Cocks not Glocks

>Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed the campus-carry bill into law in June 2015, extending the right of gun owners to carry concealed handguns on campus. The law went into effect on August 1 of this year. While the bill affects colleges across the state, the date is especially meaningful for the University of Texas. August 1 marked the 50th anniversary of the University of Texas Tower massacre, when Charles Whitman, a former Marine, shot 49 people from the bell tower, killing 17.

>Campus carry has opened a deep political fault on campus. One dean and at least three faculty members (at Texas and other colleges) have resigned over the law. (This writer, a University of Texas alum, knows one prospective hire who declined a faculty position at the school due to the campus-carry ordinance.) Gun-owners’-rights groups, meanwhile, staged a fake mass shooting in Austin in December to demonstrate their belief that so-called “gun-free zones” are the problem making mass shootings so lethal. Faculty members also sued to block the law, which has inspired numerous protests at the Texas state capitol.

>The campus-carry law changed very little about where students can actually bear firearms. According to the university FAQ page (campuscarry.utexas.edu), students have had the right to carry concealed firearms on campus, but not inside buildings, for 20 years. Fewer than 1 percent of students at the university are licensed to carry firearms; only students over 21 are even eligible to be licensed, and fewer than 500 students of age live in on-campus dorms (where concealed firearms are now permitted).

...

>Yet a simple count of the number of students enabled by the law does not convey its total impact in Austin. Jin, an alum who graduated from the university two years ago, says that a small but vocal minority of students has persistently harassed and threatened her and other demonstrators. She says she has received thousands of emails and posts on the group’s event page expressing misogynist, hateful, and racist messages. One group even published her home address.

>“There’s a lot of people openly expressing that they would take joy if we were assaulted or raped with our protest devices,” Jin says. “They’re like, ‘We can’t wait to see them get raped by their own toys, because they’d be inviting sexual assault, and then they’ll wish they had a gun.’”

>Wherever individual students might stand on the Second Amendment—or on First Amendment rights to protest a state law—the campus-carry argument has divided college students into familiar camps. Women, people of color, and members of the LGBT community on campus make up the majority of the more than 10,000 people who have expressed support for the Cocks Not Glocks protest by RSVPing for the event.

>At present, Jin has 4,500 dildos to pass out, most of them donations from sex-toy distributors far and wide. The majority, in fact, are shapeless vibrators from Singapore. Hustler Hollywood and local artists have also contributed to the cause. While Jin was previously housing the devices in a sympathetic faculty member’s attic, she is now storing the sex toys in a warehouse maintained by a local sex shop, Dreamers.
...

>Jin characterizes the students who are most aggressive about their rights to carry firearms on campus as cisgender straight white men. They are anecdotally the same men who face off opposite against women, people of color, and the queer community in the culture wars over rape culture, internet speech, and transgender rights. Campus carry has introduced more firearms, however few in total, into a culture war already brimming with violent rhetoric.

>“These are the same people who call themselves level-headed, law-abiding gun owners, yet they’re wishing violence on other people,” Jin says. “They can’t even take a joke.”

>Jin courts this cultural confrontation directly by twisting a motto favored by gun owners. Instead of “Come and Take It”—the very don’t-tread-on-me logo supported by open-carry activists, usually appearing over an image of an assault rifle—the Cocks Not Glocks campaign marches under the slogan, “Take It and Come.”

>“There have been, obviously, straight and heterosexual men who are part of our team,” Jin says. “But the people who are running forward, dildo flags flying, are mainly not them.”

>>68414
>“These are the same people who call themselves level-headed, law-abiding gun owners, yet they’re wishing violence on other people,” Jin says. “They can’t even take a joke.”

>campaign to take away people's rights
>they react angrily
>haha it's just a prank bro! (not really)

>>68411
Not gonna lie, this is pretty fucking awesome.

And no matter your politics, you have to admit that it's a little messed up to have a law specifically allowing you to open carry a gun at the same time as a low specifically not allowing you to open carry a dildo.

