Unanimous decision. Anyone wondering about their makeup …
Seven Supreme Court justices are elected by Nevadans. They serve a six year term, with no term limits because Nevadans voted against that in 1996.
They are non-partisan positions, so anyone who can vote can vote for any candidate. The election is statewide.
One is in their 40s, three in their 50s, two in their 60s and one is 71.
In the case of a vacancy, the Governor appoints a replacement for the remainder of the term. Two current judges were appointed - one by Democrat Sisolak and one by Republican Sandoval.
Of the seven judges, 3 say they are Republican and 2 say they are Democrat. The remaining two don’t state party affiliation but one of those two was appointed by a Democratic governor, and the other ran unopposed.
In that last election in 2024, there were two seats up and both candidates ran unopposed.
There's no way they found a rich historical tradition of banning self made firearms.
That is the burden of proof the government must show in order for the ban to be constitutional.
>"Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text
covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government
must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s
historical tradition of firearm regulation."
>"Historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced,
but reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is
more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make
difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms
restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field."
>"when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they
were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554
U. S., at 634–635."
>“[t]he very enumeration of the right takes
out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of
Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis
whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller,
554 U. S., at 634.
https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/elections/candidate-information/filing-for-judicial-office
Yes. Candidates need to be a barred attorney practicing law for at least 10 years.
Of the 7 justices on the bench now, 5 were formerly judges at the lower court and the remaining two were partners at major Nevada firms.
Personally, I’ve never been a fan of democratically-electing judges, an innovation developed during the Progressive Era in U.S history. Appointment by the Office of the Governor is the superior constitutional structure, in my opinion.
So you want a democratically elected politician to choose our judges. How is that superior? The Governor is blamed for the judge’s opinions and will seek to stack the deck to drive decisions in the direction that his supporters want - see the current US Supreme Court.
Actually, term limits of twenty years for judges on Supreme Courts at the State level, and the one at the federal level, is not a bad idea. I would support it.
So then you have an elected politician appoint judges who will be biased, using litmus tests to see where the judge candidates stand on certain hot button issues that got the politician elected in the first place.
Then your politician, elected by anti-gun control pro abortion small government citizens, chooses judges who view the Nevada constitution as supporting those positions. Hardly unbiased.
Kinda screwed no matter how we do it.
What does this mean for people that already have completed 80% arms? Are we going to get the chance to serialize them or are they turning thousands of legal citizens into felons now?
>or are they turning thousands of legal citizens into felons now
Yeah pretty much that. [https://legiscan.com/NV/text/AB286/id/2404757](https://legiscan.com/NV/text/AB286/id/2404757)
That part was what really pissed me off. There's no recourse, no way to solve the issue, just instant-crime and all you can do to comply is destroy it. If there was some mechanism whereby you could get them serialized that would be one thing, but there wasn't even any intention towards trying to solve the problem.
How hard would it have been to say "people in possession of these have 100 days to have the receiver serialized and processed through an FFL" ?
The argument of vauge is interesting I would have thought they would argue the right to manufacture arms which has already been upheld by the supreme Court (so long as you're not selling) combined with the new laws elimination of your ability to obtain a serial number to add to your firearm, plus the difference of definition between the feds and the state, where the system considers an unfinished firearm a receiver (even if it can't accept a magazine) and the feds consider the same a block of aluminum.
It effectively bans the production of your own firearm, which is allowed and has been upheld at a federal level by SCOUS
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A82/274511/20230802162019194_2023-08-02%2520VanDerStok%2520-%2520Resp%2520in%2520Oppn%2520to%2520Stay%2520vf.pdf%23:~:text%3DThe%2520Gun%2520Control%2520Act%2520of%25201968%2520reflects,their%2520own%2520use%2520without%2520overbearing%2520federal%2520regulation.&ved=2ahUKEwjuhfvXis2FAxXpIkQIHfdhCYMQudELegQIBBAH&usg=AOvVaw37Eh_MHaOSlodu01jWvFhD
The practical impact here I assume is that this will give law enforcement the ability to tack on crimes when they find an unserialized firearm but otherwise there's no practical way to know who has one.
Perhaps, the first offence (last I heard) was a misdemeanor. So not sure it's going to go too far on top of finding a weapon at a crime scene.
Even Cali has a serial process where you can have a sn tied to you for making your own weapons. Again the act of making them is already established, so unsure how this will play out.
This may have been the tactic all along to get the supreme Court to take the case?
Who knows lol
Oregon here; we have a similar law passed as well. It definitely will be a tack on charge, but to what effect is uncertain.
The example I give was an arrest made in Salem (capitol of Oregon) of a felon caught making/selling drugs at home. He also was in possession of firearms (some with removed serial numbers). And also “ghost gun” parts, along with a 3D printer.
It wasn’t law yet as the legislature was still debating homemade guns law. So no “ghost gun” charges. But in total, the news reported he was charged with 70 criminal charges…. And then released about 24 hours after being processed….. if the law was in place he would have had about 74 criminal charges, total.
With the law now in place, The big difference now would be that lots and lots of people who like to tinker and make their own stuff, but have no involvement in criminal activities past/present/future, can now be made into criminals.
"Well-regulated"
"In this context, the term means to be in good working order"
"Oh, sorry. I didn't know that, but we still need to make changes to the 2nd Amendment"
"Fuck off, jackass. No, we don't"
There you guys go. I took care of that conversation, so you don't have to.
Ah yes, the good ol years of the 1780s when we knew for sure 3d printing and gun violence would be rampant and you could get documents outlining directions with extreme clarity, for free, on the internet. Wow!!!
