🔥 | Latest

Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 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.
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 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.

libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced t...

Being Alone, Ass, and Assassination: HI... I'M I'M VERY GLAD FRANKLIN.. TO KNOW yOU I ) OPNTS <p><a href="https://atomicsalmon.tumblr.com/post/176535484178/brett-caton-atomicsalmon-brett-caton" class="tumblr_blog">atomicsalmon</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://brett-caton.tumblr.com/post/176509323667/atomicsalmon-brett-caton-atomicsalmon" class="tumblr_blog">brett-caton</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://atomicsalmon.tumblr.com/post/176489965878/brett-caton-atomicsalmon-brett-caton" class="tumblr_blog">atomicsalmon</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="http://brett-caton.tumblr.com/post/176488525882/atomicsalmon-brett-caton-libertarirynn" class="tumblr_blog">brett-caton</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://atomicsalmon.tumblr.com/post/176487882003/brett-caton-libertarirynn-on-july-31-1968" class="tumblr_blog">atomicsalmon</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://brett-caton.tumblr.com/post/176468087807/libertarirynn-on-july-31-1968-a-young-black" class="tumblr_blog">brett-caton</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/176420298534/on-july-31-1968-a-young-black-man-was-reading" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>“On July 31, 1968, a young, black man was reading the newspaper when he saw something that he had never seen before. With tears in his eyes, he started running and screaming throughout the house, calling for his mom. He would show his mom, and, she would gasp, seeing something she thought she would never see in her lifetime. Throughout the nation, there were similar reactions.</p> <p>What they saw was Franklin Armstrong’s first appearance on the iconic comic strip “Peanuts.” Franklin would be 50 years old this year.</p> <p>Franklin was “born” after a school teacher, Harriet Glickman, had written a letter to creator Charles M. Schulz after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot to death outside his Memphis hotel room. </p> <p>Glickman, who had kids of her own and having worked with kids, was especially aware of the power of comics among the young. “And my feeling at the time was that I realized that black kids and white kids never saw themselves [depicted] together in the classroom,” she would say. </p> <p>She would write, “Since the death of Martin Luther King, ‘I’ve been asking myself what I can do to help change those conditions in our society which led to the assassination and which contribute to the vast sea of misunderstanding, hate, fear and violence.‘”</p> <p>Glickman asked Schulz if he could consider adding a black character to his popular comic strip, which she hoped would bring the country together and show people of color that they are not excluded from American society. </p> <p>She had written to others as well, but the others feared it was too soon, that it may be costly to their careers, that the syndicate would drop them if they dared do something like that.</p> <p>Charles Schulz did not have to respond to her letter, he could have just completely ignored it, and everyone would have forgotten about it. But, Schulz did take the time to respond, saying he was intrigued with the idea, but wasn’t sure whether it would be right, coming from him, he didn’t want to make matters worse, he felt that it may sound condescending to people of color.</p> <p>Glickman did not give up, and continued communicating with Schulz, with Schulz surprisingly responding each time. She would even have black friends write to Schulz and explain to him what it would mean to them and gave him some suggestions on how to introduce such a character without offending anyone. This conversation would continue until one day, Schulz would tell Glickman to check her newspaper on July 31, 1968.</p> <p>On that date, the cartoon, as created by Schulz, shows Charlie Brown meeting a new character, named Franklin. Other than his color, Franklin was just an ordinary kid who befriends and helps Charlie Brown. Franklin also mentions that his father was “over at Vietnam.” At the end of the series, which lasted three strips, Charlie invites Franklin to spend the night one day so they can continue their friendship.</p> <p>There was no big announcement, there was no big deal, it was just a natural conversation between two kids, whose obvious differences did not matter to them. And, the fact that Franklin’s father was fighting for this country was also a very strong statement by Schulz.</p> <p>Although Schulz never made a big deal over the inclusion of Franklin, there were many fans, especially in the South, who were very upset by it and that made national news. One Southern editor even said, “I don’t mind you having a black character, but please don’t show them in school together.”</p> <p>It would eventually lead to a conversation between Schulz and the president of the comic’s distribution company, who was concerned about the introduction of Franklin and how it might affect Schulz’ popularity. Many newspapers during that time had threatened to cut the strip.</p> <p>Schulz’ response: “I remember telling Larry at the time about Franklin – he wanted me to change it, and we talked about it for a long while on the phone, and I finally sighed and said, “Well, Larry, let’s put it this way: Either you print it just the way I draw it or I quit. How’s that?”</p> <p>Eventually, Franklin became a regular character in the comic strips, and, despite complaints, Franklin would be shown sitting in front of Peppermint Patty at school and playing center field on her baseball team. </p> <p>More recently, Franklin is brought up on social media around Thanksgiving time, when the animated 1973 special “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” appears. Some people have blamed Schulz for showing Franklin sitting alone on the Thanksgiving table, while the other characters sit across him. But, Schulz did not have the same control over the animated cartoon on a television network that he did on his own comic strip in the newspapers.</p> <p>But, he did have control over his own comic strip, and, he courageously decided to make a statement because of one brave school teacher who decided to ask a simple question.</p> <p>Glickman would explain later that her parents were “concerned about others, and the values that they instilled in us about caring for and appreciating everyone of all colors and backgrounds — this is what we knew when we were growing up, that you cared about other people … And so, during the years, we were very aware of the issues of racism and civil rights in this country [when] black people had to sit at the back of the bus, black people couldn’t sit in the same seats in the restaurants that you could sit … Every day I would see, or read, about black children trying to get into school and seeing crowds of white people standing around spitting at them or yelling at them … and the beatings and the dogs and the hosings and the courage of so many people in that time.”</p> <p>Because of Glickman, because of Schulz, people around the world were introduced to a little boy named Franklin.” (Source: The Jon S. Randal Peace Page, Facebook)</p> </blockquote> <p>Of course, nowadays one of the characters would suddenly be black, another would be transexual, and all the girls would be quasi lesbians at least. :P</p> </blockquote> <p>Diversity isn’t bad, but using an outdated term for transgender people is. </p> <p>Please do NOT use transsexual. </p> </blockquote> <p>“ using an outdated term for transgender people is “<br/><br/>Who appointed you to the language police?<br/><br/>Trans <b>gender</b> doesn’t make sense, since gender is the psychological depiction of biological sex. A transsexual is someone whose brain doesn’t align with the body. They experience gender dysphoria, they don’t flip genders because it’s Thursday.<br/><br/>“ Diversity isn’t bad “<br/><br/>Bullshit. <i>Diversity </i>as it is used now is the opposite of what it used to <i>be</i>. Every story has to be the <b>same </b>because <i>diversity?</i> That’s some Animal Farm levels of crap. <br/><br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrlzSqLSGj8GIOeT5jrQsJA/videos">https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrlzSqLSGj8GIOeT5jrQsJA/videos</a><br/><br/></p> </blockquote> <p>1. Trans people themselves would rather people use transgender, regardless of whether or not it makes sense.</p> <p>2. Kek, I never said every story has to be the same because of diversity, you’re just pulling shit out of your ass.</p> <p>Diversity isn’t bad. It’s not going to kill you if there’s a story featuring someone that is gay, trans, disabled, of color, or anything else outside of what people usually choose to depict.</p> <p>It’s not that hard a concept to understand. If you get heated over there being diversity then you need to check yourself and your beliefs.</p> <p>Forced diversity is understandable to dislike, but I wasn’t even talking about that in the first place. I said a general statement. </p> </blockquote> <p>“ Trans people themselves would rather people use transgender “<br/><br/>And your proof is.. your opinion. Dismissed as easily. I’ve known transsexuals all my life, they used the word, that is where i heard it, I don’t care that your little group of 0.0001% of the english speakers want to control how english is spoken, any more than I care how scientologists want it to be spoken.<br/><br/>Authoritarians try to control minds by controlling words. It’s very revealing to read books like 1984. SocJus fits in perfectly to that world.<br/><br/>“ I never said every story has to be the same because of diversity “<br/><br/>And I never said you did. God, strawmannery already? I said ‘diversity’ makes every story the same. You have to have the trans, you have to have the black person, the gay, blah blah blah. Art has to serve the needs of the ideology, not the audience, in the SocJus worldview.<br/><br/><br/></p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1078" data-orig-width="881"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/4d0465e9b6c0eee84fa8ff9bf3e14229/tumblr_inline_pcrreh11Tt1qj6ut1_540.jpg" data-orig-height="1078" data-orig-width="881"/></figure><p><a href="http://brettcaton.blogspot.com/2018/04/has-squirrel-girl-acquired-downs.html">Which results in… that.</a><br/><br/>“ Diversity isn’t bad. “<br/><br/>By that same logic, having every story push communism or fascism isn’t bad. I disagree.<br/><br/>“ It’s not going to kill you “<br/><br/>Bullshit. But even by that same bar, neither is pushing stories that talk about pushing transsexuals into gas chambers. Is that really the standard of morality you ascribe to? Something is acceptable if it won’t kill<i> you?</i><br/><br/>“ It’s not that hard a concept to understand. “<br/><br/>I understand it perfectly, just as I understand the claims of all sorts of religions and ideologies.<br/><br/><br/></p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="546" data-orig-width="728"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/ec0315ffbc32535d8b176e33bc0a4599/tumblr_inline_pcrrlfOi931qj6ut1_540.jpg" data-orig-height="546" data-orig-width="728"/></figure><p>There is something you - along with so many other fanatics do not comprehend. There are people who do not believe the same things you do, despite understanding your arguments. You cannot comprehend the idea that you may be…<br/><br/><br/></p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="2592" data-orig-width="3888"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/287067269a75c067af2f0325ca17e5e7/tumblr_inline_pcrrnh1mG01qj6ut1_540.jpg" data-orig-height="2592" data-orig-width="3888"/></figure></blockquote> <p>Lol have you ever tried to chill? You should try it sometime, you look like you’re desperate for it. </p></blockquote> <p>Why in the hell did a post about Peanuts turn into this shitshow?</p>
Being Alone, Ass, and Assassination: HI... I'M I'M VERY GLAD
 FRANKLIN.. TO KNOW yOU
 I )
 OPNTS
<p><a href="https://atomicsalmon.tumblr.com/post/176535484178/brett-caton-atomicsalmon-brett-caton" class="tumblr_blog">atomicsalmon</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="http://brett-caton.tumblr.com/post/176509323667/atomicsalmon-brett-caton-atomicsalmon" class="tumblr_blog">brett-caton</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="https://atomicsalmon.tumblr.com/post/176489965878/brett-caton-atomicsalmon-brett-caton" class="tumblr_blog">atomicsalmon</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="http://brett-caton.tumblr.com/post/176488525882/atomicsalmon-brett-caton-libertarirynn" class="tumblr_blog">brett-caton</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://atomicsalmon.tumblr.com/post/176487882003/brett-caton-libertarirynn-on-july-31-1968" class="tumblr_blog">atomicsalmon</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://brett-caton.tumblr.com/post/176468087807/libertarirynn-on-july-31-1968-a-young-black" class="tumblr_blog">brett-caton</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/176420298534/on-july-31-1968-a-young-black-man-was-reading" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“On July 31, 1968, a young, black man was reading the newspaper when he saw something that he had never seen before. With tears in his eyes, he started running and screaming throughout the house, calling for his mom. He would show his mom, and, she would gasp, seeing something she thought she would never see in her lifetime. Throughout the nation, there were similar reactions.</p>