>>68413
>Jin has 4,500 dildos to pass out, most of them donations from sex-toy distributors far and wide

Wow. That's a lot of penises.

Kinda wish I went to school at University of Texas. I want a free dildo.

>>68417
No, this isn't stupid. Caring a dildo is lewd and indecent. There is no way that banning concealed carry on campus will stop a single shooting. Anyone who wants to bring in a concealed firearm and commit a murder can do it, with pure without the law. This law just gives potential victims a chance, even a small one, to defend thrmselves, should the need arise

Attention whore wants to spread degeneracy while stealing peoples rights all in the name of virtue signalling, how surprising.

>>68446
Has there ever been a case of a mass shooting being stopped by some other law abiding citizen carrying a firearm?

>>68480
Yes. Yes there has. Especially in Texas.

>>68480
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_shooting

>>68476
Exactly. Not enough rights. She needs some more

>>68480
You don't hear about them (and if you do, you're not likely to remember) as much because they were prevented from becoming mass shootings.

>>68411
>cocks not glocks
>whynotboth.webm

But seriously? Any of you /news/fags (seems like /pol/, /b/ and /int/ from what I have seen) ever BEEN to our weapons board?

You cannot make it through a thread of people posting their own guns without a dildo sneaking into a pic. This campaign is targeting fudds, when the people campus carrying a) have a decent chance of being gay, or using dildoes, b) or are milfags on the GI bill, who universally find dildos HILARIOUS.
Dumb campaign, for being so poorly targeted, but I do hope they get the right to carry dongs back. I want that to become a thing everywhere. People just carrying dicks around all the time.

>>68446
>>68476
Fucking /pol/.
As soon as I see the word "degenerate", I just assume the poster is full-blown retarded, and is dictating their post through a tard-wrangler.

>>68480
Loads actually. Ask that question on /k/. There have been threads with 100+ examples. With newspaper and stats sources cited. FBI actually did a study on it recently that turned up in carriers' favour. But of course you'll never hear about THAT on the daily show or any major network.

>>68515
I saw an article on a gun site that listed mass shootings that were stopped in New York Mills at&t, Sullivan central high school, freewill Baptist Church, mystic strip club, an Austin Texas construction site, cache valley hospital. But to be honest some of them were stretching things a bit, the new York Mills one, for example the shooter was 79 years old. And others were law enforcement personnel stopping the shooter, not armed civilians. There was a mass shooting stopped in a south Carolina nightclub this year too.

Eugene Volokh found 10 incidents from 1997 to 2015 where a civilian with a gun made a difference.

The FBI studied this from 2000 to 2013 and of their 160 active shooter events 107 ended before police arrived. Of the 107 there were five which ended "after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters."

I don't know if they included armed individuals ending incidents without exchanging gunfire with the perpetrator. In 21 incidents unarmed individuals "safely and successfully restrained the shooter."

For context the new York times ran an article this year that estimates there is a shooting every day in the USA that leaves at least four people wounded or dead.

However defensive gun is is really hard to document, and reports vary from as low as 2,000 times per year in the USA up into the millions.

There's an article on politico last year that similarly details times where armed civilians don't help at all, or get themselves killed.

What we don't have is an actual scholars review of this topic.

>>68516
This is not an example

>>68537
>>68541
I am struggling to find good sources, defensive gun use is really badly documented and studied, but the next place to look might be the /k/ archive ty anons

>>68548

Good work based anon.

>>68548
Think I'll join you in that venture. Thank YOU, anon!

Captcha: 1901

>>68411
I'm not particularly triggered by this. I support concealed carry on campus, and I don't really care if people carry dildos either. Does that make this a failure?

>>68568
Contrary to what you might think, your sole opinion does not define something's success or failure.

>>68568
I really don't think carrying firearms is a good thing to do, public health and safety wise.