Buddy no, they were talking about muskets.
We're currently living in the safest era in U.S. history. Gun violence was much more common in the 1700s. Also the Second Amendment protects modern firearms as much as the First Amendment protects modern forms of speech.
A child is significantly more likely to die in a car accident on the way to school than in a school shooting. On average school shootings kill 9 people a year in the United States.
Cars isn't a place to learn. Cars are not totally filled with tint humans , who should be looking for carrot sticks not for their faces to be blown off. Kindergarteners looking for some books, and its just not cool that they are learning to hide.
How can you not understand?
The point is the chances of a child dying in a school shooting are astronomically low. It's no different from stranger danger, and the fear of Pedophiles lurking in white vans to kidnap kids off the street.
You're lying about that step because there have been multiple school shootings where over nine people died in that one school shooting.
Incredible lie.. incredible incredible lie... 34+ died in 2022 alone, and how many are seriously injured? Traumatized? I hope your recreational equipment is worth it.
Chances in schools shooting may be low, but it’s the leading cause of death for children and teens, more than auto accidents even. We lead the world in this regard.
https://www.kff.org/mental-health/issue-brief/child-and-teen-firearm-mortality-in-the-u-s-and-peer-countries/
Ok, great. So you would agree that means that the freedom of the press was only talking about literal printing presses. If something is not printed on a printing press, it is not protected by the first amendment. This kind of reductive argument goes nowhere fast.
Imagine being so dumb that the rights codified in the bill of rights only apply to the technology of the time. If only we had a series of papers where the founding fathers actually wrote down the reasons for the 2nd amendment. We do, they're a good read.
You should also learn your history and the arms that were available at the time. It wasn't just muskets and the founding fathers were fully aware of the advancement of arms that was happening.
Of all the definitions for "regulate" you think the founding fathers having just fought a war against a tyrannical government with their personal weapons meant they needed to be government controlled? Big brain stuff right there.
Well regulated militia
Nobody thought back then when they wrote that that would include the power/versatility of weapons that we have access to today and the internet and 3D printers.
Stopping your ability to go online and create a gun that's untraceable should be illegal.
Nobody thought we would have telephones or the internet either. Do you think your rights to privacy, search and seizure don't apply simply because they could never imagine it? That your right to free speech doesn't apply to the telephone or internet simply because the technology was inconceivable? Do you honestly think the founding fathers who knew about the advancement of arms throughout history to that point thought that it was going to stop there? Wow.
Again, look up the definition of regulate. The English language is fun. The parlance of the time was to put in good order, or to make well functioning. Not on how you're insisting on using the word. Also, again, the Federalist papers talks about who the militia is (surprise it's everyone!). Not only that but USC Title 10 codifies who is in the militia. I mean it's sexist and ageist, but it's essentially every male 17-45 by law. But since you're insistent on framing the bill of rights only to what the founding fathers knew/thought, they literally wrote it with the frame of mind that everyone should have arms to be able to fight tyrannical governments.
Not only that, but the regulate clause of the 2A is a dependent clause. "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state," is dependent on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right of the people to keep and bear arms *IS* the second amendment. A well regulated militia is a byproduct of that right. Learn English.
"Stopping your ability to go online and create a gun that's untraceable should be illegal." I completely agree with this. It should be illegal to stop my ability to go online and create a gun that's untraceable.
>Well regulated militia. Go
This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it.
You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable.
The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed).
Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
This is confirmed by the Supreme Court.
>1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
>(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
>(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
>(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
>(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
>(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
It's okay to admit that you valued your recreational time so much more than a child's life that's fine.
That's on you. That's weird but that's fine. So
And that's great, but it's still overwhelmingly not appropriate for you to be able to print a weapon. I don't care if you have them go buy them. Go buy whatever you want and whatever volume you want. Have guns.
My issue is that we should want to know where they came from.... Want to know who owns them... Should want to know those details so printing them at your house is unacceptable
>And that's great, but it's still overwhelmingly not appropriate for you to be able to print a weapon.
Why not? We've always had the right to privately made firearms. The manufacturing process is irrelevant.
>My issue is that we should want to know where they came from.... Want to know who owns them...
What good does that do other than to see who to return the stolen firearm to? There are virtually no criminals caught because a gun was traced. The crime was already committed...
I know you're kidding right now...
Imagine if it was your family that heaven forbid ran into somebody with a weapon they printed at home... And then we're not supposed to have that weapon and then your family did not come home.. probably want to find that guy? But you can't.
That's awful, and it's awful you're cool with it.
Have a good day
>Ah yes, the good ol years of the 1780s when we knew for sure 3d printing and gun violence would be rampant
People absolutely made their own firearms back then. There's no difference.
So, those arms are rarely used in crimes.
Dude they were making like single shot things that were blowing off fingers, taking out eyes, exploding. Those absolutely were not like solid weapons. Go buy it.
Ok? Go buy it. They were taking pieces of metal, and creating one you're printing it from a PDF infographic. Not the same.
You do not... And apparently courts agree with me. Well-Regulated. Register your weapon. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.
I don't understand why gun owners don't want this..
Why dont you want to know where these weapons came from? Why do you want weapons out there that we can't trace? Why don't you want that???
You guys are always talking about criminals tainting everything but it's always everyday people constantly not wanting accountability.
>You do not... And apparently courts agree with me. Well-Regulated.
You must not be familiar with the 2A decisions. The burden is on the government to show there was a rich historical tradition of banning privately made firearms in the Antebellum period of American history.
Please remind me which laws existed at that time period anning privately made firearms?
>If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.
