🔥 Popular | Latest

ao3tagoftheday: 186282397milespersec: ao3tagoftheday: [Image Description: Tag reading “yes its true Moscow ran out of vodka during the victory celebration of WWII”] The AO3 Tag of the Day is: Please ask me about the Russian vodka ban in 1914? What was the Russian Vodka Ban in 1914? Ok, time to nerd. So Russians like vodka, ok? I don’t think this is a big revelation to anyone, but I feel like I should make it clear. Vodka is…important…in Russia.So, in 1904, Russia was preparing to go fight a war with Japan. Because, you know, sometimes you’re trying to retain control of a warm-water port and also there’s racism and then you need to have a war about it. So the Tsar orders his army to mobilize to go fight Japan, only there’s a problem: instead of mobilizing in an organized manner, soldiers are buying vodka and getting drunk out of their minds and then, like, not showing up for the war. Which, I mean, valid. I might get drunk and not show up if someone told me I had to go fight a war, and I don’t even drink. But it was a problem, and it actually really messed up Russia’s mobilization plans.So 1914 rolls around, and the Russians are going to go to war with Austria. Because, you know, sometimes international tensions in a multipolar situation get really heightened and then some asshole in an ugly uniform gets shot and then you need to have a war about it. So the Tsar orders his army to mobilize to go fight Austria, and this time, he has a plan. Vodka will not defeat him! He bans the sale of vodka in Russia. All of it. First for the duration of the mobilization period, and then for the duration of the war. Great idea, right?Only there’s a problem. The reason the Tsar can just stop all vodka sales with a snap of his fingers is that the Tsar sells all the vodka. Vodka is a state monopoly. You literally can’t get vodka from anyone but the government. Which makes it very easy to ban, but, well….Remember how I said Russians really like vodka? I’m just gonna say it again: Russians really like vodka. Really, really like it. So it makes sense that, if you’re a government with chronic money problems, you might create a state monopoly on vodka sales in order to raise some cash. You might raise a lot of cash. A huge fucking ton of cash. Literally one third of the Russian government’s revenue came from selling vodka. One fucking third.Here’s another thing: Wars? They cost money. A lot of it. And if you’re the Russian state in, say, 1914, and you’re about to kick off WWI, it might behoove you to not literally eliminate a third of your fucking revenue with a snap of your fingers! I don’t think that’s such a hard idea to wrap your head around, but what the fuck do I know. But anyway, Russia had chronic money problems throughout the war and couldn’t outfit their soldiers or feed their people or any of that shit. Also there was a revolution and communism and such-like. The end.Anyway, this story has several morals and they are as follows:Getting drunk and not showing up for wars is a valid life choiceConsidering the possible effects of your policies before implementing them is important please do thatProhibition causes communism and therefore we should all buy as much alcohol as we can because we love god and america: yes its true Moscow ran out of vodka during the victory celebration of WWII, ao3tagoftheday: 186282397milespersec: ao3tagoftheday: [Image Description: Tag reading “yes its true Moscow ran out of vodka during the victory celebration of WWII”] The AO3 Tag of the Day is: Please ask me about the Russian vodka ban in 1914? What was the Russian Vodka Ban in 1914? Ok, time to nerd. So Russians like vodka, ok? I don’t think this is a big revelation to anyone, but I feel like I should make it clear. Vodka is…important…in Russia.So, in 1904, Russia was preparing to go fight a war with Japan. Because, you know, sometimes you’re trying to retain control of a warm-water port and also there’s racism and then you need to have a war about it. So the Tsar orders his army to mobilize to go fight Japan, only there’s a problem: instead of mobilizing in an organized manner, soldiers are buying vodka and getting drunk out of their minds and then, like, not showing up for the war. Which, I mean, valid. I might get drunk and not show up if someone told me I had to go fight a war, and I don’t even drink. But it was a problem, and it actually really messed up Russia’s mobilization plans.So 1914 rolls around, and the Russians are going to go to war with Austria. Because, you know, sometimes international tensions in a multipolar situation get really heightened and then some asshole in an ugly uniform gets shot and then you need to have a war about it. So the Tsar orders his army to mobilize to go fight Austria, and this time, he has a plan. Vodka will not defeat him! He bans the sale of vodka in Russia. All of it. First for the duration of the mobilization period, and then for the duration of the war. Great idea, right?Only there’s a problem. The reason the Tsar can just stop all vodka sales with a snap of his fingers is that the Tsar sells all the vodka. Vodka is a state monopoly. You literally can’t get vodka from anyone but the government. Which makes it very easy to ban, but, well….Remember how I said Russians really like vodka? I’m just gonna say it again: Russians really like vodka. Really, really like it. So it makes sense that, if you’re a government with chronic money problems, you might create a state monopoly on vodka sales in order to raise some cash. You might raise a lot of cash. A huge fucking ton of cash. Literally one third of the Russian government’s revenue came from selling vodka. One fucking third.Here’s another thing: Wars? They cost money. A lot of it. And if you’re the Russian state in, say, 1914, and you’re about to kick off WWI, it might behoove you to not literally eliminate a third of your fucking revenue with a snap of your fingers! I don’t think that’s such a hard idea to wrap your head around, but what the fuck do I know. But anyway, Russia had chronic money problems throughout the war and couldn’t outfit their soldiers or feed their people or any of that shit. Also there was a revolution and communism and such-like. The end.Anyway, this story has several morals and they are as follows:Getting drunk and not showing up for wars is a valid life choiceConsidering the possible effects of your policies before implementing them is important please do thatProhibition causes communism and therefore we should all buy as much alcohol as we can because we love god and america
Save
BREAKING: GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York City’s Draconian Gun Laws “GOA’s hard-hitting brief before the Supreme Court cuts to the heart of this problem by arguing that judges have to follow the Constitution - and the text of the Second Amendment - rather than imposing their own preconceived views upon the text,” - GOA's Erich Pratt SCOTUS 2A nyc secondamendment goasupporters gunowners gunownersofamerica: ONEWS RELEASE MEDIA CONTACT: Jordan Stein Director of Communications jordan.stein@gunowners.org AMER 703-321-8585 January 22, 2019 For immediate release GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York City's Draconian Gun Laws Springfield, VA Today the United States Supreme Court qranted a Writ of Certiorari in P v. NY City, a case in which Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) have submitted an amicus brief. This case challenges New York City's near-prohibition on possessing or transportin handguns, and this is the first major Second Amendment challenge to be reviewed by the Supreme Court in almost a decade. GOA's executive director, Erich Pratt, stated, "Gun owners across the country especialy those behind enemy lines living in anti-qun states are rejoicing that the Supreme Court is taking up a Second Amendment case. For far too long, judges have ignored the Second Amendment, along with the Heller and McDonald decisions, instead employing a alancing' test that effectively leaves gun owners in anti-gun states with a second-class right to keep and bear arms In fact, GOA's brief specfically challenges the "balancing" approach taken by judges in the lower courts GOA's brief states, "Heller and McDonaldleave little doubt that courts are to assess qun Ewhere judges] usurp the role of the Framers of the Second Amendment. "GOA's hard-hitting brief before the Supreme Court cuts to the heart of this problem by arguing that judges have to follow the Constitution and the text of the Second Amendment rather than imposing their own preconceived views upon the text," Pratt concluded. GOA's brief can be viewed here Erich Pratt, or another GOA spokesman, is available for interviews. Gun Owners of America BREAKING: GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York City’s Draconian Gun Laws “GOA’s hard-hitting brief before the Supreme Court cuts to the heart of this problem by arguing that judges have to follow the Constitution - and the text of the Second Amendment - rather than imposing their own preconceived views upon the text,” - GOA's Erich Pratt SCOTUS 2A nyc secondamendment goasupporters gunowners gunownersofamerica

BREAKING: GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York City’s Draconian Gun Laws “GOA’s hard-hitting brief bef...

