Chippopotanuse

Chippopotanuse t1_iuukmfh wrote

> The Milken Center's first major research project

Would this be convicted financial fraudster Michael Milken?

You know…the guy who was indicted for racketeering and securities fraud in an insider trading investigation?

Who was sentenced to ten years in prison, fined $600 million, and permanently barred from the securities industry by the Securities and Exchange Commission?

And who was pardoned by President Donald Trump on February 18, 2020?

I wish we didn’t allow swindlers and crooks to make billions and then reinvent themselves as celebrity philanthropists. Especially when that involves getting a pardon from a criminal like Trump.

3

Chippopotanuse t1_iumr790 wrote

You just want “the ability” to own one?

Nice dodge of not answering what you actually want to own.

And nice avoidance of articulating when and where you couldn’t own a handgun. Because I’m not aware of any city that EVER banned handgun ownership in our lifetimes.

There are cases wheee cities wanted to regulate whether folks could carry handguns in public, or with a concealed permit. (See DC v Heller, etc…)

But I’m really curious what city you lived in where handgun ownership was outright banned. And this 30-year struggle you talk about.

0

Chippopotanuse t1_iumm97n wrote

You want a machine gun with a laser sight, a noise suppressor, and a high capacity magazine?

Just as I would have guessed.

You are unhinged and need to check your definition of what “law abiding” people means.

You ain’t one of them if you need a fully automatic machine gun with a laser sight.

Omg.

Also - what city and timeframe are you claiming you couldn’t own a handgun?

2

Chippopotanuse t1_ium1l66 wrote

What gun law targets a “law abiding citizen”?

The one that bans felons or domestic abusers from owning guns?

What I’m getting at is this: What gun do you want to own that you are prevented from owning by ANY firearm law past or present? (Because the answer is NONE.)

Because “law abiding citizens” don’t need fully automatic weapons of war.

You can buy whatever you damn well please, and you know it. My uncle had a goddamn arsenal. Close to 100 guns. Bullet making presses. Anything he wanted.

No law said “hey sir…after NINTEY FUCKING FIREARMS maybe you don’t need another AK.” Nope. He was free to pour whatever cash he wanted into weird-ass hobby.

“Law abiding citizens” gun rights are absolutely not under attack in any way, shape, or form. Never have been.

9

Chippopotanuse t1_iujqtme wrote

I think the “attempted assassination” is captured by this charge:

> DePape also was charged with one count of assault of an immediate family member of a US official with the intent to retaliate against the official. That charge relates to a crime allegedly committed against Paul Pelosi and carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison.

60

Chippopotanuse t1_iujl1fn wrote

I can’t stand Republicans.

But anyone who breaks into McConnell or Trump’s house, beats up their spouse with a hammer, and then threatens to break kneecaps deserves a SHIT TON of prison time.

It is insane and absurd that folks on the right are advocating for violence against political enemies, knowing that mentally ill folks like this guy will respond with violence.

All the GOP “stand back and stand by”, “fight like hell”, “take our country back”, and “will be wild” crap needs to end.

116

Chippopotanuse t1_iucw7a2 wrote

Ummm…read what you just wrote.

Sounds like “for a short while, I also lived next to assholes who didn’t properly secure their guns. The kid was a terror, threw my shoes in the pond, and at age 9 he was already threatening to shoot me with a gun he’d be able to sneak out of his dad’s shitty gun safe. Thank god we moved away from that shitshow.”

Seems like confirmation of what I’m talking about. Shitty parents, who need guns for whatever reason, who use a safe that’s so easy to get into that a 9-year old can do it, raising a kid who predictably thinks it’s an acceptable flex to threaten gun violence.

1

Chippopotanuse t1_iu58fto wrote

Which is total bullshit. City needs to stop towing cars for anything other than emergency reasons. Most folks have no clue about street sweeping, half the signs are missing, the machines often don’t even sweep, and the whole “we will steal and impound your car to get you to pay a $40 fine” is total crap.

It’s just a racket by the tow companies and shitty politicians to make MILLIONS of dollars off the backs of folks who can’t afford private parking spots and lots.

14

Chippopotanuse t1_iu4z7yd wrote

Awww. Too bad you hate an attorney general who follows the law, “Smith-Wesson” Pat.

Even though the current SCOTUS is politically compromised, she STILL follows the law and requires local law enforcement to do the same.

So please go back to living in fear of your fellow Massachusetts residents (with all your guns you need for safety), and you are also free to blow up pumpkins with an AR at the range.

3

Chippopotanuse t1_iu4ul3w wrote

No…this isn’t true.

And even though gun folks hate Maura Healey…they can thank her for repealing that:

> Police chiefs in Massachusetts can no longer reject applicants for licenses to carry firearms simply because the person lacks a good reason to carry a gun, according to guidance state Attorney General Maura Healey issued in response to a recent United States Supreme Court ruling.

3

Chippopotanuse t1_iu44kkg wrote

Banning firearm possession creates an entirely new category of criminal jeopardy if they are found in possession.

Felon in possession is a serious crime. And when prosecuted, almost always ends in a jail sentence. Almost always a man. Almost always a US citizen. With an average sentence of 5 years.

Here are some stats for anyone who cares:

  • 97.7% of felon in possession of a firearm offenders were men.

  • 94.5% were United States citizens.

  • 97.6% of felon in possession of a firearm offenders were sentenced to prison; sentences varied widely by whether a mandatory minimum penalty applied in the case.

  • The average sentence for all felon in possession of a firearm offenders was 64 months.

Source: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Felon_In_Possession_FY18.pdf

7

Chippopotanuse t1_iu3sruq wrote

I’m sorry - “Could?!??” The parents “could” get charged with a crime?

There is only ONE way a 7-year old takes a gun to school. And that’s if the parents are way beyond grossly negligent in the storing of their firearms.

The parents NEED to be charged with a crime that bans them from ever owning or possessing firearms again.

271

Chippopotanuse t1_iu3qnq1 wrote

If you want “Mass in a glass”…I got news for you.

It’s gonna come in a plastic cup. Wrapped in a styrofoam cup. And it’ll have a Dunkies logo on the side. “Iced coffee extra extra”

28