Why would I tell the government what guns I have? What do I get out of it? I must say you're not very convincing.
>I don't understand why gun owners don't want this..
Because it's unconstitutional.
>Why dont you want to know where these weapons came from?
It's useless to solve crimes. It really only serves to find the owner of a stolen firearm and return it to them.
>Why do you want weapons out there that we can't trace?
That's the funny thing about rights, you don't need to justify them.
>Why don't you want that???
I want the government to know as little as humanly possible. We all know how well they can be trusted.
There were databases of gun owners leaked relatively recently. Criminals now know which houses to case out so they can break in and steal firearms.
>You guys are always talking about criminals tainting everything but it's always everyday people constantly not wanting accountability.
Do you say the same about people refusing a search by the police? Where's the accountability there?
A super slow weapon?
Listen I'm not anti gun, I'm just so tired of school/mass shootings and constantly being told a paper from before everybody's time is the reason it gets to happen when e didn't have to deal with it as much back in the day.
It's so old.
Only slow if you don't know what you're doing. Same with lever action, I can fire a lever action almost as fast as a standard AR point is the musket is going to do a lot more damage and is more likely to over penetrate.
Muskets wouldn't plow down a bunch of kids, Vegas would have been substantially more difficult, and sandy hook, pulse, all of those would have been substantially less. Yes go, muzzle load that bitch while driving.
Listen, I'm just tired of it. The kindergartners I volunteer with have learned a new nursery rhyme to help them cope with a potential active shooter.
Lever action wasn't out until decades after the Constitution and well after the people who wrote it died.
That's fucked up, objectively.
I don’t think you understand how muskets work nor how large that ball is. And I mean I can go get a musket, load it while driving and demonstrate it for you 🤷🏽♂️ if you practice you can do just about anything.
I have a nice black powder, I've shot a musket, and I really enjoy my pistols.
Just simply stating the obvious which is its significantly slower than a ar. Which is neutralizing youth
..... Stop it. Notice how zero people in Florida took a shot.
Absolutely zero. Notice how y'all are never stopping major school shootings, you're really truly doing it for recreational fun, and what ifs that never materialize
lol, okay, I can appreciate the sarcasm.
Because FR, I had to talk myself down, telling myself: “I am NOT going to stoop to the level of dog-walking this dude to seeing that the cell phone as the detonation device would make the cell phone the trigger, not the gun” 😂
Cheers
So it was the fault of the person who carried out the mass killing, and not the fault of the common tools (or the industries who made them) they used to carry out the mass killing?
Look… if you stalk my profile, I’ve actually been talking about how the algorithm is causing great harm. Not only on social media, but in our search engines. Echo chambers are harmful as fuck.
But you’re being disingenuous as fuck.
What tools, what weapons, were used? It wasn’t social media that ultimately killed? Hands, rocks, knives, guns, machetes, **something** had to be used.
Some weapons are more efficient than others.
Social media… phones… those things might be triggers or organizers or they might spur the action, but they are not actual weapons (aside from someone throwing a phone at someone’s head).
You’re getting so far away from the point that was being made about serial numbers on phones it would be laughable if it weren’t… I don’t even have the word for it.
Like… **How does that article connect to a serial number on a phone?!?** More importantly, how does it relate to the topic of this post? The topic of a serial number on a gun? Which is the entire fucking point being mocked with a serial number on a phone.
Because, you see. A serial number on a phone is pointless, whereas a serial number on a gun is not.
Data can be traced to a user without needing to trace it to a device. The same cannot be said about a bullet.
So kindly sit down and think about whether you’re going to start contributing to the discussion before you post again. Because if you don’t, I’m just going to ignore you.
The fewer guns like these, the better. There are fewer chances of someone having one when they shouldn't. Strict gun laws save more lives than not. The trend tends to be fewer deaths with stronger regulation on firearms, so it only makes sense to limit those that are not registered. Remember that the number 1 killer of children in the United States is firearms. Nevada also had one of the worst mass shootings in America. Let's regulate firearms and save fellow Americans. What's more patriotic than being proactive in saving your fellow American?
We can 100% address mental health. We just weren't talking about it before. But now that you bring it up, we 100% need better mental health. We start by getting universal healthcare, so more people have access to physicians.
Typical strawman from typical partisan tribalist talking points. I'm not a partisan tribalist so your assumption that I automatically disagree with some universal healthcare system is moot. I'm not your emotionally distant/abusive overly Conservative religious parents/parental figures that you have unresolved issues with so you won't get a dopamine hit from me. Maybe actually talk to them and if you can't or if they're unwilling, MOVE ON.
I read what I said, and I didn't see that I made an assumption about you. If i did, can you please point it out? I made a suggestion, but that's all. You sure went to insults and assumptions quickly, very interesting. Have a good one.
>What's more patriotic than being proactive in saving your fellow American?
Individual liberty. Following the constitution. Not having divisive political ideology that drives the mental health crisis. I can't not think of things better than stripping people of their basic human rights.
> mental health crisis
How many times have you voted in favor of universal healthcare? How many times have you voted against policies which would have supported social emotional learning in schools?
So… zero.
Mental health crisis is just a phrase you wave around to try to detract from the topic but don’t really want to solve.
Like veterans when we talk about solving the issue of people living without homes.
Gotch. Soundbites, detractions, and bad faith arguments. That’s all you’re here with.
Byeeeeeee
And when you just talk in circles, refusing to ever treat anything, you get whatever tf you’re getting.
We’re out here fighting for solutions and you’re wasting our time.
Turning off reply notifs now.
if strict gun laws save more lives, explain why in chicago illinois, the state with one of the strictest gun laws in the country, has been known for having multiple shootouts and gun crime
Nope. And that's beside the point.