Last year the FBI released “Crime in the U.S., 2014,” covering all incidents of gun violence known to law enforcement. According to them the most common known circumstance for gun homicide is “arguments.” The number of people shot to death last year in argumentsnot during the commission of a felony(1,759) dwarfs the number shot to death in gang violence (667) and the number shot to death in drug trafficking (298)—combined. These are arguments over things likeradio-controlled-car races,candy,inheritance of a tractorandroad rage.

I really don't see that arming people makes them safer from gun violence

>>68417
It's not awesome, it's retarded. Pro gun activists can now easily and justifiably say: "our opposition is clearly insane, don't listen to them."

>>68573
Look up where most of these deaths took place and then superimpose that on a map of gun carry laws. If most deaths indeed occur in regions with the most liberal gun laws, then you have a point.

>>68575
According to the law center to prevent gun violence the states with stronger gun laws have fewer gun deaths per capita

>>68575
>most liberal gun laws
I don't think you know what this means.

>>68595
More liberal is more freedom in gun rights, right? Makes sense, doesn't it?

>>68610
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal

>>68414
>cisgender straight white men.
You lost all credibility by scapegoating people based on how they are born. Call others racist and yet fails to see their own bigotry, nice.
>the people against America are sand niggers
>the lazy niggers are leaching off the government
>the cisgender straight white men are oppressing everyone else

>>68541
The idea about banning firearms is not really to stop mass shootings, but to prevent them. It wouldn't happen over night or within a few years, it'd take a much longer time scale to see the full effects of no firearms available to the public. And through out the First world countries that banned firearms, the percentage of shootings is a fraction of what it is in America.

Personally I am against banning firearms. Why should I let someone else restrict my right to hold a firearm just because someone else isn't responsible enough to hold theirs. But since people do slip through the cracks, that also means I assume more responsibility for my own personal safety. A lot of people are lazy and just want things to work, so I can understand them wanting to give up their rights. It's why you get Apple. If there was a different alternative, I'd be more than open to consider it.

>>68639
>>the people against America are sand niggers
>>the lazy niggers are leaching off the government
>>the cisgender straight white men are oppressing everyone else
One of these things is not like the other. See if you can figure out which one and why that is.

>>68576

>law center to prevent gun violence

So, according to gun control supporters and lobbyists, gun control works?

>>68643
The message is scapegoating, fool.

>>68651
Cheap shots from the sideline aren't going to win hearts and minds to your cause anon, feel free to post a criticism of their work though

>>68411
>>68412
>>68413
>>68414
I'd like to see one of these privileged, sheltered college babies try this whole "guns are compensation for small penises" shit with female gun owners.

This is some sexist bullshit.

>>68574
>Pro gun activists can now easily and justifiably say: "our opposition is clearly insane, don't listen to them."

We've been saying that for years. People are only just now realizing it.

>>68576
>law center to prevent gun violence
Biased organization who's existence and funding depends on marketing anti-gun rhetoric.

>states with stronger gun laws have fewer gun deaths per capita
Urban centers are home to the greatest amounts of gun crime, and statistically the strongest gun laws.

Since 1993, gun ownership has been increasing, and homicides with a firearm have been decreasing
https://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/

Moreover, there's simply no no correlation between gun ownership, mass shootings, and murder rates.
https://mises.org/blog/theres-no-correlation-between-gun-ownership-mass-shootings-and-murder-rates

>>68688
>"guns are compensation for small penises" shit with female gun owners.

It's still equally true. They're compensating for their bf/husband's.

>>68690
>It's still equally true. They're compensating for their bf/husband's.

Right, all female gun owners are also straight.

Any other mainstream-mouth-breather stereotypes you'd like to ride into the ground?

>>68691
>Right, all female gun owners are also straight.

Still applies. It's a known fact that lesbians have penis envy.

>>68411
>no dragon dildos

>>68698
>At present, Jin has 4,500 dildos to pass out, most of them donations from sex-toy distributors far and wide.
I'm sure they must have one or two thrown there for the lulz.