Save
Gun Owners of America to File Suit Against Arbitrary ATF Bump Stock Ban Fight the bump stock ban through the link in our bio. 2A bumpstock shallnotbeinfringed gunowners gunownersofamerica goa goasupporters: GOA NEWS RELEASE MEDIA CONTACT: JORDAN STEIN DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS JORDAN.STEIN@GUNOWNERS.ORG 703-321-8585 December 18, 2018 For immediate release Gun owners of America to File Suit Against Arbitrary ATF Bump Stock Ban Springfield, VA Gun Owners of America (GOA) and its Foundation (GOF) will be filing suit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF) and the Department of Justice to seek an injunction protecting gun owners from their illegal prohibition of bump stocks. Erich Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America said, "As written, this case has important implications for gun owners since, in the coming days, an estimated half a million bump stock owners will have the difficult decision of either destroying or surrendering their valuable property or else risk felony prosecution. ATFs claim that it can rewrite Congressional law cannot pass legal muster. Agencies are not free to rewrite laws under the guise of 'interpretation' of a statute, especially where e law's meaning is clear. "The new ATF regulations would arbitrarily redefine bump stocks as 'machineguns and, down the road, could implicate the right to own AR-15's and many other lawfully owned semi-automatic firearms," Pratt continued. "ATF's new bump stock regulation clearly violates federal law, as bump stocks do not qualify as machineguns under the federal statute." For more information about the suit, or GOA and GOF's recommendation for bump stock owners, please see here Erich Pratt, or another GOA spokesmen, is available for interviews. Gun Owners of America is a nonprofit lobbying organization dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. GOA represents over 1.5 million members and activists. For more information, visit GOA's Newsroom. Gun Owners of America to File Suit Against Arbitrary ATF Bump Stock Ban Fight the bump stock ban through the link in our bio. 2A bumpstock shallnotbeinfringed gunowners gunownersofamerica goa goasupporters

Gun Owners of America to File Suit Against Arbitrary ATF Bump Stock Ban Fight the bump stock ban through the link in our bio. 2A bumpstoc...

Save
Repost: ugly-sugar-fruit siniristiriita Shit my chemistry teacher has said in class, vol, 2 1. "Could you use heart medicine as explosives? Technically, yes." 2. "In theory, the concept that all of you exist is possible. 3. "56 children were born with no arms in France. That is a bit excessive" 4. "Here's an intestine, here's pancreas, over there is a liver and here is a danish pastry" 5. [A lecture on different methods in which bridges were constructed to be blown up during WW1 and wW2] 6. "It's unfortunate if you get an entire ham in your lung." 7. "The good thing about aether is that you don't die." 8. "Let's pick something else that's tasty. Like amphetamine here." 9. "If I tell you that carbon has three bonds, that doesn't mean carbon has three bonds." 10. "There's a french way, german way, american way and russian way. What do we use in Finland then? Depends on who's invading." 11. "The nitrogen makes this one straight." 12. [Walks to the students' side of the classroom] "Hm. Yes. The time does 13. [Lectures on why getting scurvy has made European invaders genocidal 14. "That would be a fun prank: Murder someone by sneaking 20 kilos of 15. [A long explanation of how the introduction of alcohol was an 16. [The story of how the density shifts of water and alcohol led to many 17. "Back then they didn't have any good drugs, so they had to settle for flow slower on this side." on several occasions.] coffee grounds into someone's breakfast porridge. improvement in comparison to drinking psychedelic reindeer urine] murders in the prohibition era moonshine business] aether. A few exploding serfs here and there." teaching them they're second in power from gods. Trust me, they tried." 18. "Nothing good will will come from giving vour children lead poisoning and 19. "My father was born in 1918, so he was 18 in 1936, which was inconvenient at the time." [Our teacher, inexplicably, looks roughly 40-45 and has at least one daughter in her 30s. Nobody fucking knows how old he is, exactly.] Vol. 1 here Source: siniristiriita 50 notes Repost
Save
Regardless of whether it was the first to coin the phrase, the restaurant business in the 1930s was one of the main incubators for its usage and development. Believed to be slang for the word “nix,” it was initially used as a way of saying that the kitchen was out of something, as revealed in Walter Winchell’s 1933 newspaper column that featured a “glossary of soda-fountain lingo” used in restaurants during that time. It later evolved into a code that restaurants and bars used when they wanted to cut someone off, because they were either rude, broke, or drunk, as in “86 that chump at the end of the bar.” This possible origin stems from the Prohibition era at a bar called Chumley’s located at 86 Bedford Street in New York City. To survive, many speakeasies had the police on somewhat of a payroll so that they might be warned of a raid. In the case of Chumley’s, it is said that police would call and tell the bartender to 86 his customers, which meant that 1) a raid was about to happen and 2) that they should all exit via the 86 Bedford door while the police would approach at the entrance on Pamela Court. Another plausible explanation for the saying is brought you by the U.S. Navy’s Allowance Type (AT) coding system that was used to identify and classify the status of inventory. The code AT-6 was assigned to inventory that was designated for disposal, specifically after World War II as the Navy decommissioned many of its warships and went through the process of cleaning out its storerooms where they kept spare parts. During this process, any parts that were labeled AT-6 were considered trash and thrown out. It is easy to see phonetically how this could result in the term “86” and the idea of throwing something away to become synonymous.: A Mexican restaurant called "Amigos Taqueria Y Tequila" in Westerly, Rhode lsland is selling T-whirts calling for the murder of our president. In a restaurant, to "86" something is to get rid of it, when talking about humans, its murder. The phone number at the restaurant is 401-315-5800. 886 86 86 45 86 45 Regardless of whether it was the first to coin the phrase, the restaurant business in the 1930s was one of the main incubators for its usage and development. Believed to be slang for the word “nix,” it was initially used as a way of saying that the kitchen was out of something, as revealed in Walter Winchell’s 1933 newspaper column that featured a “glossary of soda-fountain lingo” used in restaurants during that time. It later evolved into a code that restaurants and bars used when they wanted to cut someone off, because they were either rude, broke, or drunk, as in “86 that chump at the end of the bar.” This possible origin stems from the Prohibition era at a bar called Chumley’s located at 86 Bedford Street in New York City. To survive, many speakeasies had the police on somewhat of a payroll so that they might be warned of a raid. In the case of Chumley’s, it is said that police would call and tell the bartender to 86 his customers, which meant that 1) a raid was about to happen and 2) that they should all exit via the 86 Bedford door while the police would approach at the entrance on Pamela Court. Another plausible explanation for the saying is brought you by the U.S. Navy’s Allowance Type (AT) coding system that was used to identify and classify the status of inventory. The code AT-6 was assigned to inventory that was designated for disposal, specifically after World War II as the Navy decommissioned many of its warships and went through the process of cleaning out its storerooms where they kept spare parts. During this process, any parts that were labeled AT-6 were considered trash and thrown out. It is easy to see phonetically how this could result in the term “86” and the idea of throwing something away to become synonymous.

Regardless of whether it was the first to coin the phrase, the restaurant business in the 1930s was one of the main incubators for its us...

Save
libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation. : 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.