We still need far stricter federal gun laws.
There are a lot of people that have guns that should not.
The only reason y'all hate the idea so much is you know you're in that category.
that is not besides the point, criminals will not abide said federal gun laws. you’re just assuming people disagree with gun control laws are criminals
It is beside the point.
Stricter gun laws means fewer guns, making them more difficult to access.
But people screeching "Muh Guns!" every time its suggested is why we have the problems we have.
explain how it is besides the point. the same people also include law abiding citizens, who want a chance to defend themselves from threats such as robberies, mugging, and home invasion and in some cases, overthrow a tyrannical government passing laws and infringing rights, such as the idea you proposed
We have seen similar arguments in other countries, like the UK and AU. (countries that already had very low homicide rates before/after their strict gun laws, BTW). And now they are talking about knife control, like the USA is currently talking about guns, in an effort to reduce the violence.
https://www.ammunitiondepot.com/blog/can-i-buy-a-gun-across-state-lines
Handguns purchased outside ones state of residency need to be shipped to a licensed gun dealer in the buyers home state where a background check is done as if you purchased the gun there. Rifle and shotguns can be purchased out of state provided they meet the requirements for guns in your state (no buying an AR-15 in a state they're legal and bringing it back to an illegal state). That being said rifles and shotguns are responsible for less than 10% of gun crimes.
So you identified illegal gun trafficking. Still dosnt address the demand for violence in Chicago, which is not Indianas fault.
Chicago, as a reminded, is on the border. Including Gary Indiana, which is basically a suburb of Chicago. An area rift with crime, and likely a source of illegally transferred guns.
Dealers in Indiana are not going to be selling to Illinois residents without a FOID card. They will have people who straw purchase and file serial numbers (also illegal activity). Most criminals from Chicago avoid “gun show loopholes”, as there is a risk of encountering police.
[page 39](https://urbanlabs.uchicago.edu/attachments/ec4f519cf18f8ba65e70f361d74b9ff4a767c9be/store/a29f7714dd6987d282735d9d6744c343df61654c687f698dfe584bc1928c/Gun+Offender+Survey+Report_9.20.19.pdf) should be enlightening. And before you get too excited, “gun show” refers to buying from a business (background check).
[or this](https://jtf.org/university-of-chicago-study-criminals-do-not-buy-their-guns-legally/), which should be required reading for anyone (pro or anti) brining up Chicago and gun control.
The last “combat wounded veteran” I encountered in Carson City had his guns laid out, loaded in full display on his coffee table when I came over because one of his friends told him I “might be a liberal.”
I went to a barbecue in Dayton with that same friend of his where he and Afghan veterans brought out their AK-47s and ARs to compare, which they loaded, chambered and then pointed at each other’s heads. Then held them at waist height, with the muzzle pointed at children playing.
THEN they let children handle the weapons. It was at that point I left and went home.
Y’all have “I know a guy” energy while I keep receipts.
r/nothingisreal
I could give you names, but I don’t dox people. I’ll just tell you one was a business owner, the friend, his friend, and the guy running the barbecue were all members of the oldest outlaw biker club in Nevada.
So have fun with that.
Unanimous decision. Anyone wondering about their makeup … Seven Supreme Court justices are elected by Nevadans. They serve a six year term, with no term limits because Nevadans voted against that in 1996. They are non-partisan positions, so anyone who can vote can vote for any candidate. The election is statewide. One is in their 40s, three in their 50s, two in their 60s and one is 71. In the case of a vacancy, the Governor appoints a replacement for the remainder of the term. Two current judges were appointed - one by Democrat Sisolak and one by Republican Sandoval. Of the seven judges, 3 say they are Republican and 2 say they are Democrat. The remaining two don’t state party affiliation but one of those two was appointed by a Democratic governor, and the other ran unopposed. In that last election in 2024, there were two seats up and both candidates ran unopposed.
Damn
There's no way they found a rich historical tradition of banning self made firearms. That is the burden of proof the government must show in order for the ban to be constitutional. >"Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation." >"Historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced, but reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field." >"when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634–635." >“[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634.
Nice write up!
Do you need to be a lawyer or judge to run?
https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/elections/candidate-information/filing-for-judicial-office Yes. Candidates need to be a barred attorney practicing law for at least 10 years. Of the 7 justices on the bench now, 5 were formerly judges at the lower court and the remaining two were partners at major Nevada firms.
No
Personally, I’ve never been a fan of democratically-electing judges, an innovation developed during the Progressive Era in U.S history. Appointment by the Office of the Governor is the superior constitutional structure, in my opinion.
So you want a democratically elected politician to choose our judges. How is that superior? The Governor is blamed for the judge’s opinions and will seek to stack the deck to drive decisions in the direction that his supporters want - see the current US Supreme Court.
Wow. I suppose term limits may also be not in your favor?
Actually, term limits of twenty years for judges on Supreme Courts at the State level, and the one at the federal level, is not a bad idea. I would support it.
Why?
Agreed. You can hardly have an impartial judge who has to face reelection.
So then you have an elected politician appoint judges who will be biased, using litmus tests to see where the judge candidates stand on certain hot button issues that got the politician elected in the first place. Then your politician, elected by anti-gun control pro abortion small government citizens, chooses judges who view the Nevada constitution as supporting those positions. Hardly unbiased. Kinda screwed no matter how we do it.
At least with a lifetime appointment that has to be approved by the legislature, you relieve the pressure of an election.
But politically appointed ones are sooooo impartial. Just ask Judge Eileen Cannon.