<p>What they saw was Franklin Armstrong’s first appearance on the iconic comic strip “Peanuts.” Franklin would be 50 years old this year.</p>

<p>Franklin was “born” after a school teacher, Harriet Glickman, had written a letter to creator Charles M. Schulz after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot to death outside his Memphis hotel room. </p>

<p>Glickman, who had kids of her own and having worked with kids, was especially aware of the power of comics among the young. “And my feeling at the time was that I realized that black kids and white kids never saw themselves [depicted] together in the classroom,” she would say. </p>

<p>She would write, “Since the death of Martin Luther King, ‘I’ve been asking myself what I can do to help change those conditions in our society which led to the assassination and which contribute to the vast sea of misunderstanding, hate, fear and violence.‘”</p>

<p>Glickman asked Schulz if he could consider adding a black character to his popular comic strip, which she hoped would bring the country together and show people of color that they are not excluded from American society. </p>

<p>She had written to others as well, but the others feared it was too soon, that it may be costly to their careers, that the syndicate would drop them if they dared do something like that.</p>

<p>Charles Schulz did not have to respond to her letter, he could have just completely ignored it, and everyone would have forgotten about it. But, Schulz did take the time to respond, saying he was intrigued with the idea, but wasn’t sure whether it would be right, coming from him, he didn’t want to make matters worse, he felt that it may sound condescending to people of color.</p>

<p>Glickman did not give up, and continued communicating with Schulz, with Schulz surprisingly responding each time. She would even have black friends write to Schulz and explain to him what it would mean to them and gave him some suggestions on how to introduce such a character without offending anyone. This conversation would continue until one day, Schulz would tell Glickman to check her newspaper on July 31, 1968.</p>

<p>On that date, the cartoon, as created by Schulz, shows Charlie Brown meeting a new character, named Franklin. Other than his color, Franklin was just an ordinary kid who befriends and helps Charlie Brown. Franklin also mentions that his father was “over at Vietnam.” At the end of the series, which lasted three strips, Charlie invites Franklin to spend the night one day so they can continue their friendship.</p>

<p>There was no big announcement, there was no big deal, it was just a natural conversation between two kids, whose obvious differences did not matter to them. And, the fact that Franklin’s father was fighting for this country was also a very strong statement by Schulz.</p>

<p>Although Schulz never made a big deal over the inclusion of Franklin, there were many fans, especially in the South, who were very upset by it and that made national news. One Southern editor even said, “I don’t mind you having a black character, but please don’t show them in school together.”</p>

<p>It would eventually lead to a conversation between Schulz and the president of the comic’s distribution company, who was concerned about the introduction of Franklin and how it might affect Schulz’ popularity. Many newspapers during that time had threatened to cut the strip.</p>

<p>Schulz’ response: “I remember telling Larry at the time about Franklin – he wanted me to change it, and we talked about it for a long while on the phone, and I finally sighed and said, “Well, Larry, let’s put it this way: Either you print it just the way I draw it or I quit. How’s that?”</p>

<p>Eventually, Franklin became a regular character in the comic strips, and, despite complaints, Franklin would be shown sitting in front of Peppermint Patty at school and playing center field on her baseball team. </p>

<p>More recently, Franklin is brought up on social media around Thanksgiving time, when the animated 1973 special “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” appears. Some people have blamed Schulz for showing Franklin sitting alone on the Thanksgiving table, while the other characters sit across him. But, Schulz did not have the same control over the animated cartoon on a television network that he did on his own comic strip in the newspapers.</p>

<p>But, he did have control over his own comic strip, and, he courageously decided to make a statement because of one brave school teacher who decided to ask a simple question.</p>

<p>Glickman would explain later that her parents were “concerned about others, and the values that they instilled in us about caring for and appreciating everyone of all colors and backgrounds — this is what we knew when we were growing up, that you cared about other people … And so, during the years, we were very aware of the issues of racism and civil rights in this country [when] black people had to sit at the back of the bus, black people couldn’t sit in the same seats in the restaurants that you could sit … Every day I would see, or read, about black children trying to get into school and seeing crowds of white people standing around spitting at them or yelling at them … and the beatings and the dogs and the hosings and the courage of so many people in that time.”</p>

<p>Because of Glickman, because of Schulz, people around the world were introduced to a little boy named Franklin.” (Source: The Jon S. Randal Peace Page, Facebook)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Of course, nowadays one of the characters would suddenly be black, another would be transexual, and all the girls would be quasi lesbians at least. :P</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Diversity isn’t bad, but using an outdated term for transgender people is. </p>
<p>Please do NOT use transsexual. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>“
using an outdated term for transgender people is

“<br/><br/>Who appointed you to the language police?<br/><br/>Trans <b>gender</b> doesn’t make sense, since gender is the psychological depiction of biological sex. A transsexual is someone whose brain doesn’t align with the body. They experience gender dysphoria, they don’t flip genders because it’s Thursday.<br/><br/>“
Diversity isn’t bad

“<br/><br/>Bullshit. <i>Diversity </i>as it is used now is the opposite of what it used to <i>be</i>. Every story has to be the <b>same </b>because <i>diversity?</i> That’s some Animal Farm levels of crap. <br/><br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrlzSqLSGj8GIOeT5jrQsJA/videos">https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrlzSqLSGj8GIOeT5jrQsJA/videos</a><br/><br/></p>
</blockquote>

<p>1. Trans people themselves would rather people use transgender, regardless of whether or not it makes sense.</p>
<p>2. Kek, I never said every story has to be the same because of diversity, you’re just pulling shit out of your ass.</p>
<p>Diversity isn’t bad. It’s not going to kill you if there’s a story featuring someone that is gay, trans, disabled, of color, or anything else outside of what people usually choose to depict.</p>
<p>It’s not that hard a concept to understand. If you get heated over there being diversity then you need to check yourself and your beliefs.</p>
<p>Forced diversity is understandable to dislike, but I wasn’t even talking about that in the first place. I said a general statement. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>“
Trans people themselves would rather people use transgender

“<br/><br/>And your proof is.. your opinion. Dismissed as easily. I’ve known transsexuals all my life, they used the word, that is where i heard it, I don’t care that your little group of 0.0001% of the english speakers want to control how english is spoken, any more than I care how scientologists want it to be spoken.<br/><br/>Authoritarians try to control minds by controlling words. It’s very revealing to read books like 1984. SocJus fits in perfectly to that world.<br/><br/>“
I never said every story has to be the same because of diversity

“<br/><br/>And I never said you did. God, strawmannery already? I said ‘diversity’ makes every story the same. You have to have the trans, you have to have the black person, the gay, blah blah blah. Art has to serve the needs of the ideology, not the audience, in the SocJus worldview.<br/><br/><br/></p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1078" data-orig-width="881"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/4d0465e9b6c0eee84fa8ff9bf3e14229/tumblr_inline_pcrreh11Tt1qj6ut1_540.jpg" data-orig-height="1078" data-orig-width="881"/></figure><p><a href="http://brettcaton.blogspot.com/2018/04/has-squirrel-girl-acquired-downs.html">Which results in… that.</a><br/><br/>“
Diversity isn’t bad.

“<br/><br/>By that same logic, having every story push communism or fascism isn’t bad. I disagree.<br/><br/>“
 It’s not going to kill you

“<br/><br/>Bullshit. But even by that same bar, neither is pushing stories that talk about pushing transsexuals into gas chambers. Is that really the standard of morality you ascribe to? Something is acceptable if it won’t kill<i> you?</i><br/><br/>“
It’s not that hard a concept to understand. 

“<br/><br/>I understand it perfectly, just as I understand the claims of all sorts of religions and ideologies.<br/><br/><br/></p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="546" data-orig-width="728"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/ec0315ffbc32535d8b176e33bc0a4599/tumblr_inline_pcrrlfOi931qj6ut1_540.jpg" data-orig-height="546" data-orig-width="728"/></figure><p>There is something you - along with so many other fanatics do not comprehend. There are people who do not believe the same things you do, despite understanding your arguments. You cannot comprehend the idea that you may be…<br/><br/><br/></p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="2592" data-orig-width="3888"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/287067269a75c067af2f0325ca17e5e7/tumblr_inline_pcrrnh1mG01qj6ut1_540.jpg" data-orig-height="2592" data-orig-width="3888"/></figure></blockquote>

<p>Lol have you ever tried to chill? You should try it sometime, you look like you’re desperate for it. </p></blockquote>

<p>Why in the hell did a post about Peanuts turn into this shitshow?</p>

atomicsalmon: brett-caton: atomicsalmon: brett-caton: atomicsalmon: brett-caton: libertarirynn: “On July 31, 1968, a young, black ma...