Save
Chemistry Class: ugly-sugar-fruit siniristiriita Shit my chemistry teacher has said in class, vol. 2 1 "Could you use heart medicine as explosives? Technically, yes." 2. "In theory, the concept that all of you exist is possible 3. "56 children were born with no arms in France. That is a bit excessive." 4. "Here's an intestine, here's pancreas, over there is a liver and here is a danish pastry" 5. [A lecture on different methods in which bridges were constructed to be blown up during WW1 and WW2 6. "It's unfortunate if you get an entire ham in your lung." 7. "The good thing about aether is that you don't die. 8. "Let's pick something else that's tasty. Like amphetamine here." 9. "If i tell you that carbon has three bonds, that doesn't mean carbon has three bonds." 10. There's a french way, german way, american way and russian way. What do we use in Finland then? Depends on who's invading." 11. "The nitrogen makes this one straight." 12. [Walks to the students' side of the classroom] "Hm. Yes. The time does 13. [Lectures on why getting scurvy has made European invaders genocidal 14. That would be a fun prank: Murder someone by sneaking 20 kilos of 15. [A long explanation of how the introduction of alcohol was an 16. [The story of how the density shifts of water and alcohol led to many 17. "Back then they didn't have any good drugs, so they had to settle for 18. "Nothing good will will come from giving your children lead poisoning and 19. "My father was born in 1918, so he was 18 in 1936, which was flow slower on this side." on several occasions.] coffee grounds into someone's breakfast porridge." improvement in comparison to drinking psychedelic reindeer urine] murders in the prohibition era moonshine business] aether. A few exploding serfs here and there teaching them they re second in power from gods. Trust me, they tried." inconvenient at the time." [Our teacher, inexplicably, looks roughly 40-45 and has at least one daughter in her 30s. Nobody fucking knows how old he is, exactly.] Vol. 1 here Source: siniristiriita 50 notes Chemistry Class
Save
peteschult: libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation. Cops are *never* your friends. And they are under no obligation to protect you. Ever. Get rid of pigs! : 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 peteschult: libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation. Cops are *never* your friends. And they are under no obligation to protect you. Ever. Get rid of pigs!
Save
<p><a href="https://libertybill.tumblr.com/post/172965026342/tiddynerd-military-strikes-are-the-same-thing" class="tumblr_blog">libertybill</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://tiddynerd.tumblr.com/post/172964801004/military-strikes-are-the-same-thing-as-military" class="tumblr_blog">tiddynerd</a>:</p> <blockquote><p style="">&gt;military strikes are the same thing as military training</p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="320" data-orig-width="320" data-tumblr-attribution="loopedgifs:MslXj_kAhfMttilamF2mkQ:ZUawci2WdTCtS"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/cf3b0d142b83060fb444601fe1243fac/tumblr_p6h4vgdy4Y1v1fssvo1_400.gif" data-orig-height="320" data-orig-width="320"/></figure></blockquote> <p>You’re literally a moron. Strikes and combat has been going on since 2013. </p></blockquote> <p>“We bombed this inhabited city as training u guise”</p>: Bernie Sanders @SenSanders It is Congress, not the president, which has the constitutional responsibility for making war. The international community must uphold the prohibition against the use of chemical weapons, but it is unclear how Trump's illegal and unauthorized strikes on Syria achieve that goal. OccupyDemocratsLogic @DemocratsLogic Logic Replying to @SenSanders You when Obama was president. News> World Bernie Sanders Says US 'Kill List' Legal, Backs Troops in Syria U.S. senator Bernie Sanders said he supports sending troops to Syria to train and equip forces fighting the Islamic State group. Photo: Reuters <p><a href="https://libertybill.tumblr.com/post/172965026342/tiddynerd-military-strikes-are-the-same-thing" class="tumblr_blog">libertybill</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://tiddynerd.tumblr.com/post/172964801004/military-strikes-are-the-same-thing-as-military" class="tumblr_blog">tiddynerd</a>:</p> <blockquote><p style="">&gt;military strikes are the same thing as military training</p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="320" data-orig-width="320" data-tumblr-attribution="loopedgifs:MslXj_kAhfMttilamF2mkQ:ZUawci2WdTCtS"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/cf3b0d142b83060fb444601fe1243fac/tumblr_p6h4vgdy4Y1v1fssvo1_400.gif" data-orig-height="320" data-orig-width="320"/></figure></blockquote> <p>You’re literally a moron. Strikes and combat has been going on since 2013. </p></blockquote> <p>“We bombed this inhabited city as training u guise”</p>

<p><a href="https://libertybill.tumblr.com/post/172965026342/tiddynerd-military-strikes-are-the-same-thing" class="tumblr_blog">libertybi...

Save
<p><a href="http://gvldngrl.tumblr.com/post/166513263494/wolfoverdose-rikodeine-seemeflow-because" class="tumblr_blog">gvldngrl</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="http://wolfoverdose.tumblr.com/post/166265395771/rikodeine-seemeflow-because-of-the-fifth" class="tumblr_blog">wolfoverdose</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://rikodeine.tumblr.com/post/131562629300">rikodeine</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://seemeflow.tumblr.com/post/131556627065">seemeflow</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><b>Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.</b></p> <p><b>1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”</b><br/>Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.</p> <p><b>2) “Do you have something to hide?”</b><br/>Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.</p> <p><b>3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”</b><br/>The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”<br/>(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)</p> <p><b>4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”</b><br/>Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.</p> <p><b>5.) We have someone who will testify against you</b><br/>Police “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.</p> <p><b>6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”</b><br/>Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.</p> <p><b>7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”</b><br/>Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.</p> <p>U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).</p> <p>Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.</p> <p>Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.</p> <p><a href="http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want">http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want</a><br/></p> </blockquote> <p>One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else</p> </blockquote> <p>Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.</p> </blockquote> <p>Important </p> </blockquote> <p>Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.</p>: 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 <p><a href="http://gvldngrl.tumblr.com/post/166513263494/wolfoverdose-rikodeine-seemeflow-because" class="tumblr_blog">gvldngrl</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="http://wolfoverdose.tumblr.com/post/166265395771/rikodeine-seemeflow-because-of-the-fifth" class="tumblr_blog">wolfoverdose</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://rikodeine.tumblr.com/post/131562629300">rikodeine</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://seemeflow.tumblr.com/post/131556627065">seemeflow</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><b>Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.</b></p> <p><b>1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”</b><br/>Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.</p> <p><b>2) “Do you have something to hide?”</b><br/>Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.</p> <p><b>3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”</b><br/>The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”<br/>(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)</p> <p><b>4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”</b><br/>Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.</p> <p><b>5.) We have someone who will testify against you</b><br/>Police “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.</p> <p><b>6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”</b><br/>Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.</p> <p><b>7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”</b><br/>Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.</p> <p>U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).</p> <p>Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.</p> <p>Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.</p> <p><a href="http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want">http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want</a><br/></p> </blockquote> <p>One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else</p> </blockquote> <p>Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.</p> </blockquote> <p>Important </p> </blockquote> <p>Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.</p>
Save