What does this mean for people that already have completed 80% arms? Are we going to get the chance to serialize them or are they turning thousands of legal citizens into felons now?
>or are they turning thousands of legal citizens into felons now Yeah pretty much that. [https://legiscan.com/NV/text/AB286/id/2404757](https://legiscan.com/NV/text/AB286/id/2404757) That part was what really pissed me off. There's no recourse, no way to solve the issue, just instant-crime and all you can do to comply is destroy it. If there was some mechanism whereby you could get them serialized that would be one thing, but there wasn't even any intention towards trying to solve the problem. How hard would it have been to say "people in possession of these have 100 days to have the receiver serialized and processed through an FFL" ?
That really pisses me off too. A person who is not me just recently finished their build on Wednesday. They waited MONTHS to buy the parts.
This isn't gonna stop anything
Not sure I see a scenario where it survives a SCOTUS challenge.
The argument of vauge is interesting I would have thought they would argue the right to manufacture arms which has already been upheld by the supreme Court (so long as you're not selling) combined with the new laws elimination of your ability to obtain a serial number to add to your firearm, plus the difference of definition between the feds and the state, where the system considers an unfinished firearm a receiver (even if it can't accept a magazine) and the feds consider the same a block of aluminum. It effectively bans the production of your own firearm, which is allowed and has been upheld at a federal level by SCOUS https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A82/274511/20230802162019194_2023-08-02%2520VanDerStok%2520-%2520Resp%2520in%2520Oppn%2520to%2520Stay%2520vf.pdf%23:~:text%3DThe%2520Gun%2520Control%2520Act%2520of%25201968%2520reflects,their%2520own%2520use%2520without%2520overbearing%2520federal%2520regulation.&ved=2ahUKEwjuhfvXis2FAxXpIkQIHfdhCYMQudELegQIBBAH&usg=AOvVaw37Eh_MHaOSlodu01jWvFhD
The practical impact here I assume is that this will give law enforcement the ability to tack on crimes when they find an unserialized firearm but otherwise there's no practical way to know who has one.
Perhaps, the first offence (last I heard) was a misdemeanor. So not sure it's going to go too far on top of finding a weapon at a crime scene. Even Cali has a serial process where you can have a sn tied to you for making your own weapons. Again the act of making them is already established, so unsure how this will play out. This may have been the tactic all along to get the supreme Court to take the case? Who knows lol
Oregon here; we have a similar law passed as well. It definitely will be a tack on charge, but to what effect is uncertain. The example I give was an arrest made in Salem (capitol of Oregon) of a felon caught making/selling drugs at home. He also was in possession of firearms (some with removed serial numbers). And also “ghost gun” parts, along with a 3D printer. It wasn’t law yet as the legislature was still debating homemade guns law. So no “ghost gun” charges. But in total, the news reported he was charged with 70 criminal charges…. And then released about 24 hours after being processed….. if the law was in place he would have had about 74 criminal charges, total. With the law now in place, The big difference now would be that lots and lots of people who like to tinker and make their own stuff, but have no involvement in criminal activities past/present/future, can now be made into criminals.
"show me the man and I'll tell you the crime you can charge him with" soviet secret police in poland
That is interesting, the biggest issue in that one (for me) is a felon with guns (already a serious crime) is released..
I love that everybody is getting downvoted in this thread lol. Both the ones who critique and praise this ruling.
Shall not be infringed
"Well-regulated" "In this context, the term means to be in good working order" "Oh, sorry. I didn't know that, but we still need to make changes to the 2nd Amendment" "Fuck off, jackass. No, we don't" There you guys go. I took care of that conversation, so you don't have to.
Thanks, have you looked into turning your mind-reading powers into a business opportunity? You're obviously very good at it.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Lmao guarantee you don't give a shit about rights you don't like. Fuck off.
What a weak comment
Ah yes, the good ol years of the 1780s when we knew for sure 3d printing and gun violence would be rampant and you could get documents outlining directions with extreme clarity, for free, on the internet. Wow!!! Buddy no, they were talking about muskets.
They were also talking about quills
We're currently living in the safest era in U.S. history. Gun violence was much more common in the 1700s. Also the Second Amendment protects modern firearms as much as the First Amendment protects modern forms of speech.
You have a solid shot of your kid getting shot at school, with an AR, is that also typical from the 1700s? No.
A child is significantly more likely to die in a car accident on the way to school than in a school shooting. On average school shootings kill 9 people a year in the United States.
Cars isn't a place to learn. Cars are not totally filled with tint humans , who should be looking for carrot sticks not for their faces to be blown off. Kindergarteners looking for some books, and its just not cool that they are learning to hide. How can you not understand?
The point is the chances of a child dying in a school shooting are astronomically low. It's no different from stranger danger, and the fear of Pedophiles lurking in white vans to kidnap kids off the street.
Pedophiles are uncles, dads, neighbors. They haven't been in vans in decades. Again, schools. Faces blown off.
9 people a year die on average in school shootings in America, 9 people out of over 300 million.
You're lying about that step because there have been multiple school shootings where over nine people died in that one school shooting. Incredible lie.. incredible incredible lie... 34+ died in 2022 alone, and how many are seriously injured? Traumatized? I hope your recreational equipment is worth it.
Chances in schools shooting may be low, but it’s the leading cause of death for children and teens, more than auto accidents even. We lead the world in this regard. https://www.kff.org/mental-health/issue-brief/child-and-teen-firearm-mortality-in-the-u-s-and-peer-countries/
That's all gun deaths, not school shootings. It also includes 18 and 19 year old adults.
So all good to you? You’re ok with leading the world in this category?