Being Alone, Assassination, and Baseball: HI... I'M I'M VERY GLAD FRANKLIN.. TO KNOW yOU I ) OPNTS <p>“On July 31, 1968, a young, black man was reading the newspaper when he saw something that he had never seen before. With tears in his eyes, he started running and screaming throughout the house, calling for his mom. He would show his mom, and, she would gasp, seeing something she thought she would never see in her lifetime. Throughout the nation, there were similar reactions.</p> <p>What they saw was Franklin Armstrong&rsquo;s first appearance on the iconic comic strip &ldquo;Peanuts.&rdquo; Franklin would be 50 years old this year.</p> <p>Franklin was &ldquo;born&rdquo; after a school teacher, Harriet Glickman, had written a letter to creator Charles M. Schulz after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot to death outside his Memphis hotel room. </p> <p>Glickman, who had kids of her own and having worked with kids, was especially aware of the power of comics among the young. “And my feeling at the time was that I realized that black kids and white kids never saw themselves [depicted] together in the classroom,” she would say. </p> <p>She would write, “Since the death of Martin Luther King, &lsquo;I’ve been asking myself what I can do to help change those conditions in our society which led to the assassination and which contribute to the vast sea of misunderstanding, hate, fear and violence.'”</p> <p>Glickman asked Schulz if he could consider adding a black character to his popular comic strip, which she hoped would bring the country together and show people of color that they are not excluded from American society. </p> <p>She had written to others as well, but the others feared it was too soon, that it may be costly to their careers, that the syndicate would drop them if they dared do something like that.</p> <p>Charles Schulz did not have to respond to her letter, he could have just completely ignored it, and everyone would have forgotten about it. But, Schulz did take the time to respond, saying he was intrigued with the idea, but wasn&rsquo;t sure whether it would be right, coming from him, he didn&rsquo;t want to make matters worse, he felt that it may sound condescending to people of color.</p> <p>Glickman did not give up, and continued communicating with Schulz, with Schulz surprisingly responding each time. She would even have black friends write to Schulz and explain to him what it would mean to them and gave him some suggestions on how to introduce such a character without offending anyone. This conversation would continue until one day, Schulz would tell Glickman to check her newspaper on July 31, 1968.</p> <p>On that date, the cartoon, as created by Schulz, shows Charlie Brown meeting a new character, named Franklin. Other than his color, Franklin was just an ordinary kid who befriends and helps Charlie Brown. Franklin also mentions that his father was &ldquo;over at Vietnam.&rdquo; At the end of the series, which lasted three strips, Charlie invites Franklin to spend the night one day so they can continue their friendship.</p> <p>There was no big announcement, there was no big deal, it was just a natural conversation between two kids, whose obvious differences did not matter to them. And, the fact that Franklin&rsquo;s father was fighting for this country was also a very strong statement by Schulz.</p> <p>Although Schulz never made a big deal over the inclusion of Franklin, there were many fans, especially in the South, who were very upset by it and that made national news. One Southern editor even said, “I don’t mind you having a black character, but please don’t show them in school together.”</p> <p>It would eventually lead to a conversation between Schulz and the president of the comic&rsquo;s distribution company, who was concerned about the introduction of Franklin and how it might affect Schulz&rsquo; popularity. Many newspapers during that time had threatened to cut the strip.</p> <p>Schulz&rsquo; response: &ldquo;I remember telling Larry at the time about Franklin &ndash; he wanted me to change it, and we talked about it for a long while on the phone, and I finally sighed and said, &quot;Well, Larry, let&rsquo;s put it this way: Either you print it just the way I draw it or I quit. How&rsquo;s that?&rdquo;</p> <p>Eventually, Franklin became a regular character in the comic strips, and, despite complaints, Franklin would be shown sitting in front of Peppermint Patty at school and playing center field on her baseball team. </p> <p>More recently, Franklin is brought up on social media around Thanksgiving time, when the animated 1973 special &ldquo;A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving&rdquo; appears. Some people have blamed Schulz for showing Franklin sitting alone on the Thanksgiving table, while the other characters sit across him. But, Schulz did not have the same control over the animated cartoon on a television network that he did on his own comic strip in the newspapers.</p> <p>But, he did have control over his own comic strip, and, he courageously decided to make a statement because of one brave school teacher who decided to ask a simple question.</p> <p>Glickman would explain later that her parents were &ldquo;concerned about others, and the values that they instilled in us about caring for and appreciating everyone of all colors and backgrounds — this is what we knew when we were growing up, that you cared about other people &hellip; And so, during the years, we were very aware of the issues of racism and civil rights in this country [when] black people had to sit at the back of the bus, black people couldn’t sit in the same seats in the restaurants that you could sit &hellip; Every day I would see, or read, about black children trying to get into school and seeing crowds of white people standing around spitting at them or yelling at them &hellip; and the beatings and the dogs and the hosings and the courage of so many people in that time.&rdquo;</p> <p>Because of Glickman, because of Schulz, people around the world were introduced to a little boy named Franklin.” (Source: The Jon S. Randal Peace Page, Facebook)</p>
Being Alone, Assassination, and Baseball: HI... I'M I'M VERY GLAD
 FRANKLIN.. TO KNOW yOU
 I )
 OPNTS
<p>“On July 31, 1968, a young, black man was reading the newspaper when he saw something that he had never seen before. With tears in his eyes, he started running and screaming throughout the house, calling for his mom. He would show his mom, and, she would gasp, seeing something she thought she would never see in her lifetime. Throughout the nation, there were similar reactions.</p>

<p>What they saw was Franklin Armstrong&rsquo;s first appearance on the iconic comic strip &ldquo;Peanuts.&rdquo; Franklin would be 50 years old this year.</p>

<p>Franklin was &ldquo;born&rdquo; after a school teacher, Harriet Glickman, had written a letter to creator Charles M. Schulz after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot to death outside his Memphis hotel room. </p>

<p>Glickman, who had kids of her own and having worked with kids, was especially aware of the power of comics among the young. “And my feeling at the time was that I realized that black kids and white kids never saw themselves [depicted] together in the classroom,” she would say. </p>

<p>She would write, “Since the death of Martin Luther King, &lsquo;I’ve been asking myself what I can do to help change those conditions in our society which led to the assassination and which contribute to the vast sea of misunderstanding, hate, fear and violence.'”</p>

<p>Glickman asked Schulz if he could consider adding a black character to his popular comic strip, which she hoped would bring the country together and show people of color that they are not excluded from American society. </p>

<p>She had written to others as well, but the others feared it was too soon, that it may be costly to their careers, that the syndicate would drop them if they dared do something like that.</p>

<p>Charles Schulz did not have to respond to her letter, he could have just completely ignored it, and everyone would have forgotten about it. But, Schulz did take the time to respond, saying he was intrigued with the idea, but wasn&rsquo;t sure whether it would be right, coming from him, he didn&rsquo;t want to make matters worse, he felt that it may sound condescending to people of color.</p>

<p>Glickman did not give up, and continued communicating with Schulz, with Schulz surprisingly responding each time. She would even have black friends write to Schulz and explain to him what it would mean to them and gave him some suggestions on how to introduce such a character without offending anyone. This conversation would continue until one day, Schulz would tell Glickman to check her newspaper on July 31, 1968.</p>

<p>On that date, the cartoon, as created by Schulz, shows Charlie Brown meeting a new character, named Franklin. Other than his color, Franklin was just an ordinary kid who befriends and helps Charlie Brown. Franklin also mentions that his father was &ldquo;over at Vietnam.&rdquo; At the end of the series, which lasted three strips, Charlie invites Franklin to spend the night one day so they can continue their friendship.</p>

<p>There was no big announcement, there was no big deal, it was just a natural conversation between two kids, whose obvious differences did not matter to them. And, the fact that Franklin&rsquo;s father was fighting for this country was also a very strong statement by Schulz.</p>

<p>Although Schulz never made a big deal over the inclusion of Franklin, there were many fans, especially in the South, who were very upset by it and that made national news. One Southern editor even said, “I don’t mind you having a black character, but please don’t show them in school together.”</p>

<p>It would eventually lead to a conversation between Schulz and the president of the comic&rsquo;s distribution company, who was concerned about the introduction of Franklin and how it might affect Schulz&rsquo; popularity. Many newspapers during that time had threatened to cut the strip.</p>

<p>Schulz&rsquo; response: &ldquo;I remember telling Larry at the time about Franklin &ndash; he wanted me to change it, and we talked about it for a long while on the phone, and I finally sighed and said, &quot;Well, Larry, let&rsquo;s put it this way: Either you print it just the way I draw it or I quit. How&rsquo;s that?&rdquo;</p>

<p>Eventually, Franklin became a regular character in the comic strips, and, despite complaints, Franklin would be shown sitting in front of Peppermint Patty at school and playing center field on her baseball team. </p>

<p>More recently, Franklin is brought up on social media around Thanksgiving time, when the animated 1973 special &ldquo;A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving&rdquo; appears. Some people have blamed Schulz for showing Franklin sitting alone on the Thanksgiving table, while the other characters sit across him. But, Schulz did not have the same control over the animated cartoon on a television network that he did on his own comic strip in the newspapers.</p>

<p>But, he did have control over his own comic strip, and, he courageously decided to make a statement because of one brave school teacher who decided to ask a simple question.</p>

<p>Glickman would explain later that her parents were &ldquo;concerned about others, and the values that they instilled in us about caring for and appreciating everyone of all colors and backgrounds — this is what we knew when we were growing up, that you cared about other people &hellip; And so, during the years, we were very aware of the issues of racism and civil rights in this country [when] black people had to sit at the back of the bus, black people couldn’t sit in the same seats in the restaurants that you could sit &hellip; Every day I would see, or read, about black children trying to get into school and seeing crowds of white people standing around spitting at them or yelling at them &hellip; and the beatings and the dogs and the hosings and the courage of so many people in that time.&rdquo;</p>

<p>Because of Glickman, because of Schulz, people around the world were introduced to a little boy named Franklin.” (Source: The Jon S. Randal Peace Page, Facebook)</p>

“On July 31, 1968, a young, black man was reading the newspaper when he saw something that he had never seen before. With tears in his eyes,...

Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 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!
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 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!

peteschult: libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legall...

Africa, cnn.com, and Memes: White South African Woman Becomes First To Be Jailed For Hate Speech After Video Of Her Racist Rant Goes Viral; Sentenced To Three Years @balleralert White South African Woman Becomes First To Be Jailed For Hate Speech After Video Of Her Racist Rant Goes Viral; Sentenced To Three Years – blogged by @MsJennyb ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ While racist, hate speech should never be tolerated, it is strictly prohibited in South Africa, as it is specifically excluded from the protection of free speech in the Constitution. In fact, according to the NY Times, back in 2016, the country released a draft law that would criminalize racism, meaning hate speech cases would go to criminal courts instead of civil and would be punishable by up to 10 years in prison. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Since then, the nation has moved to implement the new rules and subsequently make an example of a white South African woman. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ According to CNN, Vicki Momberg was found guilty in November for crimen injuria, better known as the willful injuring of someone’s dignity in her racist verbal attack on a black police officer. The incident was caught on camera and quickly went viral. Since then, Momberg has been prosecuted and sentenced to three years in prison with one year suspended sentence, as she becomes the first South African to be jailed for the offense. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ “We’ve had crimen injuria (cases before), but they have always been coupled by other charges. This is the first for a prison sentence for crimen injuria on its own,” a spokesperson said of the sentencing. “We are pleased with the sentence. This sends a clear message to those who undermine other people’s rights.” ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ In the incident that led to the sentencing, Momberg was caught on video hurling racial slurs at South African police officers after they stopped to help her after her car was broken into in Johannesburg. According to reports, she repeatedly used words that were used to insult black people during the apartheid. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Now, Momberg will have two years behind bars to think about her actions.
Africa, cnn.com, and Memes: White South African Woman Becomes First
 To Be Jailed For Hate Speech After Video Of
 Her Racist Rant Goes Viral; Sentenced To
 Three Years
 @balleralert
White South African Woman Becomes First To Be Jailed For Hate Speech After Video Of Her Racist Rant Goes Viral; Sentenced To Three Years – blogged by @MsJennyb ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ While racist, hate speech should never be tolerated, it is strictly prohibited in South Africa, as it is specifically excluded from the protection of free speech in the Constitution. In fact, according to the NY Times, back in 2016, the country released a draft law that would criminalize racism, meaning hate speech cases would go to criminal courts instead of civil and would be punishable by up to 10 years in prison. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Since then, the nation has moved to implement the new rules and subsequently make an example of a white South African woman. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ According to CNN, Vicki Momberg was found guilty in November for crimen injuria, better known as the willful injuring of someone’s dignity in her racist verbal attack on a black police officer. The incident was caught on camera and quickly went viral. Since then, Momberg has been prosecuted and sentenced to three years in prison with one year suspended sentence, as she becomes the first South African to be jailed for the offense. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ “We’ve had crimen injuria (cases before), but they have always been coupled by other charges. This is the first for a prison sentence for crimen injuria on its own,” a spokesperson said of the sentencing. “We are pleased with the sentence. This sends a clear message to those who undermine other people’s rights.” ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ In the incident that led to the sentencing, Momberg was caught on video hurling racial slurs at South African police officers after they stopped to help her after her car was broken into in Johannesburg. According to reports, she repeatedly used words that were used to insult black people during the apartheid. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Now, Momberg will have two years behind bars to think about her actions.

White South African Woman Becomes First To Be Jailed For Hate Speech After Video Of Her Racist Rant Goes Viral; Sentenced To Three Years – b...