>>68689
>complains about some biased public policy think tank
>posts an article from Arthur "Muh Freedom" C. Brooks's biased public policy think tank
>posts a blog from Ryan "Guns Number 1" McMaken
You hypocrite

I also see that you tacitly ignored the actual content of my post

To make it easy for you, if you'd like to see the actual research done on this topic see:

John J. Donohue III,The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy, 13.2 Am. Law Econ. Rev.565-631 (2011),available at http://works.bepress.com/john_donohue/89
>permissive shall issueCCW lawswere linked to significant increases in rates of aggravated assault

And

Colin Loftin et al.,Effects of Restrictive Licensing of Handguns on Homicide and Suicide in the District of Columbia, 325 New Eng. J. Med. 1615, 1615-1620 (Dec. 5, 1991).
>documenting the effectiveness of Washington, D.C.’s law banning handguns (this law was recently repealed following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling finding it unconstitutional in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008)) found that following the enactment of the ban in 1976, there was a 25% decline in homicides committed with firearms and a 23% decline in suicides committed with firearms within the District of Columbia

>>68710
>restricting firearm access reduces firearm related assault and suicide.
well fucking duhh. this however does not mean that those who do not commit crime or are not suicidal should not have access to firearm.

Just to throw my 2 cents in as a Canadian gun owner,
Canadians don't have very much gun crime. It's basically a tiny blip. And even what we do have, once you shave out suicides (which we have a lot of) then there is considerably less per capita than many countries with full gun bans.
But we actually have very permissive gun laws. Not nearly as much as the states, but we even are more permissive in a few ways.
>no restrictions on short barreled shotguns. Stubby shotguns are normal here.
>no caliber restrictions. As soon as new ones get shipped in from russia, I intend to purchase an 11.4mm PTRD anti-tank gun. Because it's fun!
>very relaxed transfer laws. Because people have to be background checked already for their license, I can have any gun or ammo I want sent right to my door via Canada Post (as long as they aren't on strike again)
>no Clinton import bans. I can buy all the retardedly cheap russkie and chinese surplus I want. Russian SKSs for 2 hundo!
And yet nobody is out killing each other. We've done studies too, and for the most part, the consensus is that most of our existing restrictions don't do much. People often don't comply with half of it anyways. People illegally carry, and the mag limit thing is laughable. Most people I know knock the pin out of the mag (that keeps it to 5 rounds) as soon as they get them. You leave one pinned mag, so you can take it to the range without getting ratted out.
The only law that really did anything was the mandatory safety course and license. Because criminals generally don't want to spend a weekend in class in order to own guns.

Cont'd 1/2

>>68724
Cont'd 2/2

What all this says to me, is that American gun crime is not a problem with the availability of guns, but a problem with crazy people. Canada really emphasizes destigmatizing mental health. Your leg is broken? Go get it fixed. Your brain is broken? Go get it fixed.
Meanwhile the states spawned Scientology, which actively fights against people getting psychological help.
Gov. Subsidies for mental health would probably be a far better use of public funds than buybacks or anti-gun campaigns.

Tl:dr- America has a crime and mental health problem, not a gun problem.
Europe's just salty that their countries are figuratively lubing their citizens up for future oppression.

>>68411
So someone post tomorrow with a live feed

>>68716
Over seventy percent of people who attempt suicide and fail will not attempt suicide again. Just under a quarter will attempt and fail again, seven percent will attempt again and succeed.

Nine out of ten people who fail an attempted suicide will not go on to die by suicide.

People who attempt suicide by firearm succeed 90% of the time.

Suicide is overwhelmingly done in the heat of the moment, and an increase in gun ownership correlates with a slightly smaller increase in suicide rate. There is some substitution between suicide methods, however suicide by gun is 2-3.5 times more likely to be successful than suicide by suffocation, the second most lethal method.

>>68724
>>68725
Interesting to hear a Canadian's experience, however I disagree, I think that America has a gun problem

There's almost a gun per person the the us, there's one gun per six people in Canada.

