School shooting at Texas Elementary school, several children reported dead

[Ag3ma]

Oh he was already doing that during the trial. The judge actually had to step in and tell him to fuck off, because he'd be in the courthouse during the day, and at night he'd rant on his show about how the Judge is evil, she's a daemonic goblin, his rights are be crushed, and buy these survival seeds to help out. Dude made tens of millions during the trial.

Honestly, given all this shit, he probably just needs to be jailed for a good, long stretch.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Honestly, given all this shit, he probably just needs to be jailed for a good, long stretch.

Again, I state that the only just fate for Alex Jones is to be shivved by a hobo while fighting over a half-eaten Quarter Pounder under a highway overpass.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

So to everyone's total shock and surprise, turns out Alex Jones is refusing to pay the judgement money to the Sandy Hook families. He's apparently hidden his wealth with friends and shell companies.
No one saw this coming. No one at all. Whatsoever. Total surprise.

Sandy Hook families seek to reverse payments Alex Jones made to wife

The families of Sandy Hook shooting victims said they had a strong case to reverse payments received by Alex Jones' wife and others in his family to help satisfy $1.5 billion in judgments they won against the bankrupt right wing conspiracy theorist over his lies about the 2012 elementary school...

www.reuters.com

Ah yeah, don't worry too much about that, bankruptcy proceedings have started, are ongoing and Alex has been very very stupid with how he's trying to hide his wealth using basic bïtch tactics these courts have seen thousands upon thousands of times. The issue now is that there are way more lawyers involved, different companies and the plaintiffs are still needed, apparently referred to as "creditors" if I remember correctly, so it's gonna take some time and is currently collecting depositions last I heard. Hearing interviews with their main lawyers, they've mentioned his attempts at sneakiness has not gone unnoticed by pretty much everyone, plus the victims/plaintiffs have directly stated these tactics in official documentation provided at start of bankruptcy proceedings.


The knowledge fight podcast have been machine troopers covering updates and interviewing those involved, an invaluable source and a noble public service they are. While I don't expect anyone to have the time or interest to listen, will share a couple of relevant, recent episodes just in case: first is interview with one their main lawyers - second is interview with one of the victims/plaintiffs whose mother was killed in school shooting - they've been on multiple times before so are already on comfortable friendly terms;

 

[crimson5pheonix]

As far as I understand, the law National Firearms Act restricts automatic weapons, 50 cals and explosives

It notes that the second amendment means you can get access to weapons but restrictions need to be applied

Actually the NFA doesn't cover .50 caliber. That's the specific cutoff point. Guns with over a 1/2 inch bore (which is what .50 is) is regarded as a destructive device unless it has a sporting use.

 

[SilentPony]

SNIP

I hope so, but I'm not overly hopeful. Jones has a lot of money and power, and has said on his show multiple times he's hidden his assets and if the families do ever get payments from him, he's going to reverse sue them for emotional damages. Like I said in a post earlier in this thread - this will be dragged out for decades if not longer. The great great great grandkids of the families will still be trying to get money from the Jones estate.

 

[CM156]

As far as I understand, the law National Firearms Act restricts automatic weapons, 50 cals and explosives

It notes that the second amendment means you can get access to weapons but restrictions need to be applied

Restrictions are applied in accordance with the second amendment.
But I still don't think explosives are covered under the second amendment, at least not any more than they are covered under any part of the bill of rights.

 

[Trunkage]

Restrictions are applied in accordance with the second amendment.
But I still don't think explosives are covered under the second amendment, at least not any more than they are covered under any part of the bill of rights.

So, what do you think would happen if the US gov did a total ban on .50 cal and explosives? Do you think the 2nd amendment wouldn't be trotted out?

Also, if this law came out today, instead of 90 years ago, under Biden, what do you think the GOP would say?

 

[Absent]

Listen. Whan to solve the gun problem ? Want to preserve american's right to bring 30 guns with them wherever they go ? All right, don't make any law about the right to own/carry/shoot guns.

Just make a law that forces all guns to be painted pink (with glitter). "Cultural issue" solved.

 

[CM156]

So, what do you think would happen if the US gov did a total ban on .50 cal and explosives? Do you think the 2nd amendment wouldn't be trotted out?