Ass, Fucking, and Head: AT&T LTE Tweet gjunni @ fleta is #1 META @tsukkiaiga y'all better get this fucking coach before i do Robin K @tisrobin311 A Segment from Dallas Fuel Rascal's Stream se I was 'told by Kyky that I clouded the team atmosphere during (past) games, and showed a less mature form because I got mad. After ded from scrims. d about is this: (Kyky) saying that I just "suddenly decided not to play"? This is completely wrong. ch vs Florida was on the 11th, the match vs Boston on the 15th. During that period AKM was the ever got the chance to participate, along with Harry. We only did ranked and etc. So I could never know what kind of comps they to spectate in scrims. If they decided not to play me like that I'm pretty sure they would have had time to practice comps that didn't use Genji, then it makes me think that they used Genji knowing beforehand that AKM was going to play it. So in other words, I had no idea e day. Although things didn't work out on the the match day, I thought it was just unlucky)because AKM is also an excellent player. We just and play better. But in AKM's discord he mentioned that he wanted me to say sorry. From my perspective, I was forbidden from playing the in scrims. So I had no idea AKM was going to receive direct messages from fans and be hated like that due to his discomfort on playing like that I would have personally announced that there was an internal problem in our team and that I was taken out from the match to Add another Tweet Dallas Fuel Rascal "AKM played Genj in scrims, because I was 'told' by Kyky that I clouded the team atmosphere during (past) games, and showed a less mature form because I got mad. After that, me and Harryhook were excluded from scrims. What I'm 'really mad and frustrated about is this: (Kyky) saying that I just "suddenly decided not to play"? This is completely wrong If you look at our schedule our match vs Florida was on the 11th, the match vs Boston on the 15th. During that period AKM was the one participating in scrims, and I never got the chance to participate, along with Harry. We only did ranked and etc. So I could never know what kind of comps they were planning. I wasn't even invited to spectate in scrims. If they decided not to play me like that I'm pretty sure they would have had time to practice comps that didn't involve Genji. If they were going to use Genji, then it makes me think that they used Genji knowing beforehand that AKM was going to play it. So in other words, I had no idea AKM was practicing Genji until game day. Although things didn't work out on the the match day, I thought it was just unlucky because AKM is also an excellent player. We just thought we had to practice harder and play better. But in AKM's discord he mentioned that he wanted me to say sorry. From my perspective, I was forbidden from playing the matches, because I wasn't allowed in scrims. So I had no idea AKM was going to receive direct messages from fans and be hated like that due to his discomfort on playing Genji. If I knew there was a problem like that I would have personally announced that there was an internal problem in our team and that I was taken out from the match to fans, and apologized to AKM. AT&T LTE 9:07 AM FUEL DAL L AS Kyle Souder Ф @KyKy @KyKy blocked you You are blocked from following @KyKy and viewing @KyKy's Tweets fletasgf: So recently I was blocked by the head coach for Dallas Fuel on twitter. Now usually I try to stay out of drama, and Dallas Fuel is a team that I don’t really talk about much but if there’s one thing I don’t stand for it is ignorance and discrimination. I want to say, roughly at the end of stage one is when Rascal a previous player for London spitfire was signed over to the Dallas Fuel, for more than one reason but mostly to get more playing time which is something the London Spitfire couldn’t offer to rascal. Now I don’t know the exact extent of this issue between the coach and the players but during stage two I want to say I only saw Rascal play maybe once or twice at most? He’s always benched, because Kyky (The head coach) says Rascal brings clouded atmosphere to the team and is less mature, as stated in the letter above which rascal wrote himself. Rascal wasn’t invited to participate in scrims or even watch them, then was expected to play not even knowing what his teams comps or meta was going to be until right in that moment. What kind of a joke of coaching is that? Then trying to cover it up by saying Rascal refused to play. Kyky has yet to make any statements about this at all, but I’m upset for Rascal for the Dallas Fuel team. This is ridiculous. All I’m saying is that somebody seriously better get this coach before I drag his ass. #PetitionForTessToCoachDallasFuel
Ass, Fucking, and Head: AT&T LTE
 Tweet
 gjunni @ fleta is #1 META
 @tsukkiaiga
 y'all better get this fucking coach
 before i do
 Robin K @tisrobin311
 A Segment from Dallas Fuel Rascal's
 Stream
 se I was 'told by Kyky that I clouded the team atmosphere during (past) games, and showed a less mature form because I got mad. After
 ded from scrims.
 d about is this: (Kyky) saying that I just "suddenly decided not to play"? This is completely wrong.
 ch vs Florida was on the 11th, the match vs Boston on the 15th. During that period AKM was the
 ever got the chance to participate, along with Harry. We only did ranked and etc. So I could never know what kind of comps they
 to spectate in scrims. If they decided not to play me like that I'm pretty sure they would have had time to practice comps that didn't
 use Genji, then it makes me think that they used Genji knowing beforehand that AKM was going to play it. So in other words, I had no idea
 e day. Although things didn't work out on the the match day, I thought it was just unlucky)because AKM is also an excellent player. We just
 and play better. But in AKM's discord he mentioned that he wanted me to say sorry. From my perspective, I was forbidden from playing the
 in scrims. So I had no idea AKM was going to receive direct messages from fans and be hated like that due to his discomfort on playing
 like that I would have personally announced that there was an internal problem in our team and that I was taken out from the match to
 Add another Tweet

 Dallas Fuel Rascal
 "AKM played Genj in scrims, because I was 'told' by Kyky that I clouded the team atmosphere during (past) games, and showed a less mature form because I got mad. After
 that, me and Harryhook were excluded from scrims.
 What I'm 'really mad and frustrated about is this: (Kyky) saying that I just "suddenly decided not to play"? This is completely wrong
 If you look at our schedule our match vs Florida was on the 11th, the match vs Boston on the 15th. During that period AKM was the
 one participating in scrims, and I never got the chance to participate, along with Harry. We only did ranked and etc. So I could never know what kind of comps they
 were planning. I wasn't even invited to spectate in scrims. If they decided not to play me like that I'm pretty sure they would have had time to practice comps that didn't
 involve Genji. If they were going to use Genji, then it makes me think that they used Genji knowing beforehand that AKM was going to play it. So in other words, I had no idea
 AKM was practicing Genji until game day. Although things didn't work out on the the match day, I thought it was just unlucky because AKM is also an excellent player. We just
 thought we had to practice harder and play better. But in AKM's discord he mentioned that he wanted me to say sorry. From my perspective, I was forbidden from playing the
 matches, because I wasn't allowed in scrims. So I had no idea AKM was going to receive direct messages from fans and be hated like that due to his discomfort on playing
 Genji. If I knew there was a problem like that I would have personally announced that there was an internal problem in our team and that I was taken out from the match to
 fans, and apologized to AKM.

 AT&T LTE
 9:07 AM
 FUEL
 DAL L AS
 Kyle Souder Ф
 @KyKy
 @KyKy blocked you
 You are blocked from following @KyKy and
 viewing @KyKy's Tweets
fletasgf:

So recently I was blocked by the head coach for Dallas Fuel on twitter. 
Now usually I try to stay out of drama, and Dallas Fuel is a team that I don’t really talk about much but if there’s one thing I don’t stand for it is ignorance and discrimination. I want to say, roughly at the end of stage one is when Rascal a previous player for London spitfire was signed over to the Dallas Fuel, for more than one reason but mostly to get more playing time which is something the London Spitfire couldn’t offer to rascal. 

Now I don’t know the exact extent of this issue between the coach and the players but during stage two I want to say I only saw Rascal play maybe once or twice at most? He’s always benched, because Kyky (The head coach) says Rascal brings clouded atmosphere to the team and is less mature, as stated in the letter above which rascal wrote himself. Rascal wasn’t invited to participate in scrims or even watch them, then was expected to play not even knowing what his teams comps or meta was going to be until right in that moment.

What kind of a joke of coaching is that? Then trying to cover it up by saying Rascal refused to play. Kyky has yet to make any statements about this at all, but I’m upset for Rascal for the Dallas Fuel team. This is ridiculous.

All I’m saying is that somebody seriously better get this coach before I drag his ass. #PetitionForTessToCoachDallasFuel

fletasgf: So recently I was blocked by the head coach for Dallas Fuel on twitter. Now usually I try to stay out of drama, and Dallas Fuel ...

Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 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>
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 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>

gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against...

Being Alone, America, and Anaconda: 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>
Being Alone, America, and Anaconda: 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>

therevenantrising: garregret: therevenantrising: garregret: therevenantrising: pushingpin: jingle-brrrrt: metal-queer-solid: 0122358...

