• Mongostein@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Restrictions doesn’t mean no guns. A guy that’s going to shoot schools shouldn’t have a gun, but a guy that’s going to shoot fascists should.

      • throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Background check are fine, but dems are getting too draconian.

        Example:

        The Sullivan Act

        For handguns, the Sullivan Act qualifies as a may issue act, meaning the local police have discretion to issue a concealed carry license, as opposed to a shall issue act, in which state authorities must give a concealed handgun license to any person who satisfies specific criteria, often a background check and a safety class

        So… cops have discretion on who to give permits to…

        The. Fucking. Cops.

        Sure thing. If your skin color is darker than hitler, no guns for you. If you are a progressive, or BLM protester, or anti-genocide protester, they will just use their discretion and be like: “No, gtfo”.

        Meanwhile, an alt-right white kid would have no trouble getting a gun their rural town where his dad knows the sherif.

        Luckily, that law was stuck down: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen

        Oddly enough, this is a rare instance where I actually agree with the right wing shitheads in the court. (Although, the court probably had ulterier motives)

        Tell me: how is giving cops discretion to deny your constitutional rights ever a good idea?

        ACAB