The death rate by firearm in the us is 10.5 people per 100,000, and in Canada it's 1.97

Honestly it's pretty close to five times, almost six times the death rate, for having six times the guns per capita

Not a perfect comparison but it's reasonable to conclude that having more guns results in more gun deaths

>>68411
>a protest to openly brandish and distribute dildos

But what if being surrounded by cocks will trigger any of the 19%-28% campus sexual assault victims!?

Huh? What's that? Ohh, this is invent gun rage this week? But it contradicts the sensitivity we're supposed to feign for -- sorry, sorry. I didn't get this afternoon's memo. Does anyone have the hour's talking points I can borrow?

Huh? Class? What's that?

>>68537
>because they were prevented from becoming mass shootings

A logical conclusion succinctly stated. Sir, do you belong on the Internet? Do you need help getting home?

I hope you guys realize that by paying any attention to this issue whatsoever, you're only further sensationalizing it. There's no such thing as bad publicity. For once in your pathetic lives, can you stop being a bunch of tinfoils and just not feed into the retarded politics of campus kiddies?

If you honestly believe that some Tumblr shitlord brandishing a dildo on a college campus could even remotely be thought of as a precursor to the repealing of our Second Amendment rights, then you're severely mentally deficient and may as well end yourself.

>>68826
There is nothing wrong with highlighting the hypocrisy of the Texas State Obscenity Statute.

>>68710
>I also see that you tacitly ignored the actual content of my post
Directly addressed and refuted. Cry more.

>if you'd like to see the actual research done on this topic see
Everyone has already seen it before, I can assure you. You're getting way too defensive over "research" that doesn't prove what you think it does.

For starters, lets try some more recent studies. (91? Seriously)

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294 (2013)
>The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level.

http://crimeresearch.org/2016/07/new-study-14-5-million-concealed-handgun-permits-last-year-saw-largest-increase-ever-number-permits/ (2016)
>“With about 685,464 full-time police officers in the U.S. from 2005 to 2007, we find that there were about 103 crimes per hundred thousand officers,” the report reads. “For the U.S. population as a whole, the crime rate was 37 times higher—3,813 per hundred thousand people.”
>“We find that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers,” the report says. “Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000.10. That is just one-seventh of the rate for police officers.”

>>68828
>There is nothing wrong with highlighting the hypocrisy of the Texas State Obscenity Statute.
What hypocrisy?

Where is the right to keep and bearing a dildo or any sex toy an enumerated right in the constitution? Why should we take you seriously if you thin carrying a gun on you is equivalent in any way shape or form to carrying a dildo?

Do gun control nutters keep trying to make the conversation about firearms sexual because it's some sort of fetish for them?

>>68849
>Where is the right to keep and bearing a dildo or any sex toy an enumerated right in the constitution?
The first amendment. Dildos are free speech.

>Why should we take you seriously if you thin carrying a gun on you is equivalent in any way shape or form to carrying a dildo?
It's absurd that brandishing a dildo is somehow a crime while brandishing a gun not a crime.
>gun control nutters
Opinion instantly discarded. Come back when you know the difference between limiting open carry (much moreso background checks) and "gun control" .

What if there`s a student that was sexually harassed or raped and had to come to school and see this and had a flashback or something....

>>68725

In defence of Scientology (Not that they should be defended) but the psychiatric system is kind of terrible. Any diagnosis is for life so if I ended up smoking too much weed and I end up getting a psychotic episode Im basically fucked for life because of how they treat people. e.g. meds for life.

>>68747
More of a problem with gang violence. The US has hotspots with a lot of gun violence and the rest which is pretty safe. The US is huge, and you can't pretend the entire country has the same level of gun violence.

>>68904

Ding ding ding.

Anon found the largest factor that contributes to firearm-related crime; our inner-cities are absolute shitholes, 2/3rds of incarcerated persons who come from them and get released at the end of their sentences reoffend, and it's so bad that there are kids that grow up in LA and grow up never seeing the ocean.

>so ban guns in the cities, that aughta work, right?

None of the asinine restrictions put in place in the past 20 years of firearm ownership in places like Chicago or Oakland have made it any better. It only takes two pipes and a couple fittings to make a gun good enough to pop Jamal as he walks his dog.