<p><a href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/135827422115/garregret-therevenantrising-garregret" class="tumblr_blog">therevenantrising</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://garregret.tumblr.com/post/135810589826">garregret</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/135540905500">therevenantrising</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://garregret.tumblr.com/post/135517237536">garregret</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/135479826270">therevenantrising</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://pushingpin.tumblr.com/post/135479128813">pushingpin</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://jingle-brrrrt.tumblr.com/post/135448815816">jingle-brrrrt</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://metal-queer-solid.tumblr.com/post/134386190976">metal-queer-solid</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://0122358.tumblr.com/post/134383153016">0122358</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/134381412470">therevenantrising</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://shelovespiano.tumblr.com/post/134380537619">shelovespiano</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://kaisernighthawk1996.tumblr.com/post/134342240504">kaisernighthawk1996</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://feels-by-the-foot.tumblr.com/post/134299613814">feels-by-the-foot</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/134299542770">therevenantrising</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://neuroxin.tumblr.com/post/134298026257">neuroxin</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://pizzaotter.tumblr.com/post/134294057737">pizzaotter</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://madmints.tumblr.com/post/134293259422">madmints</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://pizzaotter.tumblr.com/post/134280963537">pizzaotter</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://bolt-carrier-assembly.tumblr.com/post/133694853738">bolt-carrier-assembly</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/133689796940">therevenantrising</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/133689234535">therevenantrising</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>Mak N Cheese<br/></p> </blockquote> <p>Not to be confused with Mac N Cheese.</p> <figure data-orig-width="3264" data-orig-height="1840" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="3264" data-orig-height="1840" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/49bb53d1810cdc4a6c5f1fa9e40355ae/tumblr_inline_ny6xsoZgNT1sh8jq3_540.jpg"/></figure></blockquote> <p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1802" data-orig-width="3246"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/e723085af378cad726af085c2220068f/tumblr_inline_ny72aotJ7s1r4zl7m_540.jpg" data-orig-height="1802" data-orig-width="3246"/></figure></p> <p>Also in the Big Mac variety</p> </blockquote> <p>WhY do you people have automatic weapons</p> </blockquote> <p>Even if they are automatic (which they most likely aren’t), why does it matter to you?</p> </blockquote> <p>Look at all these gun nuts coming out the woodwork cause I asked why people randomly have automatic weapons on cheese</p> </blockquote> <p>Gun obsession is so fucking gross. There is no valid logical rational reason why any normal US citizen should own a machine literally designed for no other purpose than to kill human beings. Do not try to give some weak ass justification when “because I like them” is all it actually fucking boils down to. A disgustingly huge amount of people are DYING to these things every month, just trying to go about their normal lives. That trumps your ill-chosen hobby. </p> <p>There is no solution better than the one that several European countries and the Australians have proven works, anything else is a less-effective compromise so that you, again, can get off on owning a literal killing machine.</p> </blockquote> <p>This was supposed to be a light-hearted and fun joke post, but fine.  Let’s do this.<br/></p> <h2><b>There is no valid logical rational reason why any normal US citizen should own a machine literally designed for no other purpose than to kill human beings.</b></h2> <p>I own several guns and have shot literally thousands of rounds over the last couple of years, yet I haven’t killed or even harmed a single living creature.  Huh…  I guess my guns must be broken since they can’t even fulfill their “only purpose”.</p> <h2> <b>A disgustingly huge amount of people are DYING to these things every month, just trying to go about their normal lives.  That trumps your ill-chosen hobby.</b><br/></h2> <p>Many anti-gun advocates will point out that there were 33,000 people killed by guns in 2013.  While this is a terrible number, we must also put this number into perspective against the grand scheme of things.  There are an estimated 340-370+ MILLION legally owned guns in America, not even including illegal black markets that we cannot effectively track.  This means that, even if we use conservative estimations, literally over 99.99% of the guns in America didn’t kill a single person in 2013.</p> <p>When we look at the big picture, your chances of being harmed by a gun are actually very low.<br/></p> <p><b>Chances of being shot or killed based on firearm deaths and population count:</b></p> <p><b>Death by gun, suicide excluded:</b><br/>0.0032%</p> <p><b>Death by gun, suicide included:</b><br/>0.0095%</p> <p><b>Death in a mass shooting alone:</b><br/>0.000032%</p> <p><b>Injury by gun, no death:</b><br/>0.024%</p> <p><b>Death of injury by gun including suicide:</b><br/>0.033%</p> <p>Gun deaths and injuries etc based off general stats used by anti gun people, rather than exact numbers from each year because its faster and easier to do. Going by exact yearly figures would result in very little change to the average numbers used above.</p> <p><b>Guns compared to other ways you can die:</b></p> <p><b> Unintentional fall deaths:</b></p> <ul><li>Number of deaths: 26,009</li> <li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 8.4</li> </ul><p><b>Motor vehicle traffic deaths:</b></p> <ul><li>Number of deaths: 33,687</li> <li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9</li> </ul><p><b>Unintentional poisoning deaths: </b></p> <ul><li>Number of deaths: 33,041</li> <li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7</li> </ul><p><b>All poisoning deaths:</b></p> <ul><li>Number of deaths: 42,917</li> <li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.9</li> </ul><p><b>All Drug poisoning deaths:</b></p> <ul><li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.4 (2010)</li></ul><p><b>All firearm deaths (suicide included):</b></p> <ul><li>Number of deaths: 31,672</li> <li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3</li> </ul><p><b>All firearms deaths (suicide excluded):</b></p> <ul><li>Number of deaths: 12,664 <br/></li> <li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6</li> </ul><p><b>Firearm deaths broken down completely:</b></p> <p>3.6 for homicide <br/>6.3 for suicide<br/>0.30 for unintentional <br/>0.10 undetermined</p> <p> 10.3 for deaths total in general of 3.6 for homicide only. You are more likely to trip and die than be killed by a gun. Cars kill more than guns but are not even protected by the constitution and isn’t a right, and are less regulated than guns! </p> <p> <i>[Sources are <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8">FBI</a> and <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf">CDC</a>]</i></p> <p>Many people will also cite mass shootings as a reason that guns are evil and should be banned, but this assertion also falls flat and looks ridiculous when put into perspective.  While these stories draw media attention and are absolutely horrible, you seem to have casually and conveniently left out the part where these attacks account for less than even one quarter of 1% of America’s overall murder rate.  About 0.2% to be more exact.</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="317" data-orig-width="500"><img data-orig-height="317" data-orig-width="500" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/bc45a6b149582a24ee012977c76ca402/tumblr_inline_nynm1mUXyB1sh8jq3_540.jpg"/></figure><p>Now, let’s compare this, how often guns are used to harm innocent lives, to how often guns are used to protect innocent lives.</p> <p>Guns help protect innocent lives FAR MORE OFTEN than they help to harm innocent lives.   There are literally hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses in this country alone every single year.</p> <p><a href="http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/">http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent">http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent">http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VcYed_lRK1w">http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VcYed_lRK1w</a></p> <p>Quite simply put, guns save innocent lives.  And they do so far more often than they hurt them.  When guns are harming more innocent lives than they are protecting, it could be argued that it might make sense to further limit guns.</p> <p>But for now, it’s not even close.  Moving on…<br/></p> <h2><b>There is no solution better than the one that several European countries and the Australians have proven works, anything else is a less-effective compromise so that you, again, can get off on owning a literal killing machine.</b></h2> <p>Sorry, but strict gun control has been an absolute failure in both Australia, The UK, and everywhere else it has tried.  It has done nothing to effectively reduce murder, violent crime, suicide, or even gun violence rates.  It has done nothing to achieve its desired goal of creating a safer society.  It is, and always will be, a complete failure.