America, Arguing, and Crime: ITS EASY TO FORGET THAT FOR DECADES THE U.S. HAD A HEALTHCARE SYSTEM THAT WAS THE ENVY OF THE WORLD. WE HAD THE FINEST DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS, PATIENTS RECEIVED HIGH QUALITY, AFFORDABLE MEDICAL CARE, AND THOUSANDS OF PRIVATELY FUNDED CHARITIES PROVIDED HEALTH SERVICES FOR THE PO0 RON PAUL TURNING POINT USA <p><a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/165630900777/bushmeat-said-when-they-tell-you-how-ghastly" class="tumblr_blog">redbloodedamerica</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://bushmeat.tumblr.com/" title="bushmeat">bushmeat</a> said:</p><blockquote><p>When they tell you how ghastly socialised healthcare is, remember what they are saying is absolute bullshit <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253</a></p></blockquote><p>If I had a nickel every time some leftist moron linked to a World Healthcare Organization or Commonwealth Fund study, well, I would have a shitload of nickels.</p><p>Since my previous source’s website is currently down–<a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/142352613032/that-red-guy-montypla-weaselwonderworld">which I’ve used in the past</a> to slap this idiotic notion that other countries’ healthcare systems are somehow superior the US’s private system–I’ll instead point to this <a href="https://object.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa654.pdf">other great explanation</a> by the folks over at CATO on why this pathetic claim is always made by these left-wing think-tanks:</p><blockquote><p><i> The debate over how to reform America’s health care sector often involves comparisons between the United States and other countries, and with good reason. Looking at other countries can help us learn which policies, if any, to emulate, and which to avoid. </i></p><p><i>There have been many attempts at international health care system comparisons.Among the most influential are the World Health Report 2000 published by the World Health Organization, several studies published by the Commonwealth Fund, and individual measures such as infant mortality and “mortality amenable to health care.” Generally in these studies, the United States performs poorly in comparison to Europe, Australia, and Japan. Therefore, scholars often use the studies to argue for adding even more government regulations to our already highly regulated health care system. </i></p><p><i>However, these studies suffer from several problems. First, they often rely on unadjusted aggregate data—such as life expectancy, or mortality from heart disease—that can be affected by many non–health care factors, including nutrition, exercise, and even crime rates. Second,they often use process measures, such as how many patients have received a pap smear or mammogram in the past three years. Process measures tell us what doctors do, but provide only an indirect measure of doctors’ productivity. Third, some of these studies inappropriately incorporate their own biases about financing in their statistics, which makes market-driven health systems appear worse even if their outcomes are similar or better. </i></p><p><i>An additional limitation of these studies is the omission of any measure of innovation. None of the best-known studies factor in the contribution of various countries to the advances that have come to characterize the current practice of health care in the developed world. </i></p><p><i>Every single health care test or treatment must be invented at some point. We would be living in a different world today were it not for the remarkable genius and hard work of health care inventors in the past, as well as investments from government health agencies and pharmaceutical and medical device companies. The health care issues commonly considered most important today—controlling costs and covering the uninsured— arguably should be regarded as secondary to innovation, inasmuch as a treatment must first be invented before its costs can be reduced and its use extended to everyone. </i><br/></p></blockquote><p>Furthermore, from another Glen Whitman <a href="https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp101.pdf">article</a>:</p><blockquote><p><i> Those who cite the WHO rankings typically present them as an objective measure of the relative performance of national health care systems. They are not. The WHO rankings depend crucially on a number of underlying assumptions- some of them logically incoherent, some characterized by substantial uncertainty, and some rooted in ideological beliefs and values that not everyone shares. <br/></i></p><p><i> The WHO health care rankings result from an index of health-related statistics. As with any index, it is important to consider how it was constructed, as the construction affects the results. </i><br/></p><p><i> There is good reason to account for the quality of care received by a country’s worst-off or poorest citizens. Yet the Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution factors do not do that.Instead, they measure relative differences in quality, without regard to the absolute level of quality. To account for the quality of care received by the worst-off, the index could include a factor that measures health among the poor, or a health care system’s responsiveness to the poor. This would, in essence, give greater weight to the well-being of the worst off.  Alternatively, a separate health performance index could be constructed for poor households or members of disadvantaged minorities. These approaches would surely have problems of their own, but they would at least be focused on the absolute level of health care quality, which should be the paramount concern. <br/></i></p><p><i> The WHO rankings, by purporting to measure the efficacy of health care systems, implicitly take all differences in health outcomes not explained by spending or literacy and attribute them entirely to health care system performance. Nothing else, from tobacco use to nutrition to sheer luck, is taken into account. </i></p><p><i>To some extent, the exclusion of other variables is simply the result of inadequacies in the data. It is difficult to get information on all relevant factors, and even more difficult to account for their expected effects on health. But some factors are deliberately excluded by the WHO analysis on the basis of paternalistic assumptions about the proper role of health systems. An earlier paper laying out the WHO methodological framework asserts, “Problems such as tobacco consumption, diet, and unsafe sexual activity must be included in an assessment of health system performance.” </i></p><p><i>In other words, the WHO approach holds health systems responsible not just for treating lung cancer, but for preventing smoking in the first place; not just for treating heart disease, but for getting people to exercise and lay off the fatty foods. <br/></i></p><p><i> Second, the WHO approach fails to consider people’s willingness to trade off health against other values. Some people are happy to give up a few potential months or even years of life in exchange for the pleasures of smoking, eating, having sex, playing sports, and so on. The WHO approach, rather than taking the public’s preferences as given, deems some preferences better than others (and then praises or blames the health system for them). </i></p><p><i>A superior (though still imperfect) approach would take people’s health-related behavior as given, and then ask which health systems do the best job of dealing with whatever health conditions arise.<br/></i></p></blockquote><p>In other words, its a bunch of meaningless cherry-picked measurements framed in a way to make the private system appear terrible in order to push for more socialized medicine.  </p><p>Despite all of it’s flaws, which are usually thanks to government market intervention, the United States still has the best health care system on the entire goddamn planet per capita.  It’s most likely that the life-saving equipment and procedures that are used in other hellholes using slave healthcare to save lives are thanks to us.  </p><p>You’re welcome.</p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="250" data-orig-width="450"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/b97a460c917c68f3900de0bc46e50c59/tumblr_inline_owpcxquafE1r1jtxd_540.gif" data-orig-height="250" data-orig-width="450"/></figure></blockquote>
America, Arguing, and Crime: ITS EASY TO FORGET THAT
 FOR DECADES THE U.S. HAD A
 HEALTHCARE SYSTEM THAT WAS THE
 ENVY OF THE WORLD. WE HAD THE
 FINEST DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS,
 PATIENTS RECEIVED HIGH QUALITY,
 AFFORDABLE MEDICAL CARE, AND
 THOUSANDS OF PRIVATELY FUNDED
 CHARITIES PROVIDED HEALTH
 SERVICES FOR THE PO0
 RON PAUL
 TURNING
 POINT USA
<p><a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/165630900777/bushmeat-said-when-they-tell-you-how-ghastly" class="tumblr_blog">redbloodedamerica</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="http://bushmeat.tumblr.com/" title="bushmeat">bushmeat</a> said:</p><blockquote><p>When they tell you how ghastly socialised healthcare is, remember what they are saying is absolute bullshit

<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253</a></p></blockquote><p>If I had a nickel every time some leftist moron linked to a World Healthcare Organization or Commonwealth Fund study, well, I would have a shitload of nickels.</p><p>Since my previous source’s website is currently down–<a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/142352613032/that-red-guy-montypla-weaselwonderworld">which I’ve used in the past</a> to slap this idiotic notion that other countries’ healthcare systems are somehow superior the US’s private system–I’ll instead point to this <a href="https://object.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa654.pdf">other great explanation</a> by the folks over at CATO on why this pathetic claim is always made by these left-wing think-tanks:</p><blockquote><p><i>

The debate over how to reform America’s
health care sector often involves comparisons
between the United States and other countries,
and with good reason. Looking at other
countries can help us learn which policies, if
any, to emulate, and which to avoid. </i></p><p><i>There have been many attempts at international
health care system comparisons.Among
the most influential are the World Health Report
2000 published by the World Health Organization, several studies published by the
Commonwealth Fund, and individual measures
such as infant mortality and “mortality
amenable to health care.” Generally in these
studies, the United States performs poorly in
comparison to Europe, Australia, and Japan.
Therefore, scholars often use the studies to
argue for adding even more government regulations
to our already highly regulated health
care system. </i></p><p><i>However, these studies suffer from several
problems. First, they often rely on unadjusted
aggregate data—such as life expectancy, or
mortality from heart disease—that can be
affected by many non–health care factors,
including nutrition, exercise, and even crime
rates. Second,they often use process measures,
such as how many patients have received a pap
smear or mammogram in the past three years.
Process measures tell us what doctors do, but
provide only an indirect measure of doctors’
productivity. Third, some of these studies
inappropriately incorporate their own biases
about financing in their statistics, which
makes market-driven health systems appear
worse even if their outcomes are similar or better. </i></p><p><i>An additional limitation of these studies
is the omission of any measure of innovation.
None of the best-known studies factor in the
contribution of various countries to the
advances that have come to characterize the
current practice of health care in the developed
world. </i></p><p><i>Every single health care test or treatment
must be invented at some point. We would be
living in a different world today were it not
for the remarkable genius and hard work of
health care inventors in the past, as well as
investments from government health agencies
and pharmaceutical and medical device
companies. The health care issues commonly
considered most important today—controlling
costs and covering the uninsured—
arguably should be regarded as secondary to
innovation, inasmuch as a treatment must
first be invented before its costs can be
reduced and its use extended to everyone.

</i><br/></p></blockquote><p>Furthermore, from another Glen Whitman <a href="https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp101.pdf">article</a>:</p><blockquote><p><i>

Those who cite the WHO rankings typically present them as an objective measure of the relative performance of national health care systems. They are not. The WHO rankings depend crucially on a number of underlying assumptions- some of them logically incoherent, some characterized by substantial uncertainty, and some rooted in ideological beliefs and values that not everyone shares.

<br/></i></p><p><i>

The WHO health care rankings result
from an index of health-related statistics. As
with any index, it is important to consider
how it was constructed, as the construction
affects the results.

</i><br/></p><p><i>

There is good reason to account for the
quality of care received by a country’s worst-off
or poorest citizens. Yet the Health Distribution
and Responsiveness Distribution factors
do not do that.Instead, they measure relative
differences in quality, without regard to the
absolute level of quality. To account for the
quality of care received by the worst-off, the
index could include a factor that measures
health among the poor, or a health care system’s
responsiveness to the poor. This would,
in essence, give greater weight to the well-being
of the worst off.  Alternatively, a separate health
performance index could be constructed for
poor households or members of disadvantaged
minorities. These approaches would
surely have problems of their own, but they
would at least be focused on the absolute level
of health care quality, which should be the
paramount concern.

<br/></i></p><p><i>

The WHO rankings, by purporting to
measure the efficacy of health care systems,
implicitly take all differences in health outcomes
not explained by spending or literacy
and attribute them entirely to health care system
performance. Nothing else, from tobacco
use to nutrition to sheer luck, is taken into
account. </i></p><p><i>To some extent, the exclusion of other
variables is simply the result of inadequacies
in the data. It is difficult to get information
on all relevant factors, and even more difficult
to account for their expected effects on
health. But some factors are deliberately
excluded by the WHO analysis on the basis of
paternalistic assumptions about the proper
role of health systems. An earlier paper laying
out the WHO methodological framework
asserts, “Problems such as tobacco consumption,
diet, and unsafe sexual activity must be
included in an assessment of health system
performance.” </i></p><p><i>In other words, the WHO approach holds
health systems responsible not just for treating
lung cancer, but for preventing smoking
in the first place; not just for treating heart
disease, but for getting people to exercise and
lay off the fatty foods.

<br/></i></p><p><i>

Second, the WHO approach fails to consider
people’s willingness to trade off health
against other values. Some people are happy
to give up a few potential months or even
years of life in exchange for the pleasures of
smoking, eating, having sex, playing sports,
and so on. The WHO approach, rather than
taking the public’s preferences as given,
deems some preferences better than others
(and then praises or blames the health system
for them). </i></p><p><i>A superior (though still imperfect) approach
would take people’s health-related
behavior as given, and then ask which health
systems do the best job of dealing with whatever
health conditions arise.<br/></i></p></blockquote><p>In other words, its a bunch of meaningless cherry-picked measurements framed in a way to make the private system appear terrible in order to push for more socialized medicine.  </p><p>Despite all of it’s flaws, which are usually thanks to government market intervention, the United States still has the best health care system on the entire goddamn planet per capita.  It’s most likely that the life-saving equipment and procedures that are used in other hellholes using slave healthcare to save lives are thanks to us.  </p><p>You’re welcome.</p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="250" data-orig-width="450"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/b97a460c917c68f3900de0bc46e50c59/tumblr_inline_owpcxquafE1r1jtxd_540.gif" data-orig-height="250" data-orig-width="450"/></figure></blockquote>

redbloodedamerica: bushmeat said:When they tell you how ghastly socialised healthcare is, remember what they are saying is absolute bullshi...