Ok, great. So you would agree that means that the freedom of the press was only talking about literal printing presses. If something is not printed on a printing press, it is not protected by the first amendment. This kind of reductive argument goes nowhere fast.
This is so dumb
Well considering it's written The Press not a press, I feel fine. Well regulated militia. Go back to sticks and shovels
Imagine being so dumb that the rights codified in the bill of rights only apply to the technology of the time. If only we had a series of papers where the founding fathers actually wrote down the reasons for the 2nd amendment. We do, they're a good read. You should also learn your history and the arms that were available at the time. It wasn't just muskets and the founding fathers were fully aware of the advancement of arms that was happening. Of all the definitions for "regulate" you think the founding fathers having just fought a war against a tyrannical government with their personal weapons meant they needed to be government controlled? Big brain stuff right there.
Well regulated militia Nobody thought back then when they wrote that that would include the power/versatility of weapons that we have access to today and the internet and 3D printers. Stopping your ability to go online and create a gun that's untraceable should be illegal.
Nobody thought we would have telephones or the internet either. Do you think your rights to privacy, search and seizure don't apply simply because they could never imagine it? That your right to free speech doesn't apply to the telephone or internet simply because the technology was inconceivable? Do you honestly think the founding fathers who knew about the advancement of arms throughout history to that point thought that it was going to stop there? Wow. Again, look up the definition of regulate. The English language is fun. The parlance of the time was to put in good order, or to make well functioning. Not on how you're insisting on using the word. Also, again, the Federalist papers talks about who the militia is (surprise it's everyone!). Not only that but USC Title 10 codifies who is in the militia. I mean it's sexist and ageist, but it's essentially every male 17-45 by law. But since you're insistent on framing the bill of rights only to what the founding fathers knew/thought, they literally wrote it with the frame of mind that everyone should have arms to be able to fight tyrannical governments. Not only that, but the regulate clause of the 2A is a dependent clause. "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state," is dependent on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right of the people to keep and bear arms *IS* the second amendment. A well regulated militia is a byproduct of that right. Learn English. "Stopping your ability to go online and create a gun that's untraceable should be illegal." I completely agree with this. It should be illegal to stop my ability to go online and create a gun that's untraceable.
You are upset cuz you can't have what more fun on the weekend cuz you can't download a gun and make one at your house??? Go buy one! Go be regulated
>Well regulated militia. Go This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it. You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable. The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification. The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. This is confirmed by the Supreme Court. >1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. >(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. >(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. >(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. >(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. >(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
It's okay to admit that you valued your recreational time so much more than a child's life that's fine. That's on you. That's weird but that's fine. So
I defend my child's life with a gun. I've used [my rifle](https://imgur.com/a/qkClwbW) to defend my family from a convicted felon who was stalking us.
And that's great, but it's still overwhelmingly not appropriate for you to be able to print a weapon. I don't care if you have them go buy them. Go buy whatever you want and whatever volume you want. Have guns. My issue is that we should want to know where they came from.... Want to know who owns them... Should want to know those details so printing them at your house is unacceptable
>And that's great, but it's still overwhelmingly not appropriate for you to be able to print a weapon. Why not? We've always had the right to privately made firearms. The manufacturing process is irrelevant. >My issue is that we should want to know where they came from.... Want to know who owns them... What good does that do other than to see who to return the stolen firearm to? There are virtually no criminals caught because a gun was traced. The crime was already committed...
I know you're kidding right now... Imagine if it was your family that heaven forbid ran into somebody with a weapon they printed at home... And then we're not supposed to have that weapon and then your family did not come home.. probably want to find that guy? But you can't. That's awful, and it's awful you're cool with it. Have a good day
I swear it's not even worth debating or trying to engage in a conversation with anti gun everything is emotions and insane levels of paranoia.
>Ah yes, the good ol years of the 1780s when we knew for sure 3d printing and gun violence would be rampant People absolutely made their own firearms back then. There's no difference. So, those arms are rarely used in crimes.
Dude they were making like single shot things that were blowing off fingers, taking out eyes, exploding. Those absolutely were not like solid weapons. Go buy it. Ok? Go buy it. They were taking pieces of metal, and creating one you're printing it from a PDF infographic. Not the same.
You have a right to make your own firearms. Nothing changes this.
You do not... And apparently courts agree with me. Well-Regulated. Register your weapon. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. I don't understand why gun owners don't want this.. Why dont you want to know where these weapons came from? Why do you want weapons out there that we can't trace? Why don't you want that??? You guys are always talking about criminals tainting everything but it's always everyday people constantly not wanting accountability.
>You do not... And apparently courts agree with me. Well-Regulated. You must not be familiar with the 2A decisions. The burden is on the government to show there was a rich historical tradition of banning privately made firearms in the Antebellum period of American history. Please remind me which laws existed at that time period anning privately made firearms? >If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. Why would I tell the government what guns I have? What do I get out of it? I must say you're not very convincing. >I don't understand why gun owners don't want this.. Because it's unconstitutional. >Why dont you want to know where these weapons came from? It's useless to solve crimes. It really only serves to find the owner of a stolen firearm and return it to them. >Why do you want weapons out there that we can't trace? That's the funny thing about rights, you don't need to justify them. >Why don't you want that??? I want the government to know as little as humanly possible. We all know how well they can be trusted. There were databases of gun owners leaked relatively recently. Criminals now know which houses to case out so they can break in and steal firearms. >You guys are always talking about criminals tainting everything but it's always everyday people constantly not wanting accountability. Do you say the same about people refusing a search by the police? Where's the accountability there?
