It's stupid how fast a gun collection grows on you.
I started out never thinking I'd own a gun, but then my neighborhood hit a sharp decline. :( Lots of drug dealers with pit bulls running loose, it didn't feel safe. More of a pit bull problem than a drug dealer problem.
So I bought my first gun, Beretta 92fs, 9mm, got proficient with it, and felt better for having it in the house. This was, oh, '98? '99 now?
Roll forward a few years, my grandfather passes away, leaves his guns to my dad. My dad has a massive heart attack and passes away, leaves that collection to me.
So the first thing I did was get grand dad's Remington 721 .30-06 bolt action cleaned up and made safe. Problem was it had a defect in the trigger and could just "go off". Armorer fixed that.
Then I'm looking at what dad had collected. He had this little .22LR Hi Standard Derringer, which was cute but useless.
The Ranger II has the opposite problem of the High Standard... it's a BRICK. Not really decent for concealed carry.
After I had MY heart attack, and decided that I needed to start carrying concealed, I got my permit and picked up a .380 that just DISAPPEARS when I'm carrying. You'd never know it was there, which should be the whole point of concealed carry.
But then THAT got me thinking, "Wait... let's do an inventory here..." All these guns from dad and grandad and no shotgun?
So picked up a Mossberg Shockwave to fill that gap.
So, yeah, all told, between dad's guns, grand dad's guns, and my guns, I've ended up with something like 13 or 14 of them? Pistols, rifles, competition target pistols, semi auto, bolt action, lever action, breach loaders... it's all covered.
I wish more political commentators would wrestle with this fact. I understand the need to remain calm and denounce violence, and we should certainly do that! But at the same time, the discussion needs to be had about what to do when all the other options are exhausted. And as you've already outlined, we're running out of options. Basically everything hinges on the vote in November, and I'm under no illusion that Trump and the GQP and SCQTUS will steal it if it's any closer than it was last time. Then what?
I spent 3 years and half a million dollars getting a law degree...and it make me feel good to know that everything I learned there doesn't actually fucking matter. All I needed to learn was that if you are appointed by an authoritarian Cheeto, the law is what you make it.
"The main benefit of controlling a modern bureaucratic state is not the power to persecute the innocent. It is the power to protect the guilty." - David Frum
You pretty much learn this, but then you find your way into camp A that attempts to hold up this system, or Camp B where you attempt to use this system to destroy itself....Camp B is struggling right now.
I was wondering how much this Trump fuckery is going to effect legal precedent since precedent seems to matter quite a lot in the legal system. Or do you think most judges are going to straight up just say Trump gets more legal rights so precedent set by him doesn't matter?
They don't give a shit about precedent. They are fascists appointed by an insurrection leader. They will make decisions that benefit Christian nationalism without regard to anything else.
They're not the only Judges though. If a otherwise normal judge was given an argument in court that brought up the precedent Trump set, laws start to fall apart. I'm worried that many laws will become almost unenforceable no matter who the judge is.
Members of the out group are allowed to argue precedent too, and like I said not every judge is going to be a fascist, so I'm still worried many laws are going to be unenforceable against anyone.
I suggest listening to the podcast Strict Scrutiny. They do a fantastic job of breaking down the way the current Supreme Court has just thrown out nearly every well established precedent. And it pretty much is based upon their own individual ideology and not based on any logical interpretation of the constitution.
I have a friend who had a case before Cannon and told me that she was both one of the stupidest and the meanest judges she's ever dealt with, which is saying something since she practices primarily in Florida. As a representative of the caliber of judges the Federalist Society has to offer, Cannon is pretty damning... and if we get four more years of Trump, the federal bench is going to be stacked with jurists even worse than her.
We are dangerously close to an emperor has no clothes moment in regards to the rule of law. When people digest that the law is whatever it needs to be to suit the needs of the moment, they'll operate as if there is no law and they'll be right. I fear we are already past the point of no return.
When the supreme law of the law, the Constitution, is nullified the Great American Experiment ceases to exist - we are there. The war has already begun.
She really dismissed it over the appointment of a special prosecutor? Completely insane, but the fake Supreme Court will probably rubber stamp it. America is so fucked.
This. Jack Smith hasn't been able to nail her on any of her antics thus far, as they've been plausibly deniable, but her specious reasoning for the dismissal is a prime target for reversal by the 11th Circuit. She's so bad at her job, she can't even stall properly.