</p> <p><b>Australia:</b></p> <p><i>[this segment brought to you by <a href="http://lee-enfeel.tumblr.com">lee-enfeel</a>]</i><br/></p> <p><a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/is-australia-staring-down-the-barrel-of-a-gun-crisis/story-fncynjr2-1226690018325">People die Australia as a result of firearms violence at almost the same rate they did prior to the firearms act</a>, and some sources state that more than a quarter million illicit firearms exist in Australia currently.</p> <p>The <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/productsbytitle/9C85BD1298C075EACA2568A900139342?OpenDocument">total firearms death rate in 1995 </a>- the year before the massacre and the laws introduced - was 2.6 per 100,000 people. The total firearms murder rate that year was 0.3/100,000. From 1980-1995, Australian firearms deaths dropped from 4.9/100,000-2.6/100,000 without the implementation of firearms laws. This is a rate of decline that has remained fairly constant; Looking at 1996-2014, in which the rate has dropped from 2.6-0.86, it shows that the decline has been slower in a longer period of time since the law’s passing. Likewise, homicides declined more quickly in the 15 years prior to the firearms laws (0.8-0.3) than in the 18 years since it (0.3-0.1). This just indicates that firearms deaths haven’t been noticeably affected by the legislation you’ve claimed has done so much to decrease gun crime. <br/></p> <p>It should also be noted that around the same time, New Zealand experienced a similar mass shooting, but did not change their existing firearms laws, which remain fairly lax; even moreso than some American states like California, New York, or Connecticut. Despite this, their firearms crime rate has declined fairly steadily as well, and they haven’t experienced a mass shooting since.</p> <p>The <i>“australia banned guns and now they’re fine”</i> argument is really old and really poorly put together. Gun control is little more than a pink band-aid on the sucking chest wound that is America’s social and economic problems. It’s a ‘quick fix’ issue used by politicians to skirt around solving the roots of the violence problem in the United States, which are primarily poverty, lack of opportunities, and lack of education.</p> <p>You could ban guns tomorrow nationwide and gun violence and overall violent crime would not be reduced at all.</p> <p><i>[this segment brought to you by <a href="http://tmblr.co/m9F_132GzodNt-UaipnK67g">cerebralzero</a>]</i></p> <p>In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-37">[37]</a></sup> noted that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence</p> <p>In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-40">[40]</a></sup></p> <p>A study coauthored by Simon Chapman <b>found declines in firearm‐related deaths before the law reforms</b> accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p=0.04), firearm suicides (p=0.007) and firearm homicides (p=0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased.<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-43">[43]</a></sup></p> <p>Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in <b>Australia and New Zealand</b>. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. <b>That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand</b>. The authors conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-44">[44]</a></sup></p> <figure data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="261" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="261" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/cdc45e76a09651676eab1f058341110c/tumblr_inline_nynm84pBjF1sh8jq3_500.gif"/></figure><p>We see the same trend in The UK.</p> <figure data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="373" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="373" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/bf599e784e9963b91a4e4f245fed90f5/tumblr_inline_nynm9wKrKT1sh8jq3_540.png"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="458" data-orig-height="366" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="458" data-orig-height="366" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/279f61b9c596b97badd4bc465cc46b60/tumblr_inline_nynm9zWkxr1sh8jq3_540.png"/></figure><p>And Ireland and Jamaica…</p> <figure data-orig-width="453" data-orig-height="714" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="453" data-orig-height="714" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/4914c912d5690b40a382b90cf18c646f/tumblr_inline_nynmakqIup1sh8jq3_540.jpg"/></figure><p>And on and on and on…  Gun control simply does not create a safer society and often times actually has the opposite effect.</p> <p>At this point I should also probably point out that Australia’s gun laws have not even reduced gun ownership in Australia.  <a href="http://louderwithcrowder.com/australian-gun-ownership-rises-gun-crime-remains-low-america-still-at-fault/">In fact, gun ownership in Australia is actually higher now than in 1996.</a></p> <p>All of these inconvenient facts aside, we haven’t even touched on the cost of implementing Australian style gun control in America.</p> <p>I keep hearing people say that the US should adopt Australia’s gun control policy and I don’t think they have really thought about the big picture of that plan.</p> <p>Australia had far less guns per person and people in their country did not live in a society that was brought up respecting The 2nd Amendment.  The culture of Australia is very different than that of the culture of America when it comes to gun ownership and self defense.</p> <p>Because of this, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#Australia">the Australian government was able to buy back 631,000 guns at the estimated price of about <b>$500,000,000.</b></a>  You read that correctly, <b>500 MILLION</b>.</p> <p><a href="http://cerebralzero.tumblr.com/tagged/australia">And even after all of that, it still did nothing to prevent violent crime and criminals in Australia still have access to illegal guns, </a>despite being an island country that isn’t bordered by other countries with high violent crime rates and rampant with illegal drug cartels.<br/></p> <p>There are over 360,000,000 legally owned firearms in America.  If we go by Australia’s numbers (<b>$792.39 per gun</b>), these guns would cost our government <b>$285,261,489,698.89</b> to buy back.  Almost <b>300 BILLION dollars</b>, assuming that every gun owner voluntarily turns in their guns…  Which is a very slim to nothing chance.</p> <p>Who’s going to pay for that?  Anti-gunners?  I think not.</p> <p>So, in closing, you want America to put in place gun legislation that will cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars <b>AND </b>has already been proven time and time again to be completely ineffective at protecting innocent lives or creating a safer society?</p> <p>Seems pretty silly.</p> <h2>Get dunked on, nerd.</h2> <figure data-orig-width="250" data-orig-height="188"><img data-orig-width="250" data-orig-height="188" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/36a75ffd7a3ce392092201d3769d443e/tumblr_inline_nynmeusS661sh8jq3_500.gif"/></figure></blockquote> <p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="281" data-orig-width="500" data-tumblr-attribution="eonline:S4A57ljapSvQXLPM7Jsomg:ZCTZKx1sDpydf"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/5b521c18948099c6594a510905c6dfe9/tumblr_nt8sq3NZGm1qlgbzbo1_500.gif" data-orig-height="281" data-orig-width="500"/></figure></p> </blockquote> <p>Teehee, Mac ‘n’ cheese</p> </blockquote> <p>Would make it clear that a gv’t buyback has never been on the table. Also, cars are registered, which is reasonable. Gun shows have too many loopholes. America has a specific culture that is unique when it comes to guns. Not sure anything we do will make people feel truly safe, but reasonable measures are worth a try. Thorough background checks are reasonable. Taking away all guns? Not so much. Good thing is, very few advocate for that.</p> </blockquote> <h2><b>Would make it clear that a gv’t buyback has never been on the table.</b></h2> <p>Maybe not a mandatory federal one, no.  But government gun buybacks are most certainly a thing here in America.</p> <h2><b>Also, cars are registered, which is reasonable.</b></h2> <p>You know that guns are not cars, right?</p> <h2><b>Gun shows have too many loopholes.</b></h2> <p>What loopholes would those be?  Please enlighten us.</p> <h2><b>Not sure anything we do will make people feel truly safe, but reasonable measures are worth a try.<br/></b></h2> <p>The fact is, WE HAVE TRIED STRICT NATIONAL GUN CONTROL.</p> <p>Does the year 1994 or the name Clinton ring a bell to anyone?  Anyone?</p> <p>From 1994 - 2004, there were strict national gun control laws in place in America.  They included most of the laws that are being proposed now.   An “assault weapons” ban.  Magazine capacity limits.  All of that.</p> <p><a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf">Guess what?</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf">IT WAS A COMPLETE FAILURE.</a></p> <h2><b>Thorough background checks are reasonable.</b></h2> <p>We already have mandatory federal NICS background checks, where the buyer’s criminal and mental healthy history are reviewed and have to be approved by the FBI, for every FFL purchase.</p> <h2><b>Taking away all guns? Not so much. Good thing is, very few advocate for that.</b></h2> <p>Except for people in politics, the media, and every social media platform I can think advocate for just that every single day.