Ass, Chick-Fil-A, and College: University's LGBT Students 'Fear' Arrival Of Chick-fil-A Some students at Pittsburgh's Duquesne University live in "fear of the amival of a Chick-fil-A fast-food restaurant to their college's food fair, Campus Reform reports. It's not about the chicken DAILYCALLER.COM Chechnya 'Opens First Concentration Camps For Gay M Chechen president's spokesman suggests region has no homosexual people. HUFFINGTONPOST.CO.UK I BY CHRIS YORK jujubiest: memeseverdie: When people are actually being rounded up and sent to concentration camps in this year of 2017 to be beaten and killed for who they are but that doesn’t matter because a fast food chain founded by people with different views than yourself has opened near your college campus  Listen up assholes, a) you can care about more than one thing at a damn time; these students caring about this issue doesn’t mean they care about literally nothing else. Actually, college students are often some of the most active when it comes to volunteer work, fundraising, and supporting social justice. Chances are these students all have at least one other cause they are heavily involved in supporting, if not more. And b) I went to a college that affiliated itself with Chik-Fil-A. T. Cathy was on the board of trustees and the company funded a scholarship at the school. And let me tell you, that fucker took every opportunity to let the LGBT students know that if it were solely up to him, none of us would be allowed. Recipients of that scholarship lived in separate dorms 3 miles from the main campus and had to sign really invasive “pure Christian living” pledges that, of course, included not being queer. They could literally lose funding for their education if they were found in violation of that pledge, on or off campus. That program was one of the biggest sources (if not THE biggest) of scholarship money at the school, and it explicitly excluded LGBT students. But it didn’t stop there. We–the rest of the student body–weren’t allowed to have a GSA for DECADES because of Cathy’s influence, leading to a lot of isolation for LGBT students and glossing over of hate crimes against them. In my senior year I was roommates with the president of the unofficial “LGBT support network.” We finally managed to get the administration to let us meet on campus at all (but not advertise in school event publications or access student organization funding). I saw a lot of shit during that time, including the school making up increasingly obvious bullshit excuses not to let us form an official student organization. My roommate had to have regular meetings with the dean of students–a responsibility shared by all other student organizations, even though we got none of the same benefits–and she used to panic before the meetings and cry after them. They were basically just a way to verbally and emotionally abuse her, keep us “in check,” and appear to be giving us special consideration all the while. And ALL of that shit led straight back to Cathy’s queerphobic ass. Don’t even get me started on the shady shit that went down within the scholarship recipients. Many of them were lovely people, but I swear every time something fucked up happened, it seems like it was someone from that goddamn program. Their shenanigans actually made national news at least once while I was there, painting the entire school in a terrible light. So these students have every reason to be concerned. I wouldn’t want that fucker and his shitty, over-hyped chicken anywhere near my school if I were them, not even in the most casual and seemingly innocuous way. Because he always find some way to bring his shitty views with him and spread them like a virus. !!!!!!
Ass, Chick-Fil-A, and College: University's LGBT Students 'Fear' Arrival Of Chick-fil-A
 Some students at Pittsburgh's Duquesne University live in "fear of the amival of a
 Chick-fil-A fast-food restaurant to their college's food fair, Campus Reform reports.
 It's not about the chicken
 DAILYCALLER.COM

 Chechnya 'Opens First Concentration Camps For Gay M
 Chechen president's spokesman suggests region has no homosexual people.
 HUFFINGTONPOST.CO.UK I BY CHRIS YORK
jujubiest:
memeseverdie:

When people are actually being rounded up and sent to concentration camps in this year of 2017 to be beaten and killed for who they are but that doesn’t matter because a fast food chain founded by people with different views than yourself has opened near your college campus 

Listen up assholes, a) you can care about more than one thing at a damn time; these students caring about this issue doesn’t mean they care about literally nothing else. Actually, college students are often some of the most active when it comes to volunteer work, fundraising, and supporting social justice. Chances are these students all have at least one other cause they are heavily involved in supporting, if not more.

And b) I went to a college that affiliated itself with Chik-Fil-A. T. Cathy was on the board of trustees and the company funded a scholarship at the school. And let me tell you, that fucker took every opportunity to let the LGBT students know that if it were solely up to him, none of us would be allowed.


Recipients of that scholarship lived in separate dorms 3 miles from the main campus and had to sign really invasive “pure Christian living” pledges that, of course, included not being queer. They could literally lose funding for their education if they were found in violation of that pledge, on or off campus. That program was one of the biggest sources (if not THE biggest) of scholarship money at the school, and it explicitly excluded LGBT students.

But it didn’t stop there. We–the rest of the student body–weren’t allowed to have a GSA for DECADES because of Cathy’s influence, leading to a lot of isolation for LGBT students and glossing over of hate crimes against them.


In my senior year I was roommates with the president of the unofficial “LGBT support network.” We finally managed to get the administration to let us meet on campus at all (but not advertise in school event publications or access student organization funding).


I saw a lot of shit during that time, including the school making up increasingly obvious bullshit excuses not to let us form an official student organization. My roommate had to have regular meetings with the dean of students–a responsibility shared by all other student organizations, even though we got none of the same benefits–and she used to panic before the meetings and cry after them. They were basically just a way to verbally and emotionally abuse her, keep us “in check,” and appear to be giving us special consideration all the while.


And ALL of that shit led straight back to Cathy’s queerphobic ass.


Don’t even get me started on the shady shit that went down within the scholarship recipients. Many of them were lovely people, but I swear every time something fucked up happened, it seems like it was someone from that goddamn program. Their shenanigans actually made national news at least once while I was there, painting the entire school in a terrible light.


So these students have every reason to be concerned. I wouldn’t want that fucker and his shitty, over-hyped chicken anywhere near my school if I were them, not even in the most casual and seemingly innocuous way. Because he always find some way to bring his shitty views with him and spread them like a virus. 


!!!!!!

jujubiest: memeseverdie: When people are actually being rounded up and sent to concentration camps in this year of 2017 to be beaten and ki...

Disney, Donald Glover, and Facts: tumbl Follow I 0.09/208 My longest deep sigh ever #star wars blogging <p><a href="http://siryouarebeingmocked.tumblr.com/post/157702937970/takashi0-siryouarebeingmocked-that-one-time-an" class="tumblr_blog">siryouarebeingmocked</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://jalopyrustbucket.tumblr.com/post/157699858897/siryouarebeingmocked-that-one-time-an-sjw" class="tumblr_blog">jalopyrustbucket</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://takashi0.tumblr.com/post/157697174717/siryouarebeingmocked-that-one-time-an-sjw" class="tumblr_blog">takashi0</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://siryouarebeingmocked.tumblr.com/post/157697038979/that-one-time-an-sjw-cropped-the-black-guy-out-of" class="tumblr_blog">siryouarebeingmocked</a>:</p> <blockquote> <h2>That one time an SJW cropped the black guy out of <a href="http://news.nationalpost.com/arts/movies/lucasfilm-and-disney-release-first-cast-photo-from-the-han-solo-movie-spinoff">a publicity photo of the Star Wars Han Solo prequel</a> to complain about racism.</h2> <p>Bonus points; <a href="https://archive.is/bzJDb">Polygon implying that Thandie Newton was deliberately excluded</a>, because she couldn’t <i>possibly</i> have scheduling conflicts. <br/></p> </blockquote> <p>Are you fucking serious</p> </blockquote> <p>Hardly unexpected. If the facts don’t conform to the narrative, SJWs change the facts.<br/><br/>A little “creative editing” isn’t a surprise from an ideologue.<br/></p> </blockquote> <p>The absolute best spin I can put on this is that they cropped the picture to point out how most of the cast is white, and somehow assumed that their readers would know Donald Glover is in the movie.</p><p>Which…is still cutting the black guy out to complain about racism.</p></blockquote>
Disney, Donald Glover, and Facts: tumbl
 Follow
 I 0.09/208
 My longest deep sigh ever
 #star wars blogging
<p><a href="http://siryouarebeingmocked.tumblr.com/post/157702937970/takashi0-siryouarebeingmocked-that-one-time-an" class="tumblr_blog">siryouarebeingmocked</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="http://jalopyrustbucket.tumblr.com/post/157699858897/siryouarebeingmocked-that-one-time-an-sjw" class="tumblr_blog">jalopyrustbucket</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="https://takashi0.tumblr.com/post/157697174717/siryouarebeingmocked-that-one-time-an-sjw" class="tumblr_blog">takashi0</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://siryouarebeingmocked.tumblr.com/post/157697038979/that-one-time-an-sjw-cropped-the-black-guy-out-of" class="tumblr_blog">siryouarebeingmocked</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<h2>That one time an SJW cropped the black guy out of <a href="http://news.nationalpost.com/arts/movies/lucasfilm-and-disney-release-first-cast-photo-from-the-han-solo-movie-spinoff">a publicity photo of the Star Wars Han Solo prequel</a> to complain about racism.</h2>
<p>Bonus points; <a href="https://archive.is/bzJDb">Polygon implying that Thandie Newton was deliberately excluded</a>, because she couldn’t <i>possibly</i> have scheduling conflicts. <br/></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Are you fucking serious</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Hardly unexpected. If the facts don’t conform to the narrative, SJWs change the facts.<br/><br/>A little “creative editing” isn’t a surprise from an ideologue.<br/></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The absolute best spin I can put on this is that they cropped the picture to point out how most of the cast is white, and somehow assumed that their readers would know Donald Glover is in the movie.</p><p>Which…is still cutting the black guy out to complain about racism.</p></blockquote>

siryouarebeingmocked: jalopyrustbucket: takashi0: siryouarebeingmocked: That one time an SJW cropped the black guy out of a publicity pho...

Donald Trump, Dude, and Energy: Rave Sashayed @_sashayed Hey can I make a suggestion? It is called the Trumptweet Exclusion Act (TEA). let me elaborate RETWEET LIKES 1 5 1:31 PM-14 Jan 2017 2 23 1 5 Reply to_sashayed Rave Sashayed_sashayed 7m Literally every time @realDonaldTrump sharts a tweet out of his small, moist fingers, he is doing it to stir up OUR outrage & distract US 2 Rave Sashayed_sashayed-6m It's only kind of for his tiny mob of followers. It's mostly to make decent people furious about something absurd Rave Sashayed_sashayed-5m We fall for it; we get angry and bewildered & our anger exhausts us. And then we are too tired to direct our outrage in useful directions Rave Sashayed_sashayed 3m Like attacking John Lewis, a literal living legend who has devoted his life to fighting injustice. All that garbage is Excluded henceforth 2 Rave Sashayed He's blocked! His twitter is Out. I don't need it to be informed. I know he wants me to get mad. Let's just start ignoring it. sashayed 1m Rave Sashayed_sashayed 52s We can check it once a week if we're truly masochistic. Otherwise: TEA. Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump @realDonaldTrump is blocked shadowsong-cc: riskpig: kitsunekitthefox: sashayed: Guys, it is now time to Block Trump. I know we all want to hold each other’s hands and scream WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS at every offensive, incoherent dribble that falls out of this trollfuck’s Governance Twitter. But we don’t have time for that shit anymore. I will not be dedicating any more energy or attention to anything Sausage Fingers wants me dedicating energy and attention to. No more irrelevance. Time to focus up. ps. I’m not good at acronyms, okay? just fuckin…..block this dude. [Caption: series of tweets from @_sashayed reading: Hey can I make a suggestion? It is called the Trumptweet Exclusion Act (TEA). let me elaborate. Literally every time Donald Trump sharts a tweet out of his small, moist fingers, he is doing it to stir up OUR outrage distract US. It’s only kind of for his tiny mob of followers. It’s mostly to make decent people furious about something absurd. We fall for it; we get angry and bewildered our anger exhausts us. And then we are too tired to direct our outrage in useful directions. I said “direct” twice but you get what I mean. SO from now on I am not engaging with anything Trump tweets. Like attacking John Lewis, a literal living legend who has devoted his life to fighting injustice. All that garbage is Excluded henceforth. He’s blocked! His twitter is Out. I don’t need it to be informed. I know he wants me to get mad. Let’s just start ignoring it. We can check it once a week if we’re truly masochistic. Otherwise: TEA. It’s not enough to just block him.   Report him.   Twitter will allow to you to report someone for being offensive, abusive, racist and harmful.   It will block the account for you and with enough of a wave behind people reporting him, Twitter could also just shut down the harmful twitter account. Sure, I’ll do it. Here’s hoping this works and he doesn’t use the presidential text option.
Donald Trump, Dude, and Energy: Rave Sashayed
 @_sashayed
 Hey can I make a suggestion? It is called the
 Trumptweet Exclusion Act (TEA). let me
 elaborate
 RETWEET
 LIKES
 1
 5
 1:31 PM-14 Jan 2017
 2
 23 1
 5
 Reply to_sashayed
 Rave Sashayed_sashayed 7m
 Literally every time @realDonaldTrump sharts a tweet out of his small, moist
 fingers, he is doing it to stir up OUR outrage & distract US
 2
 Rave Sashayed_sashayed-6m
 It's only kind of for his tiny mob of followers. It's mostly to make decent people
 furious about something absurd
 Rave Sashayed_sashayed-5m
 We fall for it; we get angry and bewildered & our anger exhausts us. And then we
 are too tired to direct our outrage in useful directions

