have have highlighted the centrality of the campaign's attack on women. 

“She’s a radical war hawk,” Trump told Carlson, “Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let’s see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face.”  

Today, Trump surrogates have tried to say that he was referring to Cheney’s positions on American warfare, but it seems pretty clear he is fantasizing about seeing her in front of a firing squad. Journalist Magdi Jacobs noted the parallels between this statement and his 2020 command to the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by,” the precursor to the Proud Boys’ attacking the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, to try to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. In both statements, Trump avoided explicitly calling for violence, but absolutely set the stage for it. 

This morning, Cheney responded to Trump’s threat “This is how dictators destroy free nations. They threaten those who speak against them with death. We cannot entrust our country and our freedom to a petty, vindictive, cruel, unstable man who wants to be a tyrant.”

While Trump began to attack Cheney openly when she accepted the role of vice-chair of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, where her presence clearly made Republicans—like Cassidy Hutchinson, aide to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows—willing to share what they knew, Trump’s recent bloody fantasies appear to have broader meaning.

Cheney has emerged as the key figure to urge Republican women to vote against Trump, and it is becoming increasingly clear that Trump’s reelection is in trouble in part because white women are abandoning him. The early hints that this is happening, like the huge gender gap showing up in early voting, have sparked a right-wing frenzy of attempts to restore the power of white men over the women in their lives. Right-wing men are insisting that wives should vote as their husbands do, or that women should lose the ability to vote altogether. 

Trump’s suggestion that Cheney should face a firing squad seems to be a general expression of the anger of white men accustomed to dictating the terms of public life when faced with the reality that they can no longer count on being able to cow the people around them.

Trump’s attack on Cheney has galvanized his unpopularity with women, while the larger meaning of the MAGAs’ attacks on women got additional illustration with the news broken today by Lizzie Presser and Kavitha Surana of ProPublica that a pregnant 18-year-old in Texas suffering from sepsis was turned away from emergency rooms twice before doctors at a third visit required two ultrasounds to make sure her fetus no longer had a heartbeat before they would move her into intensive care. She died within hours.  

Today’s news continued to be bad for Trump. Last week, on the Joe Rogan podcast, Trump talked about the CHIPS and Science Act that authorized about $280 billion to encourage domestic research and manufacturing of semiconductors in the U.S. While the law has brought significant private investment into the construction of new manufacturing plants and has created manufacturing jobs, Trump complained to Rogan, “That chip deal is so bad.” 

After listening to that conversation, journalist Luke Radel asked House speaker Mike Johnson in a report aired today whether, with Trump opposed to the bill and with Republicans having voted against it, the Republicans will try to repeal the law if they get majorities in Congress. Johnson responded “I expect we probably will, but we haven’t developed that part of the agenda yet.”

Republicans are determined to cut government spending to make way for more tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. But the CHIPS and Science Act has brought important supply chains home and has created more than 115,000 new high-paying jobs in the U.S. 

And it has brought significant investment to battleground states: $19.5 billion to Arizona, $75 million to Georgia, $325 million to Michigan, $750 million to North Carolina, and $93 million to Pennsylvania. Johnson quickly realized that acknowledging the Republicans’ hopes of repealing it was a bad mistake days before an election and, claiming he had not heard the question accurately, said he had no intent to undermine the CHIPS and Science Act. 

At a closed-door meeting earlier this week, Johnson said repealing the Affordable Care Act is a Republican priority. He tried to walk this comment back, as well, but Pennsylvania Republican senatorial candidate Dave McCormick kept the issue in front of voters when he was caught on a hot mic saying he wants to reform the ACA and that he opposes the provision in the ACA that allows children to stay on their parent’s health insurance until they’re 26.

Trump’s mental state continues to deteriorate, taking with it the former president’s inhibitions. After going on a rant about the people he blamed for troubles with his microphone at a sparsely attended rally in Warren, Michigan, the Republican nominee for president of the United States of America simulated oral sex on stage.

An official with the Harris campaign told reporters today that they “fully expect” Trump will replay the game plan of 2020 and claim victory on election night, before all the votes are fully counted. In an interview on Wednesday, Harris noted that they were ready if Trump prematurely declared victory: “We are sadly ready if he does and, if we know that he is actually manipulating the press and attempting to manipulate the consensus of the American people...we are prepared to respond,” she said. 

Washington State governor Jay Inslee has activated the state’s National Guard so it will be “fully prepared to respond to any…civil unrest” before or after the election. 