<br/></p> </blockquote> <p>Rekt</p> </blockquote> <p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="500" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/06dc5d6fb9a872f66494555df3d8e68d/tumblr_inline_nyq063shKC1qmqn62_540.jpg" data-orig-height="500" data-orig-width="500"/></figure></p> </blockquote> <p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-width="300" data-orig-height="152" data-tumblr-attribution="sweetnighttheorist:iC3ZUAaLREBo5eAyAtwOWw:Z_9d1l1pDjh9p" data-orig-src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/68abc0e9798bcb3c43bc230a5ab9e9e0/tumblr_nr9gyqXCqt1uqa8bho1_400.gif"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/68abc0e9798bcb3c43bc230a5ab9e9e0/tumblr_inline_nzkb0efWgQ1t5zudu_500.gif" data-orig-width="300" data-orig-height="152" data-orig-src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/68abc0e9798bcb3c43bc230a5ab9e9e0/tumblr_nr9gyqXCqt1uqa8bho1_400.gif"/></figure></p> </blockquote> <p>but like if you could save 33000 peoples lives a year, by giving up a hobby would you?</p> </blockquote> <p>A hobby?  Sure.  No problem.</p> <p>However, me owning a gun is not merely a hobby.  It is the most effective tool at protecting my life, the lives of my family, and the lives of innocent lives around me.  I’m sorry, but self defense and self preservation are not “hobbies”.</p> <p>Furthermore, it’s a bit of pipe dream anyway considering that we have decades of evidence from all over the world that proves that gun control and even gun bans do not effectively reduce murder or violent crime rates.  They do not create safer societies.  Sure, it might look good on paper and feel good to think about, but reality just doesn’t align with those dreams.<br/></p> </blockquote> <p>hey I’m glad for all the sources because this is changing my perspective but you gotta admit that at the very least requiring extensive background checks, mandatory waiting periods, and registering guns would help at least reduce gun violence a little bit and would help solve cases b/c registers guns</p> </blockquote> <p>No, I do not have to admit that at all because all of these measures are in place in states like California, New York, and Washington DC, yet they have not made these societies any safer from murder, violent crime, or even gun violence.</p> <p>So, no I do not have to nor will I be admitting that at all because it simply isn’t true.</p> </blockquote> <p>oh? is that so? so if buying an automatic weapon is as easy as picking up a prescription that’s <i>not</i> going to make it easier for anyone who’s upset to get a gun and then fire it on people??? o k</p> </blockquote> <p>Automatic weapons are extremely regulated for civilian ownership in America.  They cost tens of thousands of dollars on the low end all the way up to hundreds of thousands of dollars on the high end, they are registered with the federal government, the owner must apply for a special NFA license which requires a thorough background check that takes months or even years to get approved, paper work must be kept with the weapon at all time, the weapon cannot have been manufactured after 1986, they require a federal tax stamp to own which also can takes months to over a year to get processed, the owner must also designate a licensed gun dealer who will take possession of the weapon in the event of their death, and on and on and on…</p><p>If you truly believe that acquiring an automatic weapon in America is as easy as “picking up a prescription”, then you are simply ignorant to the subject of automatic weapons and just do not know what you are talking about.<br/></p><p><a href="https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa">https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa</a></p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act</a></p><p><a href="http://m.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/17/1171047/-There-are-240-000-fully-automatic-guns-in-the-US-and-only-2-deaths-in-80-years">http://m.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/17/1171047/-There-are-240-000-fully-automatic-guns-in-the-US-and-only-2-deaths-in-80-years</a><br/></p></blockquote> <p>Pretty sure I’ve shares this before but it’s never a bad time.</p>: asic KOSHER DILL SPEARS 2924 8 924 1 <p><a href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/135827422115/garregret-therevenantrising-garregret" class="tumblr_blog">therevenantrising</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://garregret.tumblr.com/post/135810589826">garregret</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/135540905500">therevenantrising</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://garregret.tumblr.com/post/135517237536">garregret</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/135479826270">therevenantrising</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://pushingpin.tumblr.com/post/135479128813">pushingpin</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://jingle-brrrrt.tumblr.com/post/135448815816">jingle-brrrrt</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://metal-queer-solid.tumblr.com/post/134386190976">metal-queer-solid</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://0122358.tumblr.com/post/134383153016">0122358</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/134381412470">therevenantrising</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://shelovespiano.tumblr.com/post/134380537619">shelovespiano</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://kaisernighthawk1996.tumblr.com/post/134342240504">kaisernighthawk1996</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://feels-by-the-foot.tumblr.com/post/134299613814">feels-by-the-foot</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/134299542770">therevenantrising</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://neuroxin.tumblr.com/post/134298026257">neuroxin</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://pizzaotter.tumblr.com/post/134294057737">pizzaotter</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://madmints.tumblr.com/post/134293259422">madmints</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://pizzaotter.tumblr.com/post/134280963537">pizzaotter</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://bolt-carrier-assembly.tumblr.com/post/133694853738">bolt-carrier-assembly</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/133689796940">therevenantrising</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/133689234535">therevenantrising</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>Mak N Cheese<br/></p> </blockquote> <p>Not to be confused with Mac N Cheese.</p> <figure data-orig-width="3264" data-orig-height="1840" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="3264" data-orig-height="1840" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/49bb53d1810cdc4a6c5f1fa9e40355ae/tumblr_inline_ny6xsoZgNT1sh8jq3_540.jpg"/></figure></blockquote> <p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1802" data-orig-width="3246"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/e723085af378cad726af085c2220068f/tumblr_inline_ny72aotJ7s1r4zl7m_540.jpg" data-orig-height="1802" data-orig-width="3246"/></figure></p> <p>Also in the Big Mac variety</p> </blockquote> <p>WhY do you people have automatic weapons</p> </blockquote> <p>Even if they are automatic (which they most likely aren’t), why does it matter to you?</p> </blockquote> <p>Look at all these gun nuts coming out the woodwork cause I asked why people randomly have automatic weapons on cheese</p> </blockquote> <p>Gun obsession is so fucking gross. There is no valid logical rational reason why any normal US citizen should own a machine literally designed for no other purpose than to kill human beings. Do not try to give some weak ass justification when “because I like them” is all it actually fucking boils down to. A disgustingly huge amount of people are DYING to these things every month, just trying to go about their normal lives. That trumps your ill-chosen hobby. </p> <p>There is no solution better than the one that several European countries and the Australians have proven works, anything else is a less-effective compromise so that you, again, can get off on owning a literal killing machine.</p> </blockquote> <p>This was supposed to be a light-hearted and fun joke post, but fine.  Let’s do this.<br/></p> <h2><b>There is no valid logical rational reason why any normal US citizen should own a machine literally designed for no other purpose than to kill human beings.</b></h2> <p>I own several guns and have shot literally thousands of rounds over the last couple of years, yet I haven’t killed or even harmed a single living creature.  Huh…  I guess my guns must be broken since they can’t even fulfill their “only purpose”.</p> <h2> <b>A disgustingly huge amount of people are DYING to these things every month, just trying to go about their normal lives.  That trumps your ill-chosen hobby.</b><br/></h2> <p>Many anti-gun advocates will point out that there were 33,000 people killed by guns in 2013.  While this is a terrible number, we must also put this number into perspective against the grand scheme of things.  There are an estimated 340-370+ MILLION legally owned guns in America, not even including illegal black markets that we cannot effectively track.  This means that, even if we use conservative estimations, literally over 99.99% of the guns in America didn’t kill a single person in 2013.</p> <p>When we look at the big picture, your chances of being harmed by a gun are actually very low.<br/></p> <p><b>Chances of being shot or killed based on firearm deaths and population count:</b></p> <p><b>Death by gun, suicide excluded:</b><br/>0.0032%</p> <p><b>Death by gun, suicide included:</b><br/>0.0095%</p> <p><b>Death in a mass shooting alone:</b><br/>0.000032%</p> <p><b>Injury by gun, no death:</b><br/>0.024%</p> <p><b>Death of injury by gun including suicide:</b><br/>0.033%</p> <p>Gun deaths and injuries etc based off general stats used by anti gun people, rather than exact numbers from each year because its faster and easier to do. Going by exact yearly figures would result in very little change to the average numbers used above.