 Rave Sashayed_sashayed 3m
 Like attacking John Lewis, a literal living legend who has devoted his life to
 fighting injustice. All that garbage is Excluded henceforth
 2
 Rave Sashayed
 He's blocked! His twitter is Out. I don't need it to be informed. I know he wants
 me to get mad. Let's just start ignoring it.
 sashayed 1m
 Rave Sashayed_sashayed 52s
 We can check it once a week if we're truly masochistic. Otherwise: TEA.

 Donald J. Trump
 @realDonaldTrump
 @realDonaldTrump is blocked
shadowsong-cc:
riskpig:

kitsunekitthefox:

sashayed:

Guys, it is now time to Block Trump. I know we all want to hold each other’s hands and scream WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS at every offensive, incoherent dribble that falls out of this trollfuck’s Governance Twitter. But we don’t have time for that shit anymore. I will not be dedicating any more energy or attention to anything Sausage Fingers wants me dedicating energy and attention to. No more irrelevance. Time to focus up.
ps. I’m not good at acronyms, okay? just fuckin…..block this dude.
[Caption: series of tweets from @_sashayed reading:

Hey can I make a suggestion? It is called the Trumptweet Exclusion Act (TEA). let me elaborate.
Literally every time Donald Trump sharts a tweet out of his small, moist fingers, he is doing it to stir up OUR outrage  distract US.
It’s only kind of for his tiny mob of followers. It’s mostly to make decent people furious about something absurd.
We fall for it; we get angry and bewildered  our anger exhausts us. And then we are too tired to direct our outrage in useful directions.
I said “direct” twice but you get what I mean. SO from now on I am not engaging with anything Trump tweets.
Like attacking John Lewis, a literal living legend who has devoted his life to fighting injustice. All that garbage is Excluded henceforth.
He’s blocked! His twitter is Out. I don’t need it to be informed. I know he wants me to get mad. Let’s just start ignoring it.
We can check it once a week if we’re truly masochistic. Otherwise: TEA.


It’s not enough to just block him.  
Report him.  
Twitter will allow to you to report someone for being offensive, abusive, racist and harmful.   It will block the account for you and with enough of a wave behind people reporting him, Twitter could also just shut down the harmful twitter account.

Sure, I’ll do it.

Here’s hoping this works and he doesn’t use the presidential text option.

shadowsong-cc: riskpig: kitsunekitthefox: sashayed: Guys, it is now time to Block Trump. I know we all want to hold each other’s hands an...

Africa, Children, and Facebook: International Number Ones Because every country is the best at something 2016 edition Norway PIZZA EATERS POP MUSIC weden NEWS MEDIA in CASHLESS PAYMENTS Denmark WIND POWER START-UPS ELECTRICITY USE BILLIONAIRES WOMEN Netherlands COFFEE DRINKERS Ireland uania WORKING CONDITIONS ALCOHOL DRINKERS Belarus BEST PASSPORT Germany INNOVATION PAID TIME OFF Austria WHISKEY DRINKERS PORNSTARS Hungary DASHCAMS KIDNEY TRANSPLANTS LGBTTOLERANCE Kazakhstan URANIUM KIWI FRUITS MATERNITY LEAVE FACEBOOK ADDICTS ongolia VELOCIRAPTORS Greece CHEESE EATERS CORK TWITTER CENSORSHIP ur Kyrgyzstan WALNUT FORESTS nited Stat SPAM EMAILS orgia HOMOPHOBES anistan China OIL WEALTH HAUTE CUISINE OPIUM JAILED JOURNALISTS MEDICAL RESEARCH Taiwan Pakistan Mexico L LEMONS ppines SOCIAL NETWORKING Puerto Rico Morocco Guatema CARDAMON ARGAN OIL MURDER CHEAPEST PETROL D Honduras LEAST POLICE PEPPER Vietnam a Egypt FAT KIDS HEAVY WOMEN Venezuela Costa Rica WELL FORESTS Suriname Niger RUBBER GLOVES Malaysia ngapore HEALTHIEST PEOPLE CHILD BRIDES ARMS IMPORTS BIODIVERSITY Papua New Guinea Eritrea Yemen GENDER INEQUALITY HEALTHIEST DIETS CHiLD LABOUR GUM ARABIC Sierra Leone MATERNAL MORTALITY ria Ethiopia Indonesia MAHOGANY COCAINE UNDERWEIGHT CHILDREN South Sudarn OIL DEPENDENCY ru SCRABBLE PLAYERS COCONUTS BRAZIL NUTS EMALE GENITAL MUTILATION Liberia LOWEST PUBLIC DEBT ENTREPRENEURS ganda UNHAPPINESS CASHEWS ôte d'lvoire Par POSITIVITY Kenya DATA BREACHES on WOMEN IN PARLIAMENT FARMLAND on Chile COPPER FEMALE WORKERS Tanzania CHILD MORTALITY New Zealand CHINOOK SALMON HORSE MEAT Argentina FEMALE ENTREPRENEURS Madagascar Namibia CAR CRASHES LANGUAGES DIAMONDS GRAPHITE Mozambique South Africa DEATH COMMODITY PSYCHOLOGY ECOLOGY GASTRONOMY ECONOMY NICETY HUMANITY TECHNOLOGY NASTY David McCandless// v 2.0 Oct 2016 Research: David Mccandless, Stephanie Smith, Esther Kersley Additional Design: Fabio Bergamaschi Sources: CIA, NYTimes, Bloomberg, UN, The Economist, World Bank, Reuters, BBC, Forbes, The Guardian, WSJ & others. I/ data: http://bit.ly/lIB IntNoOnes mostly per capita / % of population data // very small countries excluded InformationIsBeautiful.net <h2>¿En qué es líder cada país del mundo?</h2><p>Libia en niños gordos.</p><p>Italia en kiwis.</p><p>Francia en bebedores de Whiskey.</p><p>Claro que sí, guapi.</p>
Africa, Children, and Facebook: International Number Ones
 Because every country is the best at something
 2016 edition
 Norway
 PIZZA EATERS
 POP MUSIC
 weden
 NEWS MEDIA
 in
 CASHLESS PAYMENTS
 Denmark
 WIND POWER
 START-UPS
 ELECTRICITY USE
 BILLIONAIRES
 WOMEN
 Netherlands
 COFFEE DRINKERS
 Ireland
 uania
 WORKING CONDITIONS
 ALCOHOL DRINKERS
 Belarus
 BEST PASSPORT
 Germany
 INNOVATION
 PAID TIME OFF
 Austria
 WHISKEY DRINKERS
 PORNSTARS
 Hungary
 DASHCAMS
 KIDNEY TRANSPLANTS
 LGBTTOLERANCE
 Kazakhstan
 URANIUM
 KIWI FRUITS
 MATERNITY LEAVE
 FACEBOOK ADDICTS
 ongolia
 VELOCIRAPTORS
 Greece
 CHEESE EATERS
 CORK
 TWITTER CENSORSHIP
 ur
 Kyrgyzstan
 WALNUT FORESTS
 nited Stat
 SPAM EMAILS
 orgia
 HOMOPHOBES
 anistan China
 OIL WEALTH
 HAUTE CUISINE
 OPIUM
 JAILED JOURNALISTS
 MEDICAL RESEARCH
 Taiwan
 Pakistan
 Mexico L
 LEMONS
 ppines
 SOCIAL NETWORKING
 Puerto Rico Morocco
 Guatema
 CARDAMON
 ARGAN OIL
 MURDER
 CHEAPEST PETROL
 D Honduras
 LEAST POLICE
 PEPPER
 Vietnam
 a Egypt
 FAT KIDS HEAVY WOMEN
 Venezuela
 Costa Rica WELL
 FORESTS
 Suriname
 Niger
 RUBBER GLOVES
 Malaysia
 ngapore
 HEALTHIEST PEOPLE
 CHILD BRIDES
 ARMS IMPORTS
 BIODIVERSITY
 Papua New Guinea
 Eritrea Yemen
 GENDER INEQUALITY
 HEALTHIEST DIETS
 CHiLD LABOUR
 GUM ARABIC
 Sierra Leone
 MATERNAL MORTALITY
 ria
 Ethiopia Indonesia
 MAHOGANY
 COCAINE
 UNDERWEIGHT CHILDREN
 South Sudarn
 OIL DEPENDENCY
 ru
 SCRABBLE PLAYERS
 COCONUTS
 BRAZIL NUTS
 EMALE GENITAL MUTILATION
 Liberia
 LOWEST PUBLIC DEBT
 ENTREPRENEURS
 ganda
 UNHAPPINESS
 CASHEWS
 ôte d'lvoire
 Par
 POSITIVITY
 Kenya
 DATA BREACHES
 on
 WOMEN IN PARLIAMENT
 FARMLAND
 on
 Chile COPPER
 FEMALE WORKERS
 Tanzania
 CHILD MORTALITY
 New Zealand
 CHINOOK SALMON
 HORSE MEAT
 Argentina
 FEMALE ENTREPRENEURS
 Madagascar
 Namibia
 CAR CRASHES
 LANGUAGES
 DIAMONDS
 GRAPHITE
 Mozambique
 South Africa
 DEATH
 COMMODITY PSYCHOLOGY ECOLOGY GASTRONOMY ECONOMY NICETY HUMANITY TECHNOLOGY NASTY
 David McCandless// v 2.0 Oct 2016
 Research: David Mccandless, Stephanie Smith, Esther Kersley
 Additional Design: Fabio Bergamaschi
 Sources: CIA, NYTimes, Bloomberg, UN, The Economist, World Bank, Reuters, BBC,
 Forbes, The Guardian, WSJ & others. I/ data: http://bit.ly/lIB IntNoOnes
 mostly per capita / % of population data // very small countries excluded
 InformationIsBeautiful.net
<h2>¿En qué es líder cada país del mundo?</h2><p>Libia en niños gordos.</p><p>Italia en kiwis.</p><p>Francia en bebedores de Whiskey.</p><p>Claro que sí, guapi.</p>

¿En qué es líder cada país del mundo?Libia en niños gordos.Italia en kiwis.Francia en bebedores de Whiskey.Claro que sí, guapi.