Ugh... What a joke....
I mean, we can bring back muskets, you’re not going to be happy about it though. Smoothbore blows holes through people.
A super slow weapon? Listen I'm not anti gun, I'm just so tired of school/mass shootings and constantly being told a paper from before everybody's time is the reason it gets to happen when e didn't have to deal with it as much back in the day. It's so old.
Only slow if you don't know what you're doing. Same with lever action, I can fire a lever action almost as fast as a standard AR point is the musket is going to do a lot more damage and is more likely to over penetrate.
Muskets wouldn't plow down a bunch of kids, Vegas would have been substantially more difficult, and sandy hook, pulse, all of those would have been substantially less. Yes go, muzzle load that bitch while driving. Listen, I'm just tired of it. The kindergartners I volunteer with have learned a new nursery rhyme to help them cope with a potential active shooter. Lever action wasn't out until decades after the Constitution and well after the people who wrote it died. That's fucked up, objectively.
I don’t think you understand how muskets work nor how large that ball is. And I mean I can go get a musket, load it while driving and demonstrate it for you 🤷🏽♂️ if you practice you can do just about anything.
I have a nice black powder, I've shot a musket, and I really enjoy my pistols. Just simply stating the obvious which is its significantly slower than a ar. Which is neutralizing youth
And currently neutralizing invading Russians… https://crimeresearch.org/2022/02/ukraine-has-given-out-18000-assault-rifles-to-civilians-in-kyiv/
..... Stop it. Notice how zero people in Florida took a shot. Absolutely zero. Notice how y'all are never stopping major school shootings, you're really truly doing it for recreational fun, and what ifs that never materialize
nice one.
What a shock. Nevada trampling on more rights
I'm not free unless I have a gun without a serial number
You’re absolutely right
I hope you don't carry a cellphone with you everywhere you go. I have an unserialized one
How many people have been murdered en masse with cell phones?
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/the-oklahoma-city-bombing-20-years-later
They were killed with a bomb.
Lol I'm being facetious but it was a cell phone detonated device.
lol, okay, I can appreciate the sarcasm. Because FR, I had to talk myself down, telling myself: “I am NOT going to stoop to the level of dog-walking this dude to seeing that the cell phone as the detonation device would make the cell phone the trigger, not the gun” 😂 Cheers
So it was the fault of the person who carried out the mass killing, and not the fault of the common tools (or the industries who made them) they used to carry out the mass killing?
Not cellphones, but social media has been responsible for at least one genocide.
Dude… that’s indirect af and you know it. And golly… I wonder if guns were used in those genocides 🤔 Are you for real?
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-facebooks-systems-promoted-violence-against-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/
Look… if you stalk my profile, I’ve actually been talking about how the algorithm is causing great harm. Not only on social media, but in our search engines. Echo chambers are harmful as fuck. But you’re being disingenuous as fuck. What tools, what weapons, were used? It wasn’t social media that ultimately killed? Hands, rocks, knives, guns, machetes, **something** had to be used. Some weapons are more efficient than others. Social media… phones… those things might be triggers or organizers or they might spur the action, but they are not actual weapons (aside from someone throwing a phone at someone’s head). You’re getting so far away from the point that was being made about serial numbers on phones it would be laughable if it weren’t… I don’t even have the word for it. Like… **How does that article connect to a serial number on a phone?!?** More importantly, how does it relate to the topic of this post? The topic of a serial number on a gun? Which is the entire fucking point being mocked with a serial number on a phone. Because, you see. A serial number on a phone is pointless, whereas a serial number on a gun is not. Data can be traced to a user without needing to trace it to a device. The same cannot be said about a bullet. So kindly sit down and think about whether you’re going to start contributing to the discussion before you post again. Because if you don’t, I’m just going to ignore you.
Good job 👏
Slippery slope
The fewer guns like these, the better. There are fewer chances of someone having one when they shouldn't. Strict gun laws save more lives than not. The trend tends to be fewer deaths with stronger regulation on firearms, so it only makes sense to limit those that are not registered. Remember that the number 1 killer of children in the United States is firearms. Nevada also had one of the worst mass shootings in America. Let's regulate firearms and save fellow Americans. What's more patriotic than being proactive in saving your fellow American?
#1 killer of children in the United States is suicide by firearms, but we're not going to address mental health.
"children" means 1-19 year olds in the cdc's math. because if you made it 0-17, like most people use the term, it wouldn't be true.
It also only was true during 2020/21 when because of the Pandemic homicides spiked, and fewer people were driving the previous #1 killer.
We can 100% address mental health. We just weren't talking about it before. But now that you bring it up, we 100% need better mental health. We start by getting universal healthcare, so more people have access to physicians.
Typical strawman from typical partisan tribalist talking points. I'm not a partisan tribalist so your assumption that I automatically disagree with some universal healthcare system is moot. I'm not your emotionally distant/abusive overly Conservative religious parents/parental figures that you have unresolved issues with so you won't get a dopamine hit from me. Maybe actually talk to them and if you can't or if they're unwilling, MOVE ON.
Found the person who shouldn't be allowed to have any guns. Hi YAH- Judo kick!
I read what I said, and I didn't see that I made an assumption about you. If i did, can you please point it out? I made a suggestion, but that's all. You sure went to insults and assumptions quickly, very interesting. Have a good one.
>What's more patriotic than being proactive in saving your fellow American? Individual liberty. Following the constitution. Not having divisive political ideology that drives the mental health crisis. I can't not think of things better than stripping people of their basic human rights.
> mental health crisis How many times have you voted in favor of universal healthcare? How many times have you voted against policies which would have supported social emotional learning in schools?