</p> <p><b>Guns compared to other ways you can die:</b></p> <p><b> Unintentional fall deaths:</b></p> <ul><li>Number of deaths: 26,009</li> <li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 8.4</li> </ul><p><b>Motor vehicle traffic deaths:</b></p> <ul><li>Number of deaths: 33,687</li> <li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9</li> </ul><p><b>Unintentional poisoning deaths: </b></p> <ul><li>Number of deaths: 33,041</li> <li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7</li> </ul><p><b>All poisoning deaths:</b></p> <ul><li>Number of deaths: 42,917</li> <li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.9</li> </ul><p><b>All Drug poisoning deaths:</b></p> <ul><li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.4 (2010)</li></ul><p><b>All firearm deaths (suicide included):</b></p> <ul><li>Number of deaths: 31,672</li> <li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3</li> </ul><p><b>All firearms deaths (suicide excluded):</b></p> <ul><li>Number of deaths: 12,664 <br/></li> <li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6</li> </ul><p><b>Firearm deaths broken down completely:</b></p> <p>3.6 for homicide <br/>6.3 for suicide<br/>0.30 for unintentional <br/>0.10 undetermined</p> <p> 10.3 for deaths total in general of 3.6 for homicide only. You are more likely to trip and die than be killed by a gun. Cars kill more than guns but are not even protected by the constitution and isn’t a right, and are less regulated than guns! </p> <p> <i>[Sources are <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8">FBI</a> and <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf">CDC</a>]</i></p> <p>Many people will also cite mass shootings as a reason that guns are evil and should be banned, but this assertion also falls flat and looks ridiculous when put into perspective.  While these stories draw media attention and are absolutely horrible, you seem to have casually and conveniently left out the part where these attacks account for less than even one quarter of 1% of America’s overall murder rate.  About 0.2% to be more exact.</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="317" data-orig-width="500"><img data-orig-height="317" data-orig-width="500" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/bc45a6b149582a24ee012977c76ca402/tumblr_inline_nynm1mUXyB1sh8jq3_540.jpg"/></figure><p>Now, let’s compare this, how often guns are used to harm innocent lives, to how often guns are used to protect innocent lives.</p> <p>Guns help protect innocent lives FAR MORE OFTEN than they help to harm innocent lives.   There are literally hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses in this country alone every single year.</p> <p><a href="http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/">http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent">http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent">http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VcYed_lRK1w">http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VcYed_lRK1w</a></p> <p>Quite simply put, guns save innocent lives.  And they do so far more often than they hurt them.  When guns are harming more innocent lives than they are protecting, it could be argued that it might make sense to further limit guns.</p> <p>But for now, it’s not even close.  Moving on…<br/></p> <h2><b>There is no solution better than the one that several European countries and the Australians have proven works, anything else is a less-effective compromise so that you, again, can get off on owning a literal killing machine.</b></h2> <p>Sorry, but strict gun control has been an absolute failure in both Australia, The UK, and everywhere else it has tried.  It has done nothing to effectively reduce murder, violent crime, suicide, or even gun violence rates.  It has done nothing to achieve its desired goal of creating a safer society.  It is, and always will be, a complete failure.</p> <p><b>Australia:</b></p> <p><i>[this segment brought to you by <a href="http://lee-enfeel.tumblr.com">lee-enfeel</a>]</i><br/></p> <p><a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/is-australia-staring-down-the-barrel-of-a-gun-crisis/story-fncynjr2-1226690018325">People die Australia as a result of firearms violence at almost the same rate they did prior to the firearms act</a>, and some sources state that more than a quarter million illicit firearms exist in Australia currently.</p> <p>The <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/productsbytitle/9C85BD1298C075EACA2568A900139342?OpenDocument">total firearms death rate in 1995 </a>- the year before the massacre and the laws introduced - was 2.6 per 100,000 people. The total firearms murder rate that year was 0.3/100,000. From 1980-1995, Australian firearms deaths dropped from 4.9/100,000-2.6/100,000 without the implementation of firearms laws. This is a rate of decline that has remained fairly constant; Looking at 1996-2014, in which the rate has dropped from 2.6-0.86, it shows that the decline has been slower in a longer period of time since the law’s passing. Likewise, homicides declined more quickly in the 15 years prior to the firearms laws (0.8-0.3) than in the 18 years since it (0.3-0.1). This just indicates that firearms deaths haven’t been noticeably affected by the legislation you’ve claimed has done so much to decrease gun crime. <br/></p> <p>It should also be noted that around the same time, New Zealand experienced a similar mass shooting, but did not change their existing firearms laws, which remain fairly lax; even moreso than some American states like California, New York, or Connecticut. Despite this, their firearms crime rate has declined fairly steadily as well, and they haven’t experienced a mass shooting since.</p> <p>The <i>“australia banned guns and now they’re fine”</i> argument is really old and really poorly put together. Gun control is little more than a pink band-aid on the sucking chest wound that is America’s social and economic problems. It’s a ‘quick fix’ issue used by politicians to skirt around solving the roots of the violence problem in the United States, which are primarily poverty, lack of opportunities, and lack of education.</p> <p>You could ban guns tomorrow nationwide and gun violence and overall violent crime would not be reduced at all.</p> <p><i>[this segment brought to you by <a href="http://tmblr.co/m9F_132GzodNt-UaipnK67g">cerebralzero</a>]</i></p> <p>In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-37">[37]</a></sup> noted that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence</p> <p>In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-40">[40]</a></sup></p> <p>A study coauthored by Simon Chapman <b>found declines in firearm‐related deaths before the law reforms</b> accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p=0.04), firearm suicides (p=0.007) and firearm homicides (p=0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased.<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-43">[43]</a></sup></p> <p>Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in <b>Australia and New Zealand</b>. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. <b>That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand</b>. The authors conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-44">[44]</a></sup></p> <figure data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="261" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="261" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/cdc45e76a09651676eab1f058341110c/tumblr_inline_nynm84pBjF1sh8jq3_500.gif"/></figure><p>We see the same trend in The UK.</p> <figure data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="373" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="373" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/bf599e784e9963b91a4e4f245fed90f5/tumblr_inline_nynm9wKrKT1sh8jq3_540.png"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="458" data-orig-height="366" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="458" data-orig-height="366" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/279f61b9c596b97badd4bc465cc46b60/tumblr_inline_nynm9zWkxr1sh8jq3_540.png"/></figure><p>And Ireland and Jamaica…</p> <figure data-orig-width="453" data-orig-height="714" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="453" data-orig-height="714" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/4914c912d5690b40a382b90cf18c646f/tumblr_inline_nynmakqIup1sh8jq3_540.jpg"/></figure><p>And on and on and on…  Gun control simply does not create a safer society and often times actually has the opposite effect.</p> <p>At this point I should also probably point out that Australia’s gun laws have not even reduced gun ownership in Australia.  <a href="http://louderwithcrowder.com/australian-gun-ownership-rises-gun-crime-remains-low-america-still-at-fault/">In fact, gun ownership in Australia is actually higher now than in 1996.</a></p> <p>All of these inconvenient facts aside, we haven’t even touched on the cost of implementing Australian style gun control in America.</p> <p>I keep hearing people say that the US should adopt Australia’s gun control policy and I don’t think they have really thought about the big picture of that plan.</p> <p>Australia had far less guns per person and people in their country did not live in a society that was brought up respecting The 2nd Amendment.  The culture of Australia is very different than that of the culture of America when it comes to gun ownership and self defense.</p> <p>Because of this, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#Australia">the Australian government was able to buy back 631,000 guns at the estimated price of about <b>$500,000,000.</b></a>  You read that correctly, <b>500 MILLION</b>.