>>68417
You can not open carry the gun, you can conceal carry it whoever, something that these retardes didn't realise they could already do with dildos

>>68575
That's not relevant to what he's saying. He's saying even people who aren't mass shooters and who aren't in gangs and who aren't criminals can't be trusted to have guns on them all the time. (not to say I agree, just that that's what the argument is and where it happens is not really relevant to the argument)

>>68716
When are you guys going to get it? People who are strongly anti-gun don't care. They consider those right to be acceptable losses as long as they can save some lives. (Also they often don't have the good fortune of knowing any responsible gun owners, or can't see them for what they because of ingrained prejudices.)

You guys are just salty because leftist liberals took the meme crown and won't give it back. They can stir people to laugh or to hate more often and openly than just about anyone else in today's America, and you're fucking healous, and it's almost adorable.

>>68939
*jealous

>>68861
Maybe if you told your doc it was a cannabis induced psychotic episode, he would be able to diagnosis you correctly.
See another doc to change your medical dossier/file if the first one refuses to correct himself (and consider reporting him to whomever is in charge of medical licences in your country.)

There are two people you should never lie to : your doctor and your lawyer.
(Coincidently, there are two women you should never have sex with : their wives.)

Source : a friend was diagnosis as schizophreniac after an OD on various drugs including LSD. She was seeing fairies when she arrived at the emergencies.
It took her a few years with her new doc before realising the thing was a error and stopped her anti-psychosis drugs following guide rules. Would have been way faster if she told him right off the bat that she thought the previous diagnosis was erroneous.
She's fine now.

>>68939
Man, who's salty?
Post this on /k/ and all you'll get is pics of guns with dildos.

I think you're probably mistaking interest for being upset. If this board allowed images, I'd mount sex toys to a rifle and post it.
THE VIBRATION MAKES IT TWICE AS DEADLY!
A whole new meaning to "overpenetration"

As a moderate, I have to say. This is pretty fucking retarded.

>>68742
>suicide is generally done without premeditation
I've seen you pedal this misinformation in other threads, fuck off

I know you're the same guy

>>68850
>The first amendment. Dildos are free speech.
You think "Dildos" are the only arguable form of free speech that campus prohibits?
Do you think said limits are all also equally as dumb?
Can you see how this might fall somewhere, comparatively, along the lines of displaying pornography?

>It's absurd that brandishing a dildo is somehow a crime while brandishing a gun not a crime.
It's not at all. Unless you're the kind of person who projects their sexuality onto firearms by insisting gun owners are compensating for something.
A concept I'm sure has absolutely no bearing on the origins for the protest.

The two concepts otherwise honestly have absolutley nothing to do with each other.

>limiting open carry (much moreso background checks)
What do these two things have anything to do with each other?

How does conducting background checks make people open carry less?

>>69152
>You think "Dildos" are the only arguable form of free speech that campus prohibits?
Nice straw man.

>It's not at all.
Yes it is, the entire Texas Obscenity Statute is, off which this is but one small provision. Thus the protest. If anyone really cared then the State Troopers should have been down at UT arresting students left and right, but that's not what happened. Perhaps the cops agree with the students.

>What do these two things have anything to do with each other?
They're the two major revisions in federal gun ownership regulations being proposed mostly by democrats. Not "getting rid of the 2nd amendment" as some would have you think.

>How does conducting background checks make people open carry less?
People wouldn't have as easy of a time acquiring a gun in the first place.

>>69161
Quick question: what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you get?

>>69418
The part that gets 'well regulated'.

>>69481
Here, then: http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm .

>>69483
Also, see Federalist Paper No. 46.:

>Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation , the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments of the several kingdoms of Europe , which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms . And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny of Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

That seems to me to describe a culture where citizens arm themselves, participate together in a militia, and actively use that militia to guard the interests of their local community. The purpose of the militia was to protect citizens against potential tyranny of a strong central government.