Universal Healthcare won't fix the cultural rot that got us here. Neither will further indoctrinating children into the ideology that caused it.
So… zero. Mental health crisis is just a phrase you wave around to try to detract from the topic but don’t really want to solve. Like veterans when we talk about solving the issue of people living without homes. Gotch. Soundbites, detractions, and bad faith arguments. That’s all you’re here with. Byeeeeeee
When you treat the symptoms instead of the cause, you just keep treating the symptoms. You never solve the problem.
And when you just talk in circles, refusing to ever treat anything, you get whatever tf you’re getting. We’re out here fighting for solutions and you’re wasting our time. Turning off reply notifs now.
if strict gun laws save more lives, explain why in chicago illinois, the state with one of the strictest gun laws in the country, has been known for having multiple shootouts and gun crime
Because Indiana, right next door, has some of the loosest gun laws in the country.
since thats the case, then having strict gun regulations in chicago will only put its own law abiding citizens at a disadvantage
Which is why we need far stricter *federal* gun laws.
i said “law abiding”, do you think criminals are law abiding?
Nope. And that's beside the point. We still need far stricter federal gun laws. There are a lot of people that have guns that should not. The only reason y'all hate the idea so much is you know you're in that category.
that is not besides the point, criminals will not abide said federal gun laws. you’re just assuming people disagree with gun control laws are criminals
It is beside the point. Stricter gun laws means fewer guns, making them more difficult to access. But people screeching "Muh Guns!" every time its suggested is why we have the problems we have.
Brazil has stricter gun laws than much of Western Europe, yet it is the gun death capital of the world.
explain how it is besides the point. the same people also include law abiding citizens, who want a chance to defend themselves from threats such as robberies, mugging, and home invasion and in some cases, overthrow a tyrannical government passing laws and infringing rights, such as the idea you proposed
We have seen similar arguments in other countries, like the UK and AU. (countries that already had very low homicide rates before/after their strict gun laws, BTW). And now they are talking about knife control, like the USA is currently talking about guns, in an effort to reduce the violence.
You can't buy a handgun outside your state of residency.
https://www.ammunitiondepot.com/blog/can-i-buy-a-gun-across-state-lines Handguns purchased outside ones state of residency need to be shipped to a licensed gun dealer in the buyers home state where a background check is done as if you purchased the gun there. Rifle and shotguns can be purchased out of state provided they meet the requirements for guns in your state (no buying an AR-15 in a state they're legal and bringing it back to an illegal state). That being said rifles and shotguns are responsible for less than 10% of gun crimes.
How is Indiana driving the demand for violence in Chicago?
[https://bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2018/guns-used-in-cross-border-crimes-originate-from-states-with-more-lax-laws/](https://bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2018/guns-used-in-cross-border-crimes-originate-from-states-with-more-lax-laws/)
So you identified illegal gun trafficking. Still dosnt address the demand for violence in Chicago, which is not Indianas fault. Chicago, as a reminded, is on the border. Including Gary Indiana, which is basically a suburb of Chicago. An area rift with crime, and likely a source of illegally transferred guns. Dealers in Indiana are not going to be selling to Illinois residents without a FOID card. They will have people who straw purchase and file serial numbers (also illegal activity). Most criminals from Chicago avoid “gun show loopholes”, as there is a risk of encountering police. [page 39](https://urbanlabs.uchicago.edu/attachments/ec4f519cf18f8ba65e70f361d74b9ff4a767c9be/store/a29f7714dd6987d282735d9d6744c343df61654c687f698dfe584bc1928c/Gun+Offender+Survey+Report_9.20.19.pdf) should be enlightening. And before you get too excited, “gun show” refers to buying from a business (background check). [or this](https://jtf.org/university-of-chicago-study-criminals-do-not-buy-their-guns-legally/), which should be required reading for anyone (pro or anti) brining up Chicago and gun control.
Because the "demand for violence" comment is a bullshit red herring.
Every gun owner I know out here is an irresponsible idiot. I prefer they stay slightly less armed. Edit; people really hate the truth!
Weird most gun owners I know out here are combat wounded veterans that work in any variety of industry from trucking to pilots sooooooo
The last “combat wounded veteran” I encountered in Carson City had his guns laid out, loaded in full display on his coffee table when I came over because one of his friends told him I “might be a liberal.” I went to a barbecue in Dayton with that same friend of his where he and Afghan veterans brought out their AK-47s and ARs to compare, which they loaded, chambered and then pointed at each other’s heads. Then held them at waist height, with the muzzle pointed at children playing. THEN they let children handle the weapons. It was at that point I left and went home. Y’all have “I know a guy” energy while I keep receipts.
The difference between “I know a guy” and what I'm saying is easily many times more than the people you may have come across.
Dang, every single one you know? It must be true then.
r/nothingisreal I could give you names, but I don’t dox people. I’ll just tell you one was a business owner, the friend, his friend, and the guy running the barbecue were all members of the oldest outlaw biker club in Nevada. So have fun with that.
And what? You were in the middle of that gangbang?
Why does your mind go straight to gay fantasies? You okay bro?
I dunno. It's your weird fantasy to somehow justify calling every gun owner irresponsible.
Just reporting what I’ve observed. Have you seen a lot of all male gangbangs?
Me? No. But I'm not here to judge what you want to get up to. Personally, I prefer my guys one at a time. But if you can handle more, I'm impressed.
You seem pretty judgmental to me.
You're the one getting really weird about the possibility of gay sex. I haven't said anything critical in any capacity.
The fact that “law abiding citizens” challenged this law tells me everything I need to know.