</p> <p><a href="http://cerebralzero.tumblr.com/tagged/australia">And even after all of that, it still did nothing to prevent violent crime and criminals in Australia still have access to illegal guns, </a>despite being an island country that isn’t bordered by other countries with high violent crime rates and rampant with illegal drug cartels.<br/></p> <p>There are over 360,000,000 legally owned firearms in America.  If we go by Australia’s numbers (<b>$792.39 per gun</b>), these guns would cost our government <b>$285,261,489,698.89</b> to buy back.  Almost <b>300 BILLION dollars</b>, assuming that every gun owner voluntarily turns in their guns…  Which is a very slim to nothing chance.</p> <p>Who’s going to pay for that?  Anti-gunners?  I think not.</p> <p>So, in closing, you want America to put in place gun legislation that will cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars <b>AND </b>has already been proven time and time again to be completely ineffective at protecting innocent lives or creating a safer society?</p> <p>Seems pretty silly.</p> <h2>Get dunked on, nerd.</h2> <figure data-orig-width="250" data-orig-height="188"><img data-orig-width="250" data-orig-height="188" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/36a75ffd7a3ce392092201d3769d443e/tumblr_inline_nynmeusS661sh8jq3_500.gif"/></figure></blockquote> <p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="281" data-orig-width="500" data-tumblr-attribution="eonline:S4A57ljapSvQXLPM7Jsomg:ZCTZKx1sDpydf"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/5b521c18948099c6594a510905c6dfe9/tumblr_nt8sq3NZGm1qlgbzbo1_500.gif" data-orig-height="281" data-orig-width="500"/></figure></p> </blockquote> <p>Teehee, Mac ‘n’ cheese</p> </blockquote> <p>Would make it clear that a gv’t buyback has never been on the table. Also, cars are registered, which is reasonable. Gun shows have too many loopholes. America has a specific culture that is unique when it comes to guns. Not sure anything we do will make people feel truly safe, but reasonable measures are worth a try. Thorough background checks are reasonable. Taking away all guns? Not so much. Good thing is, very few advocate for that.</p> </blockquote> <h2><b>Would make it clear that a gv’t buyback has never been on the table.</b></h2> <p>Maybe not a mandatory federal one, no.  But government gun buybacks are most certainly a thing here in America.</p> <h2><b>Also, cars are registered, which is reasonable.</b></h2> <p>You know that guns are not cars, right?</p> <h2><b>Gun shows have too many loopholes.</b></h2> <p>What loopholes would those be?  Please enlighten us.</p> <h2><b>Not sure anything we do will make people feel truly safe, but reasonable measures are worth a try.<br/></b></h2> <p>The fact is, WE HAVE TRIED STRICT NATIONAL GUN CONTROL.</p> <p>Does the year 1994 or the name Clinton ring a bell to anyone?  Anyone?</p> <p>From 1994 - 2004, there were strict national gun control laws in place in America.  They included most of the laws that are being proposed now.   An “assault weapons” ban.  Magazine capacity limits.  All of that.</p> <p><a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf">Guess what?</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf">IT WAS A COMPLETE FAILURE.</a></p> <h2><b>Thorough background checks are reasonable.</b></h2> <p>We already have mandatory federal NICS background checks, where the buyer’s criminal and mental healthy history are reviewed and have to be approved by the FBI, for every FFL purchase.</p> <h2><b>Taking away all guns? Not so much. Good thing is, very few advocate for that.</b></h2> <p>Except for people in politics, the media, and every social media platform I can think advocate for just that every single day.<br/></p> </blockquote> <p>Rekt</p> </blockquote> <p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="500" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/06dc5d6fb9a872f66494555df3d8e68d/tumblr_inline_nyq063shKC1qmqn62_540.jpg" data-orig-height="500" data-orig-width="500"/></figure></p> </blockquote> <p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-width="300" data-orig-height="152" data-tumblr-attribution="sweetnighttheorist:iC3ZUAaLREBo5eAyAtwOWw:Z_9d1l1pDjh9p" data-orig-src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/68abc0e9798bcb3c43bc230a5ab9e9e0/tumblr_nr9gyqXCqt1uqa8bho1_400.gif"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/68abc0e9798bcb3c43bc230a5ab9e9e0/tumblr_inline_nzkb0efWgQ1t5zudu_500.gif" data-orig-width="300" data-orig-height="152" data-orig-src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/68abc0e9798bcb3c43bc230a5ab9e9e0/tumblr_nr9gyqXCqt1uqa8bho1_400.gif"/></figure></p> </blockquote> <p>but like if you could save 33000 peoples lives a year, by giving up a hobby would you?</p> </blockquote> <p>A hobby?  Sure.  No problem.</p> <p>However, me owning a gun is not merely a hobby.  It is the most effective tool at protecting my life, the lives of my family, and the lives of innocent lives around me.  I’m sorry, but self defense and self preservation are not “hobbies”.</p> <p>Furthermore, it’s a bit of pipe dream anyway considering that we have decades of evidence from all over the world that proves that gun control and even gun bans do not effectively reduce murder or violent crime rates.  They do not create safer societies.  Sure, it might look good on paper and feel good to think about, but reality just doesn’t align with those dreams.<br/></p> </blockquote> <p>hey I’m glad for all the sources because this is changing my perspective but you gotta admit that at the very least requiring extensive background checks, mandatory waiting periods, and registering guns would help at least reduce gun violence a little bit and would help solve cases b/c registers guns</p> </blockquote> <p>No, I do not have to admit that at all because all of these measures are in place in states like California, New York, and Washington DC, yet they have not made these societies any safer from murder, violent crime, or even gun violence.</p> <p>So, no I do not have to nor will I be admitting that at all because it simply isn’t true.</p> </blockquote> <p>oh? is that so? so if buying an automatic weapon is as easy as picking up a prescription that’s <i>not</i> going to make it easier for anyone who’s upset to get a gun and then fire it on people??? o k</p> </blockquote> <p>Automatic weapons are extremely regulated for civilian ownership in America.  They cost tens of thousands of dollars on the low end all the way up to hundreds of thousands of dollars on the high end, they are registered with the federal government, the owner must apply for a special NFA license which requires a thorough background check that takes months or even years to get approved, paper work must be kept with the weapon at all time, the weapon cannot have been manufactured after 1986, they require a federal tax stamp to own which also can takes months to over a year to get processed, the owner must also designate a licensed gun dealer who will take possession of the weapon in the event of their death, and on and on and on…</p><p>If you truly believe that acquiring an automatic weapon in America is as easy as “picking up a prescription”, then you are simply ignorant to the subject of automatic weapons and just do not know what you are talking about.<br/></p><p><a href="https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa">https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa</a></p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act</a></p><p><a href="http://m.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/17/1171047/-There-are-240-000-fully-automatic-guns-in-the-US-and-only-2-deaths-in-80-years">http://m.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/17/1171047/-There-are-240-000-fully-automatic-guns-in-the-US-and-only-2-deaths-in-80-years</a><br/></p></blockquote> <p>Pretty sure I’ve shares this before but it’s never a bad time.</p>
Save
<p><a href="https://anarchoblake.tumblr.com/post/162822391260/perspectivemax-darkporc-another-senseless" class="tumblr_blog">anarchoblake</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://perspectivemax.tumblr.com/post/162807017328/darkporc-another-senseless-prohibition" class="tumblr_blog">perspectivemax</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://darkporc.tumblr.com/post/161362894006/another-senseless-prohibition-removed" class="tumblr_blog">darkporc</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>Another senseless prohibition removed.</p></blockquote> <p>Nice</p> </blockquote> <p>You, some 50 year old guy holding a pen, suit and tie, drinking a decaf coffee in new hampshire: fire crackers are legal now</p> <p><br/>Me, drunk in the basement making pipebombs: what?</p> </blockquote>: Governor Chris Sununu 1 hr. Firecrackers are now legal in the State of New Hampshire! Thanks to Senator Kevin Avard for his leadership on this bill. HRISTOPHER T. SUNUNU GOVERNOR <p><a href="https://anarchoblake.tumblr.com/post/162822391260/perspectivemax-darkporc-another-senseless" class="tumblr_blog">anarchoblake</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://perspectivemax.tumblr.com/post/162807017328/darkporc-another-senseless-prohibition" class="tumblr_blog">perspectivemax</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://darkporc.tumblr.com/post/161362894006/another-senseless-prohibition-removed" class="tumblr_blog">darkporc</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>Another senseless prohibition removed.</p></blockquote> <p>Nice</p> </blockquote> <p>You, some 50 year old guy holding a pen, suit and tie, drinking a decaf coffee in new hampshire: fire crackers are legal now</p> <p><br/>Me, drunk in the basement making pipebombs: what?</p> </blockquote>

<p><a href="https://anarchoblake.tumblr.com/post/162822391260/perspectivemax-darkporc-another-senseless" class="tumblr_blog">anarchoblake...

Save