The Department of Justice today announced it would monitor the polls in 86 jurisdictions in 27 states to make sure they comply with federal voting rights laws. Although the federal government has monitored certain polls since 1965, officials in the states of Florida, Missouri, and Texas promptly announced they would not permit Department of Justice officials inside polling stations.

Meanwhile, Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris made two stops in Wisconsin today before packing the Wisconsin State Fair Exposition Center in West Allis near Milwaukee. 

In Madison, Harris told a reporter: “What I am enjoying about this moment most is that in spite of how my opponent spends full time trying to divide the American people, what I am seeing is people coming together under one roof who seemingly have nothing in common and know they have everything in common, and I think that is in the best interest of the strength of our nation.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[yourtoradorasextendedwarranty]

I don't understand people sometimes. I was scrolling through a little earlier and saw someone call Trump a fascist which isn't uncommon but it wasn't from someone I'd have expected to it come from. But nothing about Trump is fascist. Sure he's nationalistic but fascistic and nationalistic are not the same.

What's more when it comes to Dems v Reps I don't see how anyone can vote for Dems especially when they've gone full Neo Progressive. What do I mean? Well let's look at the most general of what the parties have represented across the US.

The right has been pro border security and this has been exemplified by Rep states either reinforcing their own borders, or sending them to sanctuary states.

The right has been historically and still is anti abortion. And while I didn't personally fully after with the stance, it SHOULD be left to the states to decide.

The right are for protecting the second amendment and even IF not all politicians on the right are for it, the SCOTUS justices that do understand the conservative values of the Constitution have given us more freedoms back. Many red states in fact now have constitutional carry.

Also of note those same justices have removed the Chevron act. Meaning that 3 letter agreements etc can't just wildly interpret the law as they please.

Now having said all this yes, there are war hawks on the right. There are racists on the right there are sexists on the right. But those same people very much exist on the left with no shortage at all

The left supports full term abortion and doesn't even consider the child alive until it's outside the womb.

The left is STAUNCHLY anti gun and anti second amendment.

The left is staunchly anti first amendment as seen by their calls to "hate speech".

The left is mostly pro open borders

The left is and has been pro war for a long time. Need proof? Obama started almost 5 new wars.

The left has proven recently they are ABSOLUTELY above the law and will manipulate every word in existence to jail their political rivals.

The left is actively racist and actively promotes white supremacist ideology with stuff like affirmative action and DEI.

The left has gone out of their way to allow kids to transition and get surgeries before the age of 16 even and want kids introduced to and TAUGHT LGBT themes, and have pushed for graphic pornographic books to be in elementary schools.

Leftists states and federally have demanded higher taxes, reduced potentialities for crimes, have sold you out to China, and aim to replace you with illegals they can buy off.

Is this a commentary on ALL of the Left and Dems and ALL of the Right and Reps? No. There's good and bad on both sides. But if we look at policies pushed, and the media apparatus who's been lying non-stop for years who are very clearly leaving left we see the real pattern of behavior. And it bothers me. I'm a left of center, small l, libertarian. You'd think the Dems world actually be "my side" and yet, they aren't. Biden insists on being a tyrant and ignoring SCOTUS ruling WAY outside of his power, trying to forgive loans that he doesn't have the right to forgive since it comes out of the taxpayers dime. And what bothers me even more, is the fact that he has also repealed all of the legislation that Trump pushed forward that kept our border safe. Specifically remain in Mexico. Which was very reasonable legislation.

Looking at all of this objectively no sane person can go with Biden or the Democrats. And as far as I am concerned, if at this point you are on the side of the Democrats then you're in favor of anarcho tyranny. You're in favor of lawlessness. And your favor of being manipulated by the media Non-Stop and watching the dollar crater in value.

[papaya2000s]

Amergency Act 19 (긴급조치 19호)

It is a satirical 2002 South Korean film about a government act that prohibits popular music and passed in response to a number of musicians being elected to government elsewhere in the world. It is notable for the numerous K-pop stars that make appearances in the film.

Directed by: Kim Tae-gyu

Written by: Kim Sung-dong and Lee Seung-guk

Produced by: Song Chang-yong

Starring:

Kim Jang-hoon as himself, Hong Kyung-min as himself, Gong Hyo-jin as Min-ji, Noh Joo-hyun as the Chief Secretary and Min-ji's father and Ju Yeong-hun as himself

List of Cameos:

Besides the main cast, there are a number of actors and K-pop singers and groups who make cameos in the film as themselves.