So if you really want to look at this from a historical, framers' intent perspective, the problem isn't that people have guns and are uncontrolled. The problem is that not nearly enough people with guns are banding together and threatening Washington D.C.

>>68850

>It's absurd that brandishing a dildo is somehow a crime while brandishing a gun not a crime.

Actually, 'brandishing' a firearm is a Federal offense. But please, continue to be ignorant and spout nonsense.

>>69525

Brandish: wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/brandishing-law/

It is very much a felony. Please use words you actually understand.

And I don't know what part of my post was a quote of the Federalist papers. I think you have me confused with someone else.

>>69483
The constitution is a living document.
>>69490
Well it's good to know what the position would have been in 1795, not that it's relevant in the slightest.
>>69521
>brandishing' a firearm is a Federal offense
No it isn't. NNot according to Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 149 (1995) it isn't, at least. It sounds like you're the one who is ignorant, but please by all means continue to quote Federalist papers as though they are relevant today.

>>69527

"Brandishing a weapon of any kind is a felony in most states and a misdemeanor with severe consequences in the remaining states."

>>69526
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-me/legacy/2012/06/01/Summary%20of%20Federal%20Firearms%20Laws%20-%202010.pdf

>Courts have determined that "use" of a firearm requires something more than mere possession; it requires active employment of the weapon. Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 149 (1995) defines active employment to include: "brandishing, displaying, battering, striking with, and most obviously, firing or attempting to fire a firearm." The Bailey
court also notes that "use" can mean "to convert to one's service," "employ," "avail oneself of," and to make "reference to" if referring to the firearm is calculated to make the transaction easier.

>>69528
No it is not. Where the hell are you getting this shit from? It makes

>>69530
....makes me angry that people are out there misleading people.

>>69529
menacing is against the law, brandishing is not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menacing

>>69532

Brandishing is literally menacing in the eyes of the law.

>>69531

I'm not misleading anyone.

"Brandishing or drawing a firearm, or other deadly weapon, can be a serious offense under Penal Code Section 417 if the following elements of the crime are proved:

You took out, exhibited or drew a firearm or other deadly weapon
In the presence of another person
And you did so in a rude, threatening or angry manner, or,
You did so unlawfully while engaged in a fight or argument, and
You were not in the act of self-defense or defending another person"

Brandishing is illegal. Brandishing is, as defined by law, to threaten someone with a weapon.

>>69529

Did you even read what you're quoting? Brandishing is used in the paragraph to determine use of the weapon. Stop being so dense.

bumping, because I laughed all the way through this article.

why is it that a person can carry a deadly weapon anywhere he wants, but a woman can't stuff her pussy when she masturbates? why on Earth does the Texas legislature care how a girl fucks herself, when she decides to fuck herself? I mean, I get not openly brandishing dildos, but you aren't even allowed to HAVE a dildo, in Texas.

they could at least recognize the stress they are putting on their female citizens and issue a pamphlet detailing some alternatives when a girl, or guy, wants 18 inches of latex loving up their poop chute while rubbing one out to Steven Universe, or whatever. They could call it "Fuck This, Not That"

>>69655

There is no law that says women can't have sex toys. Where are you even getting this idea?

>>69664
Hmm... Looks like part of it got nullified, or something. There is an obscenity ban across Texas that has been applied to the sale of sex toys. Selling dildos could get you arrested. Looks like that has been overturned, in parts of the state, in 2008. Still, point stands. Texas doesn't want innocent little girls and boys popping their own cherries with yard long horse cocks from Bad Dragon. They would rather you use a banana, or electric toothbrush, or something God intended for proper anal violation.

>>69672
>Selling dildos could get you arrested.

Selling lemonade from a lemonade stand could get you arrested in some places.

Sounds to me like a permit thing, not some kind of legislated morality.

>>68411
>looneyversities not universities

>>69664
Some states ban(ned) sextoys.
In Fight Club, at the beginning of the film, when the main character land at the airport, his luggage are blocked because there is something vibrating inside.
Probably an electric razor, but possibly a dildo, so the police had to check.
(Then there's confusion because he had the same bag as the other guy because he's actually himself.)