Disney, Head, and Life: f You Ever Watched Beauty And The Beast During Your Childhood, Then You Will Probably Remember How Much You Hated Gaston But What If I Told You That It Actually Goes Deeper Than That. It's not right for a woman to read Soon she storts getting ideas And thinking. on, youar rtively primeva Think about it, the truly scary thing about Beauty and the Beast isn't that Gaston exists but that society absolutely loves him. People who deride the movie by saying it's about Stockholm Syndrome are ignoring that it's actually about the various ways that truly decent people get excluded by society. People don't trust the Beast because of the way he looks, which only feeds his anger issues and pushes him further away. Gaston isn't the only one who criticizes Belle for being bookish, either; the whole town says there must be something wrong with her. And her father gets carted off to a mental asylum for being just a little eccentric. Howard Ashman, who collaborated on the film's score and had a huge influence on the movie's story and themes, was a gay man who died of AIDS shortly after work on the film was completed. If you watch the film with that in mind, the message of it becomes clear. Gaston demonstrates that bullies are rewarded and beloved by society as long as they possess a certain set of characteristics, while nice people who don't are ostracized. The love story between Belle and the Beast is about them finding solace in each other after society rejects them both Notice how the Beast reacts when the whole town comes for him. He's not angry, he's sad He's tired. And he almost gives up because he has nothing to live for. But then he sees that Belle has come back for him, and suddenly he does. In the original fairy tale, the Beast asks Belle to marry him every night, and the spell is broken when she accepts. In the Disney movie, he waits for her to love him, because he cannot love himself. That's how badly being ostracized from society and told that you're a monster all your life can mess with your head and make you stop seeing yourself as human Society rewards the bullies because we've been brought up to believe that their victims don't belong. That if someone doesn't fit in, then they have to be put in their place, or destroyed. And this movie demonstrates that this line of thinking is wrong. It's so much deeper than a standard "be yourself" message, and that's why it's one of my favorite Disney movies <p>This Just Completely Changed The Way I See Beauty And The Beast</p>
nsfw
Disney, Head, and Life: f You Ever Watched
 Beauty And The Beast
 During Your Childhood,
 Then You Will Probably
 Remember How Much
 You Hated Gaston
 But What If I Told You
 That It Actually Goes
 Deeper Than That.
 It's not right for
 a woman to read
 Soon she storts getting ideas
 And thinking.
 on, youar
 rtively primeva
 Think about it, the truly scary thing about
 Beauty and the Beast isn't that Gaston exists
 but that society absolutely loves him. People
 who deride the movie by saying it's about
 Stockholm Syndrome are ignoring that it's
 actually about the various ways that truly
 decent people get excluded by society. People
 don't trust the Beast because of the way he
 looks, which only feeds his anger issues and
 pushes him further away. Gaston isn't the only
 one who criticizes Belle for being bookish,
 either; the whole town says there must be
 something wrong with her. And her father gets
 carted off to a mental asylum for being just a
 little eccentric.
 Howard Ashman, who collaborated on the film's
 score and had a huge influence on the movie's
 story and themes, was a gay man who died of
 AIDS shortly after work on the film was
 completed. If you watch the film with that in
 mind, the message of it becomes clear. Gaston
 demonstrates that bullies are rewarded and
 beloved by society as long as they possess a
 certain set of characteristics, while nice people
 who don't are ostracized. The love story
 between Belle and the Beast is about them
 finding solace in each other after society rejects
 them both
 Notice how the Beast reacts when the whole
 town comes for him. He's not angry, he's sad
 He's tired. And he almost gives up because he
 has nothing to live for. But then he sees that
 Belle has come back for him, and suddenly he
 does. In the original fairy tale, the Beast asks
 Belle to marry him every night, and the spell is
 broken when she accepts. In the Disney movie,
 he waits for her to love him, because he cannot
 love himself. That's how badly being ostracized
 from society and told that you're a monster all
 your life can mess with your head and make you
 stop seeing yourself as human
 Society rewards the bullies because we've been
 brought up to believe that their victims don't
 belong. That if someone doesn't fit in, then they
 have to be put in their place, or destroyed. And
 this movie demonstrates that this line of
 thinking is wrong. It's so much deeper than a
 standard "be yourself" message, and that's why
 it's one of my favorite Disney movies
<p>This Just Completely Changed The Way I See Beauty And The Beast</p>

This Just Completely Changed The Way I See Beauty And The Beast

New York, Party, and Politics: Why Half a Million California Independents Could Be Shut Out of the Democratic Primary A Los Angeles Times investigation discovered 500,000 California voters may not be able to vote in the Democratic primaries due to registration confusion. USUNCUT.COM zitahawthorne: foxcum: Please read if you’re voting in the California Primary If you’re registered to vote in California for the Democratic primary please check your voter status here Many people are starting to discover that they’ve registered with the American Independent Party (AIP) instead of an actual independent on their voter registartion. The AIP is the third largest party in California, but instead of being a standard independent status for voting purposes, the party is affiliated with right-wing politics and isn’t an actual independent status. But most importantly, if you’re registered as an AIP affiliate, you cannot vote in the California primary on June 7th Most people have registered with the party in error, as many as 500,000 people could be excluded from the Democratic Primary, so please check your voter status if you registered as an independent You only have until May 23rd to fix this error Don’t let this be another New York scandal, check the status of your voter registration before it’s too late Thank you OP and everyone who reblogged this that resulted in this on my dash because despite registering 3 times, I’m still not registered somehow and I wouldn’t have known in time it it weren’t for this link to check Thank you thank you thank you.
New York, Party, and Politics: Why Half a Million California Independents Could Be
 Shut Out of the Democratic Primary
 A Los Angeles Times investigation discovered 500,000 California voters may not
 be able to vote in the Democratic primaries due to registration confusion.
 USUNCUT.COM
zitahawthorne:

foxcum:

Please read if you’re voting in the California Primary

If you’re registered to vote in California for the Democratic primary please check your voter status here

Many people are starting to discover that they’ve registered with the American Independent Party (AIP) instead of an actual independent on their voter registartion. The AIP is the third largest party in California, but instead of being a standard independent status for voting purposes, the party is affiliated with right-wing politics and isn’t an actual independent status.

But most importantly, if you’re registered as an AIP affiliate, you cannot vote in the California primary on June 7th

Most people have registered with the party in error, as many as 500,000 people could be excluded from the Democratic Primary, so please check your voter status if you registered as an independent

You only have until May 23rd to fix this error

Don’t let this be another New York scandal, check the status of your voter registration before it’s too late

Thank you OP and everyone who reblogged this that resulted in this on my dash because despite registering 3 times, I’m still not registered somehow and I wouldn’t have known in time it it weren’t for this link to check 
Thank you thank you thank you.

zitahawthorne: foxcum: Please read if you’re voting in the California Primary If you’re registered to vote in California for the Democrat...

Being Alone, America, and Anaconda: asic KOSHER DILL SPEARS 2924 8 924 1 <p><a href="http://tactical-pants.tumblr.com/post/135832273318/runningrepublican-therevenantrising" class="tumblr_blog">tactical-pants</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://runningrepublican.tumblr.com/post/135830964382">runningrepublican</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/135827422115">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>This is it. This will be the first post I tag master post.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is the greatest thing I’ve ever seen.</p></blockquote> <p>I&rsquo;m just surprised none of the anti-gunners screaming &ldquo;OMG! In America guns are literally included in happy meals! Disgusting!&rdquo;</p><p>But seriously good post.</p>
Being Alone, America, and Anaconda: asic
 KOSHER DILL
 SPEARS
 2924
 8
 924 1
<p><a href="http://tactical-pants.tumblr.com/post/135832273318/runningrepublican-therevenantrising" class="tumblr_blog">tactical-pants</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://runningrepublican.tumblr.com/post/135830964382">runningrepublican</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/135827422115">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>This is it. This will be the first post I tag master post.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is the greatest thing I’ve ever seen.</p></blockquote>

<p>I&rsquo;m just surprised none of the anti-gunners screaming &ldquo;OMG! In America guns are literally included in happy meals! Disgusting!&rdquo;</p><p>But seriously good post.</p>

tactical-pants: runningrepublican: therevenantrising: garregret: therevenantrising: garregret: therevenantrising: pushingpin: jingle...

Dating, Family, and Friday: No union is more profound than marriage, for it embod- ies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people be- come something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be con demned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civiliza tion's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered. <p><a href="http://lgbtlaughs.com/post/122504526793/breaking-the-supreme-court-says-same-sex-couples" class="tumblr_blog">lgbtlaughs</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><b><a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=AP&amp;SECTION=HOME&amp;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&amp;CTIME=2015-06-26-10-09-45">BREAKING: The Supreme Court says same sex couples have the right to marry in all 50 states </a></b><br/></p><p>WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court declared Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States.</p><p>Gay and lesbian couples already can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court’s 5-4 ruling means the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage.</p><p>The outcome is the culmination of two decades of Supreme Court litigation over marriage, and gay rights generally.</p><p>Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, just as he did in the court’s previous three major gay rights cases dating back to 1996. It came on the anniversary of two of those earlier decisions.</p><p>“No union is more profound than marriage,” Kennedy wrote, joined by the court’s four more liberal justices.</p><p>The ruling will not take effect immediately because the court gives the losing side roughly three weeks to ask for reconsideration. But some state officials and county clerks might decide there is little risk in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.</p></blockquote>
Dating, Family, and Friday: No union is more profound than marriage, for it embod-
 ies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice,
 and family. In forming a marital union, two people be-
 come something greater than once they were. As some of
 the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage
 embodies a love that may endure even past death. It
 would misunderstand these men and women to say they
 disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do
 respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its
 fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be con
 demned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civiliza
 tion's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the
 eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
 The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth
 Circuit is reversed.
 It is so ordered.
<p><a href="http://lgbtlaughs.com/post/122504526793/breaking-the-supreme-court-says-same-sex-couples" class="tumblr_blog">lgbtlaughs</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><b><a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=AP&amp;SECTION=HOME&amp;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&amp;CTIME=2015-06-26-10-09-45">BREAKING: The Supreme Court says same sex couples have the right to marry in all 50 states </a></b><br/></p><p>WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court declared Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States.</p><p>Gay and lesbian couples already can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court’s 5-4 ruling means the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage.</p><p>The outcome is the culmination of two decades of Supreme Court litigation over marriage, and gay rights generally.</p><p>Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, just as he did in the court’s previous three major gay rights cases dating back to 1996. It came on the anniversary of two of those earlier decisions.</p><p>“No union is more profound than marriage,” Kennedy wrote, joined by the court’s four more liberal justices.</p><p>The ruling will not take effect immediately because the court gives the losing side roughly three weeks to ask for reconsideration. But some state officials and county clerks might decide there is little risk in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.</p></blockquote>

lgbtlaughs: BREAKING: The Supreme Court says same sex couples have the right to marry in all 50 states WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court ...