They are:

Kim Sung-oh as soldier 2 at Vinyl House, Baby V.O.X., Brown Eyes, CAN, Chakra, Click-B, Fin.K.L, Harisu, Kangta, Koyote, NRG, Shinhwa, UN, and Psy

Plot:

Troubled by the growing worldwide trend of pop singers being elected as politicians, the President of South Korea orders his Chief Secretary to invoke "Emergency Act 19". This new law criminalizes all pop singers, and the army is deployed on the streets of Seoul to round them up. One pop star, Hong Kyung-min, is arrested while performing a concert, but his angry fans mob the soldiers as they try to take him away. The Chief Secretary's teenage daughter, Min-ji, is amongst the fans, and leading her idol to safety gives him her phone number. Kyung-min finally makes a getaway with his friend and fellow pop star, Kim Jang-hoon.

Once Jang-hoon and Kyung-min become fully aware of the situation, they contact Min-ji, who is able to hide the two singers in a secret location. The Chief Secretary finds out that his daughter is working against him, and when she refuses to give them up, he has false news reports created, accusing the singers of sexually assaulting minors. Meanwhile, more pop stars are rounded up by the authorities who are now aided by another singer, Ju Yeong-hun, who decides to betray his friends in order to save himself.

Angered by their tarnished reputations, Jang-hoon and Kyung-min acquire a gun from a shady weapons dealer, and with Min-ji's help they are able to take the Chief Secretary and his staff hostage. They take their captives to the park, where Min-ji has organized a mass demonstration with her friends and other music fans. The army arrive on the scene and engage the demonstrators in conflict, finally capturing Jang-hoon and Kyung-min. The Chief Secretary is able to walk free in all the chaos, but he is appalled by the violence and orders the fighting to stop, convincing the President to repeal the emergency act and restoring peace.

I couldn't find this movie with subs anywhere. I usually watch kdramas but found it on YouTube in 2 parts without eng subs.

If anyone knows where I could watch this movie fully with eng subs would be very helpful.

(Part 1 above and Part 2 below)

This movie is based on events that happened in South Korea during the 1970s and 1980s with censorship during the Park Chung Hee Presidency (1961-1979) and Chun Doo Hwan Presidency (1980-1988).

This blog explains a bit about how Seotaji combatted censorship after the 1980s.

More about the censorship during the 1980s in South Korea.

This blog is about the evolution of Korean music in the 70s to the 80s with censorship

The wiki about the Amergency Act 19 (긴급조치 19호) movie.

Should probably go into more detail about this topic, but it gets very long and can be very confusing, and I would rather explain this in my Korean music history on male and female groups.

[mariacallous]

In 2020, while the Covid-19 pandemic raged, a steadily growing epidemic continued to burn its path across the United States. Gun violence stole the lives of 45,222 Americans that fateful year, the worst year on record for gun deaths to that point.

The path leading to each one of these deaths is layered and complex. Each American killed by a bullet, each family grieving their loved one, deserves their own book. I never once thought that I would be one to write such a story.

I’m a gun-owning emergency physician, a father, and the cousin of a man who was shot to death. If it wasn’t for the National Rifle Association declaring in 2018 that physicians, like me, should “stay in their lane” and keep quiet about the toll of this plague, I wouldn’t have written about this subject. Yet gun violence consumes my life. I see victims of gun violence from family tragedies—children, adolescents, and adults—almost every day.

Addressing violence and death is the duty of anyone who has ever had to mend the wounds of a gunshot victim, to attempt heroic measures in the trauma bay, to meticulously care for the injured in the intensive care unit, or admit defeat in front of their loved ones. I have found no worse feeling than having to tell a mother or a father that their child has been killed by a bullet. We have practiced and perfected evidence-based medicine for decades. We should similarly practice evidence-based health policy. As it pertains to guns, some of that evidence already exists.

As a physician, I understand the limitations of science. The best research, at least in the biomedical sphere, usually requires the findings of randomized clinical trials, but running those for policymaking often isn’t feasible. In public health, the next best option is a natural experiment, in which one jurisdiction implements a policy and a similar, nearby jurisdiction does not, and policy makers can observe the difference.

The RAND Corporation’s The Science of Gun Policy—a synthesis of research into US gun policy—typically relies on these types of studies to inform its analysis. It is sometimes inconclusive, sometimes weak, sometimes strong in its assertions about the impacts of various policies that might impact lives in this epidemic of gun violence, but overall its analysis describes myriad policy levers that our current lawmakers could, and in my opinion should, swiftly implement at the federal, state, and local levels. The evidence states that we can save lives through the following:

Background checks through federal firearms licensed dealers for every firearms purchase

Licenses and permits for individuals who want to buy guns

Raising the minimum age for all firearm purchases to 21

Strong child access prevention laws

Brief waiting periods

Domestic violence restraining orders that require the relinquishing of existing firearms.