Also, if this law came out today, instead of 90 years ago, under Biden, what do you think the GOP would say?

For .50 cals, yes. For explosives? No. I'm not aware of any caselaw that would support the idea that explosives or ordinance is covered under arms, nor any pro-2A group that has ever argued the same.

 

[Ag3ma]

For .50 cals, yes. For explosives? No. I'm not aware of any caselaw that would support the idea that explosives or ordinance is covered under arms, nor any pro-2A group that has ever argued the same.

You can perhaps forgive my cynicism, but caselaw doesn't need to mean a great deal if the Supreme Court feels like flexing its judicial muscles, as the best legal minds of a country are perfectly capable of rationalising whatever they want to decide.

That said, I don't think there's a great deal of demand anywhere in society for people to have free access to unusually destructive arms such as explosives or 50 calibre machine guns.

 

[SilentPony]

That said, I don't think there's a great deal of demand anywhere in society for people to have free access to unusually destructive arms such as explosives or 50 calibre machine guns.

Oh sweet summer child...have you heard of the American South before? Or conservatives in general?
These are people who live their entire lives, generation after generation, terrified that blacks will one day soon take up arms and get revenge for slavery against the whites. The great Race war is coming, and you need all the napalm and heavy bolters you can afford.
I have my conceal and carry permit, and when I went for state sponsored training to get it, the instructor, ex-cop, asked the room why they wanted the training. Personal safety came up, bunch were security guards or body guards, etc...
We get to an old man, wrinkled shriveled thing, probably 100lbs wet, would struggle against a tunafish sandwich, and he says "I go to church, and them Muslims are comin' for ma church and I'm gonna be on the steps and fight 'em off"
Instructor points at the man "YES! An excellent reason! This is what we're training you for."
I was very uncomfortable for the rest of the class.

 

[Absent]

Oh sweet summer child...have you heard of the American South before? Or conservatives in general?
These are people who live their entire lives, generation after generation, terrified that blacks will one day soon take up arms and get revenge for slavery against the whites. The great Race war is coming, and you need all the napalm and heavy bolters you can afford.
I have my conceal and carry permit, and when I went for state sponsored training to get it, the instructor, ex-cop, asked the room why they wanted the training. Personal safety came up, bunch were security guards or body guards, etc...
We get to an old man, wrinkled shriveled thing, probably 100lbs wet, would struggle against a tunafish sandwich, and he says "I go to church, and them Muslims are comin' for ma church and I'm gonna be on the steps and fight 'em off"
Instructor points at the man "YES! An excellent reason! This is what we're training you for."
I was very uncomfortable for the rest of the class.

When was that ?

 

[SilentPony]

When was that ?

2017. Right after Trump was inaugurated.

 

[Absent]

2017. Right after Trump was inaugurated.

Hm. I expected it to be in 2001 or 2002.

 

[SilentPony]

Hm. I expected it to be in 2001 or 2002.

Oh nah, they went even crazier after Obama was elected, and then ten times worse when Trump told them the black and the Jews were coming for them. Militant, afraid and armed to the teeth.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You have asserted this, but not proven it. Par for the course. Can you actually demonstrate why things like universal background checks, red flag laws, and closing the gun show loophole would be ineffective?

Where's your evidence that this stuff helps significantly? I'm not against any of this stuff but it's also not gonna come close to solving the problem. Illinois, that I just moved out of, has both universal background checks and red flag laws and gun violence has been solved there? Nope, not even close. I don't know how you actually close gun show loophole logistically, you can't really stop people from selling things privately, just because drugs are illegal doesn't mean they are hard to buy/sell. Plus, I don't know that the stats on this, but I'm willing to guess that vast majority of gun violence is not coming from guns bought at gun shows from private sellers. I'm for fixing the big contributors. I'm not against doing smaller things but focusing on those instead of the main contributors isn't going to fix the issue. And then getting mad at others for not being for these small measures as people being the reason for the problem continuing is only making everything worse.

The current 2nd amendment interpretation of Unlimited Guns for Civilians is a distinctly modern interpretation

I'm aware of that (this century I believe) and it's a Supreme Court decision IIRC (before the court was stuffed with "evil" conservatives) so you'd need a Supreme Court reversal on that so not legislation.