If Smith doesn't go to the 11th Circuit, then he was a terrible choice to begin with, and he was never going to win anything.
The question now might be whether he appeals to the 11th Circuit Court or straight to the Supreme Court. I fear either way may be too slow to get anywhere before November.
I doubt this will run its course before November, but if it can be a drain on his sanity and coffers, I'd say it's still in the public interest to keep it going. As someone who listens to Knowledge Fight often, this kind of stuff gets under their skin and derails their ability to be effective at messaging.
Ultimately, it's in the public interest to keep going, if only because it's still a crime that deserves to be tried on the real possibility that he loses in November.
True, but it will all take so long that the case still won't get anywhere before the election. In a way this might even have been the judge's ultimate delay tactic, capping off the slow-walk that she already perpetrated.
It'll put more pressure on Trump's system so I can't complain. Its obv bullshit but it gets the rubes' hopes up so it all balances out. I don't buy his assassination attempt has changed anything
and she doesn't get to rule on a lot of the key decisions she had been dragging her feet on, so when she is replaced that judge will not have to inherit her bullshit decisions on important aspects of the case.
WSJ this morning. The last bit is a stunning self own after Cannon flushed the last remaining parts of the justice system down the toilet today.
"Leaders on both sides need to stop describing the stakes of the election in apocalyptic terms. Democracy won't end if one or the other candidate is elected. Fascism is not aborning if Mr. Trump wins, unless you have little faith in American institutions."
People are picking sides. If you believe trump will win, and you're a coward, and you know that he will go on a reign of terror after inauguration then it makes sense to get in line as soon as possible. Last in line are first against the wall after all. And there will be people against the wall. Mark my words.
Pelosi, Obama, Biden and his family, shumer, aoc, and Cohen will be arrested for treason within weeks and executed. I know it sounds crazy but... ::gestures vaguely at everything::
Doesn't even need a reason. He just has to "gesture vaguely," to borrow your turn of phrase, at Official Acts™. He's already got a hitlist, so he just needs the levers of power to cross off names with impunity.
The Democrat party has had an influx of never Trump centrists and even milquetoast conservatives. The dems will be moving right ward to accommodate those new pick ups until the Maga crowd fizzles out and conservatives go back to the GOP.
Or we have a complete realignment and the parties flip. It's happened before.
This gave Jack Smith the ability to take this and appeal it, which he previously could not do because she refused to publish actual orders ever since Smith appealed a previous bad decision by her and won.
There is simply no way Smith loses this appeal, it will end up in the Supreme Court and that is where the final nail will fall for this case.
Furthermore, she had a FUCK TON of things to make a decision on that were key to the case, thus when she is removed those decisions can still be made instead of the next judge inheriting her bullshit. There is still hope, which is pathetic that we need any but it is what it is.
District Judge Aileen Cannon said in a 93-page order that she has granted Trump's bid to dismiss the indictment based on the unlawful funding and appointment of special counsel Jack Smith, who brought the charges against the former president.
So this should be easy for appeals court to overturn right?
No, if Trump loses, the Republicans will contest the election, which will end up in front of the Supreme Court, who will rule in favor of the Orange Nutsack. Tadaaaaaaa!
I hate to say it, and I know it's going to sound fatalistic, but her decision is very likely going to stand.
Clarence Thomas literally handed her this argument on a silver platter. And say what you will about him, the legal system still considers him one of nine justices of the highest court in the land, and his words still carry that legal weight.
If Jack Smith appeals, there's (IMO), a 50/50 chance he wins on appeal. I could see the appeals court using things like logic and rational thought, kicking Cannon off the case and reinstating the charges against Trump (Or however that would work in the legal sense). But I could also see them saying that since she was merely following what Clarence Thomas told her to do, her decision is on sound legal footing, would most likely survive Supreme Court scrutiny, her decision was proper based on the SC ruling, and the decision stands. And from a strictly legal standpoint, they'd be right in doing so.
And if this case were to make it all the way up to the SC......since Cannon was literally following their blueprint, there's 0% chance that they'll suddenly rule against her. Nothing good can come out of appealing to the Supreme Court, and in fact it may be exactly what this supreme court wants and why Clarence Thomas added that little tidbit into the decision, so the SC can rule that all special counsels are illegal and the entire J6 investigation was unconstitutional as a result.
(Of course, Hunter Biden's conviction will still stand, because reasons.....)