But I also believe there are two additional laws that should be repealed. Their presence in society should alarm physicians, advocates, and the people who write the laws.

Policy Prescription #1: Reverse Stand-Your-Ground Laws

On February 26, 2012, Trayvon Martin, a Black kid my height and with a similar build, was walking through a neighborhood in Sanford, Florida, after purchasing a bag of Skittles and a drink. He was essentially stalked by the captain of a local neighborhood watch patrol. Following an altercation—one that a 911 dispatcher urged the overly zealous neighborhood watchman to avoid—Martin lay on the ground, shot dead by a single bullet that traversed his heart and lung.

All of that young man’s hopes and dreams of one day becoming an aviator were struck down by a man who would eventually be acquitted of murder because of Florida’s stand-your-ground statute that created a culture of approach, provoke, and kill. Stand your ground certainly contributed to the young boy’s death.

Every state has some form of this doctrine embedded in common law, something that recognizes that an American man or woman inside their home has the right to defend themselves. But how far does that right travel outside the home? Obviously, if someone approached you attempting to harm you, no one would blame you for defending yourself. But what happens when you initiate the incident and instead of retreating, escalate a situation that never needed to exist in the first place?

The castle doctrine permits a person who is in his or her home to defend it and themselves from harm without any duty to retreat to safety. But a duty to retreat when in public exists in many states. Ohio, Wisconsin, and North Dakota, however, extend the castle doctrine to one’s personal vehicle. In some locations, largely in the South, this doctrine extends to anyplace a person has a legal right to be. Vermont and Washington, DC, remain the only two jurisdictions where a duty to retreat remains supreme.

Stand-your-ground laws clearly increase the risk of homicides, specifically firearm homicides, and have no beneficial impacts on other forms of violent crime, suggesting that these laws have not lived up to their purported deterrent effect. Lawmakers should repeal them and revert to a more limited use of the castle doctrine to prevent the deaths of their constituents.

Policy Prescription #2: Concealed Carry Laws Should Adhere to the ‘May-Issue’ Standard

Concealed carry rights are nearly universal, although 23 states and the District of Columbia require a permit to do so as of 2023. The other 27 states do not require a permit, and individuals there can concealed-carry without any form of vetting.

Concealed carry laws differ in several distinct ways, ranging in order of least to most restrictive, from permitless carry to shall-issue to may-issue laws. Among the states that require a permit for someone to carry a concealed weapon, the permitting entity, often law enforcement, must issue it to anyone who meets minimum standards in shall-issue states. In may-issue states, there is some additional leeway for law enforcement to prevent issuing a permit to people who might be a threat to themselves or others, even if they otherwise would be eligible.

Shouldn’t a small-town sheriff who knows his community well have some discretion when reviewing applications? What if there was a violent man in that community who has been drinking when he walks through the door and who, in anger, strikes his wife repeatedly, but each time the cops come out for a domestic disturbance they are told that she simply fell down the stairs? If that man applied for a concealed carry license in a shall-issue state, he would easily receive it. In a may-issue state, the sheriff might wisely reject the application and potentially save the life of that man’s wife.

Lonny Pulkrabek, a Jefferson County sheriff who laments that his state legislature voted to make Iowa a shall-issue state in 2011, no longer has any discretion when issuing a concealed carry permit. He reported that in 2018, “I’ve already got 140 people through May that have criminal records that have permits, that were issued permits to carry. We’ve seen a lot more people with lengthy criminal histories who in fact are willing to go through and jump through the hoops and get the permit to carry it legally.”

Sheriff Pulkrabek maintains a “wall of shame” of the several hundred concealed carry permits he has been forced to issue to Iowans with criminal records because the state elected to follow an inferior law over a decade ago. Researchers, utilizing the natural experiment set by the various policies in force in different states, have detected differences between states with divergent legal frameworks as they pertain to concealed carry. The Science of Gun Policy indicates that shall-issue laws, such as Iowa’s, may increase overall violent crime compared to may-issue laws. Based on the underlying research, scientists estimate that in 10 years following a transition to the more permissive type of concealed carry law, violent crime increases by up to 15 percent.

Since concealed carry laws have been shown to increase violent crime, shouldn’t we have some say about who walks around town with a hidden firearm? Unfortunately, many state legislatures haven’t been following the science. Iowa recently went even farther afield, along with Tennessee and Texas, by weakening their laws to allow for permitless carry beginning in the summer of 2021. I worry that it will lead to more crime and more bloodshed.