Can you buy explosives in the US like you can a rifle? Because you used to be able to... until legislation happened. See, explosives are covered under the 2nd amendment too. But they regulated them anyway in the 1920s.

The current interpretation of the second amendment is incredibly new and vastly different from how it was written and used for over 200 years. Someone literally rewrote history to fit the NRA agenda. It was very easy to make restrictions for explosives just as it USED to be easy to make restrictions for guns.

The problem isnt legislation. It's the propaganda

Edit: Also logistics is a problem... but a far future one

Yeah, there's always the issue of where you put the line of what can/cannot a civilian own. Obviously, people shouldn't have something like a tank or an RPG. We are down to everything below a non-automatic gun I believe so the amount you can shift that line is very minimal at this point. The most it would ever move (at least any time during our lives) would be from semi-auto rifles to single shot (I don't really know technical gun terms too much). But again, is that gonna solve the problem? Almost certainly not.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I'm aware of that (this century I believe) and it's a Supreme Court decision IIRC (before the court was stuffed with "evil" conservatives) so you'd need a Supreme Court reversal on that so not legislation.

Lmao, the SC being stuffed with conservative operatives isn't a new phenomenon, the current one is just way more blatant about it

 

[SilentPony]

Where's your evidence that this stuff helps significantly? I'm not against any of this stuff but it's also not gonna come close to solving the problem. Illinois, that I just moved out of, has both universal background checks and red flag laws and gun violence has been solved there? Nope, not even close. I don't know how you actually close gun show loophole logistically, you can't really stop people from selling things privately, just because drugs are illegal doesn't mean they are hard to buy/sell. Plus, I don't know that the stats on this, but I'm willing to guess that vast majority of gun violence is not coming from guns bought at gun shows from private sellers. I'm for fixing the big contributors. I'm not against doing smaller things but focusing on those instead of the main contributors isn't going to fix the issue. And then getting mad at others for not being for these small measures as people being the reason for the problem continuing is only making everything worse.

I mean you can Google it: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-is-clear-gun-control-saves-lives/
Gun control laws do absolutely work.
Unless you're the NRA and have a finacial interest in selling more guns, then no gun control laws don't work: https://www.nraila.org/why-gun-control-doesn-t-work/
But then some people did the math: https://gun-control.procon.org/
"According to a Mar. 10, 2016 Lancet study, implementing federal universal background checks could reduce firearm deaths by a projected 56.9%; background checks for ammunition purchases could reduce deaths by a projected 80.7%; and gun identification requirements could reduce deaths by a projected 82.5%"
And it turns out guns as protection is an urban myth: Of the 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.79% of victims (235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm, the least-employed protective behavior.

 

[CM156]

You can perhaps forgive my cynicism, but caselaw doesn't need to mean a great deal if the Supreme Court feels like flexing its judicial muscles, as the best legal minds of a country are perfectly capable of rationalising whatever they want to decide.

Are you sure you're not a lawyer, because you're starting to sound like one.
I mean that as a compliment, by the way.

 

[Buyetyen]

Where's your evidence that this stuff helps significantly?

Where's the evidence it doesn't work? That was your assertion. Not that it doesn't work "significantly." Just that it doesn't work. Keep the goalposts where they started, please.

Illinois, that I just moved out of, has both universal background checks and red flag laws and gun violence has been solved there? Nope, not even close. I don't know how you actually close gun show loophole logistically, you can't really stop people from selling things privately, just because drugs are illegal doesn't mean they are hard to buy/sell. Plus, I don't know that the stats on this, but I'm willing to guess that vast majority of gun violence is not coming from guns bought at gun shows from private sellers. I'm for fixing the big contributors. I'm not against doing smaller things but focusing on those instead of the main contributors isn't going to fix the issue. And then getting mad at others for not being for these small measures as people being the reason for the problem continuing is only making everything worse.

Illinois still has a gun problem because it borders states like Indiana that don't have gun control. Durr-hey.

(before the court was stuffed with "evil" conservatives)

Historically, the SCotUS has been more of a hindrance to progress than anything else. They just forgot how to lie about being corrupt.

But again, is that gonna solve the problem? Almost certainly not.

Perfect is not the enemy of good.