This case is dead. The other three are on life support, and the doctor has already called for the chaplain to deliver last rites.
Because Thomas literally gave her that argument to make in the immunity ruling. She literally cited his comments and basically copied his ruling like a high school kid copying off the "smart" kid in the class.
He basically told her "Hey, throw the case out. We've got your back."
That's the Thomas two-step. He uses these concurrences to issue marching orders to the judges below him, so that it can be challenged up to the Supreme Court and then his concurrence becomes precedent.
Thomas is not the supreme court. And he's starting to alienate himself from even the other conservative justices. He's on an island and I doubt the others would follow his lead if this reaches SCOTUS on appeal.
Slippery greasy fuck. It would be pretty easy for me to believe that God sent him here as the most blatantly obvious punishment to mankind he could come up with.
Like if God came out of the sky smacking his head and saying, "you dumb mother fuckers, why are you still denying my existence? Do you think this useless blob has risen to these ranks and can avoid all logical consequences of gross negligence and evildoing on his own accord? Beelzebub himself had it harder than this guy and was 500x more clever!"
I'd have to look at him and say, yeah man, you've got a good point going there. Sorry about that, could you maybe stop it now though?
Oh, suddenly she can move quickly on something when there's political cover to do what she actually wants.
Unbelievable corruption. And the liberal media is going to be tripping over themselves to talk about this like it's some complicated issue, rather than straightforward political corruption.
The "liberal media" is not "tripping over themselves to talk about this like it's some complicated issue".
The Washington Post called bullshit:
U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon’s ruling is a remarkable win for Trump, whose lawyers have thrown longshot argument after longshot argument to dismiss the case. Other courts have rejected similar arguments to the one that he made in Florida about the legality of Smith’s appointment.
...
Cannon’s decision comes as Trump is preparing to be formally nominated as the Republican presidential nominee in this year’s election, with the Republican National Convention beginning in Milwaukee on Monday.
...
The legal theory that Smith was illegally appointed and funded has generally been considered far-fetched. Trump’s legal team didn’t adopt the argument in court until conservative legal groups pushed it.
This is as far as they can go in saying that "this decision is unhinged" while still maintaining their aura of objectivity. They're not going to do it explicitly in the main article, that will come in the opinion pieces that will be released in a few hours, surely
Nowhere do they explicitly connect this to her political ideology. That's exactly my point, they're soft-selling it.
The liberal media (no quotes needed, they're corporate neoliberal) refuses to actually call a spade a spade.
This is not a critical article, this is just them shrugging and being like "Oh, well, it seems like tenuous grounds for dismissal but thems the licks."
Without intent to offend, perhaps neutral reporting isn't for you. They reported all the facts and leave you to come up with your own opinion, which is a mark of high-quality journalism.
They are a news agency. They are not here to tell you what to think of the news. You want your news to tell you what to think. I want my news to tell me what happened and give me the information necessary to form my own opinion.
If they said explicitly or implied that she did this because of her ideology, even if that is likely true, that would not be unbiased.
There is no such thing as neutral, unbiased reporting. Believing that there is is a mark of media illiteracy. Making the choice not to discuss the obvious conflict of interest is a choice, it is a form of bias. Journalists cannot be unbiased, that's not a possibility with the job.
We should not be allowing a dismantling of our democracy because "you have to be fair to bothsides".
This is an important detail often missed when discussing journalism, objectivity, bias, and, unfortunately, integrity. It's a necessary piece of fabric that has been fraying for years. As another lemmy post some month ago put it, with the loss of the Cronkite era folks lost faith in the fourth estate.
The tragedy is that the stratification of news by party and by medium is that anything right of CNN, most of the fringe blogosphere, and nearly all of the AM stations is that they are presenting opinionated hot takes as journalistic facts. Moreover, this tends to galvanize an already consitent voter base. It seems like without an emotional appeal to resisting consrvative ideologues the rhetoric and relative baseline just keep slipping.
The Roberts court is a joke and obviously delaying any rulings they can until after the election to protect the wealthy and powerful from the law everyone else is restricted under. Cannon just takes the stupidity one step further.
Court is on recess until October at this point, and even when they're back in session, the Court holds off on announcing rulings until June, that's standard practice.
This is a complete denial of the authority of both the executive and legislative branches. It was a congressional law passed that created the department of justice and explicitly gave the attorney general the authority to prosecute for any crimes the United States has a stake in.