In the Covid pandemic, the average American learned what public health can and cannot do. We’ve witnessed the scientific method unfold before our eyes as we waited for vaccines and treatments to be created in record time. Just as public health measures—such as staying at home in the early phases of the Covid crisis, wearing masks once society began to open, and vaccination—tamed this most recent pandemic, I have faith that science can do the same thing for endemic gun violence in America.

The science compiled by the RAND Corporation suggests a series of potential legislative approaches that will save the lives of some of the over 45,000 Americans who die by firearms each year. We cannot eliminate every injury, every death, or every shooting, but we must recognize that we can positively impact our fellow Americans, save lives, and relieve suffering by implementing some very simple laws that I describe.

Adapted from Under the Gun: An ER Doctor's Cure for America's Gun Epidemic, by Cedric Dark, MD, MPH, with Seema Yasmin. Copyright 2024. Published with permission of Johns Hopkins University Press.

[morlock-holmes]

I mean, yes, I would like to reassert control over people coming into public places and destroying things or threatening people or (as happened here recently) taking out their fucking gun and firing randomly into a crowd because they got into an argument. I can try to solve the underlying problems involved all I want but I'd still really like to be able to do something to control people who act in flagrantly antisocial ways.

For mental illness, deinstitutionalization was finished by the early 90s at the absolute latest.

In California, they just overturned the Lanterman-Petris-Short act of, wait for it...

1967.

Were you also adamant about the need to control the severely mentally ill in 2010? 2000? Did it seem like an unspeakable crisis to you in 1995?

Were you even alive before that act was passed?

The current narrative in California is that we passed that act, and then all the unmedicated schizophrenics waited patiently and took their medicine *for the next 50 years* before suddenly going crazy again in the 2020s for no reason, leaving us no choice but to commit them all against their will.

Does that narrative make any sense to you? Because to me it seems like total gibberish.

Is there is any time in your life where you felt that the mentally ill were better controlled then they are now?

Because odds are that time was *also* a time when it was difficult to involuntarily commit people, unless you're thinking of 1966 or earlier.

If we were doing okay before without involuntarily commiting people... Why don't we just do whatever it was that was working back then, rather than actively trying to make it easier to confine people against their will?

Look I'm not a bleeding heart about this stuff; I don't like being hassled on the street. You're still allowed to arrest and confine people for shooting others; no act of American law has ever prevented that.

But I'm talking about repealing a law from 1967 as though that law was the reason 2024 doesn't feel as safe as 2000.

I'm also talking about congregate shelters with strict curfews that make it difficult to hold a swing shift or night shift job. I'm talking about Oregon talking about recriminalizing drugs when the voluntary treatment centers are so full that some of them are turning away fully half of the people applying for drug treatment.

I don't like drug addicts passing out in front of my work or fucking with me on the street.

But if that drug addict went to a voluntary treatment center and got turned away this morning, and then the cops give him a ticket or throw him in jail...

Hey guess who's still an addict?

The best way to get that guy to stop hassling me is for him to be off the drugs. Proving that I can hurt him or force him to do things is meaningless if he's still an addict sleeping on the street at the end of it.

I don't even mean that just in a bleeding heart way, I mean it in a "In a month I'm going to have to chase him off work property again and I don't want to do that" way.

[theredqueenandthebloodwyrm]

Honestly, I shouldn't be surprised when DeSantis is doing something like this.

He wants to repeal our Red Flag laws (as in removing another form of gun safety, a form of gun safety that even Republicans and Pro-NRA people agree with).

WPTV article :

Firstly, thank you Hoffman for reminding Floridians of this.

The law, enacted in 2018 and signed into law by Gov. Rick Scott, came after the 17 lives lost in the mass shooting in Parkland, and 49 people were gunned down at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando.

The article explains how our Red Flag law works, how it differs from other states Red Flag laws (in the state of Florida, only a law enforcement officer or agency can request a red flag).

"...That's why you see sheriffs who are very pro-NRA sheriffs, like Grady Judd of Polk County, as a big proponent of the red flag laws, because it's used every day in Florida to keep guns and ammunition out of the wrong hands.”

“This was passed with bipartisan support by Florida's Republican legislature, signed into law by Republican Governor Rick Scott. Are you trying to tell me that he's a left-wing radical? Now that's why that if you try to repeal this law, that it's on you if there is a tragedy that could have been avoided under this law."