>>69655
>anywhere he wants
You understand that Women carry firearms as well, and that there is zero legislation in Texas regarding sex toys or banning them.
Where did you get the stupid idea that you cant have a dildo in Texas?

>>69527
>suddenly says the constitution has no power when called out on

>>69726
>there is zero legislation in Texas regarding sex toys or banning them.

Uhh.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_obscenity_statute

If you don't want to read til the end, the relevant thing is that it was ruled unconstitutional in the 5th District but upheld in the 13th District, and the Texas AG declined to file with the US Supreme Court to clarify the rulings, so the legislation *still stands* and is enforceable in the 13th District (southeast Texas, inc. Corpus Christi up until Houston).

>>69729
living document =//= no power

She doesn't even go there anymore. Doesn't she have anything better to do with her life?

>>69744
Find one condition of enforcement.
I dare you.
Nowhere does this say that it is illegal to sell or purchase falliace objects in Texas.

>>68530
she needs some lefts too

>>69762
injustice is injustice because it is injustice. it doesn't stop being unjust when it doesn't affect you. don't you care about other people?

>>69770
what do you mean, "one condition?" how about the condition that brought it up to the 5th district court? people don't often launch quixotic lawsuits for shits and giggles.

>>69557
somehow, I don't think the University and the Federal courts are using the same definition of "Brandishing". I don't think the University is worried that some poor student might get beaten with a Magic Rabbit. Obscenity laws typically ban the whole thing, not just the part where you wave it around like a crazy person.

>>70160

The version of 'brandishing' I defined is how it is used in law. Federal or otherwise. And since this topic is about the legal status of an object compared to guns and other weapons, it is the correct definition to use.

Ergo, people need to stop using the term 'brandish' in this case and instead use display or possess.

>>69770
>Nowhere does this say that it is illegal to sell or purchase falliace objects in Texas.

phallic?

And that's exactly what it says. On top of that, it says that public possession of 6 or more dildos is tantamount to intent to distribute.

>>68747
I live in NH, with a known firearm ownership rate of 50%, shall issue concealed carry, no ammo or mag restrictions, and legal open carry.

We have the second lowest state rate of violent crime.

Compare that to Washington D.C. no open carry, almost no CC, mag restrictions, etc.
They're one of the most violent places in the country

Really makes u think

>>70356
The reason why is population density.

>>70359
More like more blacks

>>70356
the number of churches in a town is directly proportional to the number of bars and liquor stores. makes you think.

kek. I like how she's triggering all the /pol/ chucklefucks. I don't even think this debate will ultimately matter but the popcorn is nice.

>>68698
That would prove her wrong. Posting pics of guns and dragon dildos is a /k/ tradition.

if a mass shooting once in a while is the price of freedom then so be it

millions have died in wars for freedom yet less than 0.000001% of the population dies in a mass shooting a few times a year and we have to start giving up rights?

thanks but no thanks

Why not both?

>>68411
We should regulate the spooge inside the dildoes, not the dildoes! It's the only way to prevent it from spilling on people's faces!

>>68690
Or their dildo's small size, which is odd considering you can just buy a larger one with the money you spend on an assault rifle.

>>68861
Yeah the mental health system is underfunded as hell and run like shit, which causes a ton of crime.

>>69655
Sex toys are banned in Alabama iirc, Texas is ok with them though.

>>70879
You really shouldn't use a comparison to deaths in war anon-kun

>number of civilians killed by guns since 1968: 1.5 million
>number of Americans deaths in wars since 1775: 1.4 million

The Bill of rights is a living document, amendments have and should be made when there is reason to.

>>68417
>Open carry
Want to know how I know that you don't know what the fuck the law even is?
Yeah, the right to defend yourself( and possibly others) is more important than lugging around a fucking sex toy being obnoxious and autistic spouting bullshit about muh chilluns and muh "common sense gun laws".