• chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Fun fact: California’s anti-gun culture was born out of racism and fear of the Black Panthers.

      Ronald fucking Reagan started the anti-gun movement to disarm black people

      • GroundedGator@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        And then continued it federally with bans on assault weapons and magazines over a certain capacity after someone tried to assassinate him.

        I say we should bring back the Reagan approach on gun control.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      You love it? You don’t look at this and think “This can’t possibly be how a reasonable society works”?

      • Themadbeagle@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Of course most of us don’t love it. A lot of us live in places where, due to concepts like gerrymandering, we have no political choice, so people have to resort to stuff like this. We love that people are fighting back, not that it has to be this way.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yeah, moving somewhere else isn’t an option, but pow pow bang bang shooty shooty sure is!

      • Liz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        When it stops being illegal to help vulnerable people, I’ll stop cheering for folks who open carry firearms to deter cops that might otherwise try to stop them.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            That’s like saying the tolerant can’t be intolerant of the intolerant, when in fact they have to be.

            • rekabis@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              And it becomes even more viable when you consider that Popper’s idea is actually based off of a social contract.

              Essentially, tolerance is based on a social contract to be tolerant to each other. If someone is being intolerant, they are explicitly and intentionally removing themselves from the contract. Ergo, they no longer fall under protections, and people can then be intolerant of their intolerance.

                • Senal@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago
                  • Regular Ignorance
                  • Wilful Ignorance
                  • Bad Faith

                  Pick One, possibly two.

                  There will of course be some who haven’t considered this perspective and some who disagree.

                  I’d put money, however, on the vast majority arguing in favour of tolerating intolerance are the people this concept is talking about.

                  The actively intolerant using the tolerance of others to enact further intolerance.

        • MonkderDritte@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          and sorting it out in court later is the way

          Not with cops in US from what i heard. No chance.

  • Perhapsjustsniffit@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’ve been following some of these folks on social media who do this every couple of weeks. It’s crazy. The police were arresting them for giving away food. So they went through the courts and won the right to feed homeless people. Crazy right. The even crazier part is the cops sit across the street every single time they give out free food and hygiene items and harass them, take photos and other ACAB sort of shit. 4-6 cruisers at a time. Insane.

    • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Its only crazy if you don’t want to look at why they’re doing it square in the eye. Please don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t judge anyone doing it, presuming it does apply a little you yourself. I could be wrong of course. The truth is very, very ugly and not something anyone would want to be true.

      Despite their claims, the problem was never the cost to the government of feeding the homeless, as can be seen. The reason the police do this is that wage slaves won’t be forced back into the worst, most poorly paid jobs we can find if they’re not facing death by starvation.

      It was the same in the UK, back when they made feeding the homeless illegal and the penalty being being homeless OR without a job for 3 days was being sent to the workhouse where you might well be worked to death.

      Its the same thing, centuries apart.

      • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        That is the role of the state and capitalists but that is not what is on the mind of an abusive cop. They believe the bullshit.

    • radicalautonomy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I had1 a friend in middle school who shared my name. We’d hang out together all the time and play Super Mario Bros 3 and ride our bikes all over and shit. Dude was chill. Then he went into the army, came out, and become a cop in Dallas PD.

      1Had.

  • danafest@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Armed to deter cops actually sounds like a viable plan in Texas after what we saw at Uvalde

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Yes, it deters the cops. You have to understand that many or most cops are paranoid, cowards, and bullies. They aren’t going around enforcing laws because they think that they need to uphold justice. Rather, they’re going around power tripping. And it’s not such a great power trip if you have to worry about getting shot because people think that you’re dirty.

      Of course this is not true for all cops all the time, but it’s certainly true for many cops most of the time.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        A single armed guy in a Texas school will attract cops at a medium distance but repel them at a short distance.

    • laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I mean, that was always the point.

      To fight tyrannical bullshit.

      It’s just that purist assholes don’t want any regulation whatsoever - so that anyone, anyone can get a gun. And welp… the tragic bullshit happens.

      I’m not pro-gun or anti-gun. I’m pro-common-sense.

    • SendPicsofSandwiches@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s food serving legislation being taken too far. The clothes I think are fine, but since they’re not inspected by the health department like a restaurant the government can technically shut it down which is complete bullshit.

      • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        No, the Good Samaritan Act says free food doesn’t have to be inspected as long as it’s given “in good faith apparently wholesome food or apparently fit grocery products to a nonprofit organization for ultimate distribution to needy individuals”

        https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2020/08/13/good-samaritan-act-provides-liability-protection-food-donations

        All fifty states and the District of Columbia have additional food donation statues that limit food donor’s liability—these currently vary widely, such as by who (i.e., donors, nonprofit organizations), and what foods and food products are covered.

        state laws may provide greater protection against liability, but not less

        • SendPicsofSandwiches@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Anecdotally, I don’t think so. I used to do some work with a place that did a lot of charity work and would get together bi-weekly to talk about travel and have a banquet. The banquet was always prepared and served in accordance with the law, and there were often tons of leftovers. So we would give the leftovers to the homeless. The health department fined us because we weren’t allowed to serve food outside of our establishment.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            That’s what the to-go bags are for.

            When I was living on the streets of Boston, one day a random dude showed up giving out McDonalds cheeseburgers. Didn’t look very official. He just rolled up with a big bag and started giving them out.

        • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          More like look up what OP says and realize its bullshit. Lemmy has become so disappointing with all the blind acceptance of this kind of nonsense.

              • Syrc@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                This article talks about the ordinance. Yes, you can feed them in specific situations and places. Still, you can’t tell me it isn’t making it intentionally hard to do.

                • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Pretty big assumption that all the governments in the many cities with laws like this are evil people coordinating efforts to starve homeless people.

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Every single protest should have an armed contingent in America. That is the only way cops will take you seriously, but make sure you dot the i’s and cross the t’s, because your permits better be current.

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      This gives the cops license to start slaughtering protestors. They’re allowed to kill if they have a reason to fear for their safety.

      • madcaesar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Nope. Cops are bullies and cowards by nature. They love to swing their dicks around unarmed, peaceful protesters.

        Any sign of any possible resistance or discomfort and they’ll suddenly turn into pillars of restraint and caution.

        IE look at all the armed Nazi protests, or uvlade or any other of the myriad of examples.

  • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Texas boggles my mind because it’s such a blue state with some of the deepest red politicians running the place.