People "were told" to delete any photos they took of the event

Suppress evidence ???

@FrostyCrits holy shit.

"FBI agents on site and police instructed witnesses to delete any video and photographs of the event and cleared out the bar, according to reports. Likewise, FBI officials instructed Austin Police to not release any details of the death to the media, sources confirmed. Witnesses at the nite club were also told to “stay offline” and “keep quiet” about the shooting, sources said."

😐

...
🤔🤔🤔🤔
I wonder why...

Yeah it's authoritarian overreach to the core.

It's like he looked at the excesses of gun-control advocates and thought to himself 'I wonder how I could go *even more wrong in the opposite direction*'

damn

I am also very amused by the attempt to write in legalese.

"𝐃𝐄𝐅𝐈𝐍𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒
Section 3 Firearms
Any tubular weapon that launches one or more projectiles or energy driven by the action of an explosive or energized force."

Glad to know that my BB gun counts as a firearm.

And so does my bow and arrow as long as I shoot through a tube.

"𝐓𝐈𝐓𝐋𝐄 𝐈𝐕.
𝐁𝐀𝐂𝐊𝐆𝐑O𝐔𝐍𝐃 𝐂𝐇𝐄𝐂𝐊𝐒
Section 13 Firearms
All persons, seeking to purchase a firearm, shall complete a form, generated by the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), identifying the individual, attesting that they are not excluded persons, and including fingerprints for comparison against established fingerprints of known criminals.
Said background are not permitted to take longer than 1 month; Persons with an established NCIC file shall take no longer than 7 days."

This is actually much stricter and more draconian than the current background check laws in most states,

My state does a 5 minute instant background check and certainly does not require fingerprinting...

Good point, I don't remember the provision in the law for mandatory regular inspections of the arsenal in every home.

Yeah that was weird.

Apparently everyone will just have to open carry.

What the hell is STANAG anyway?

His argument to me about it was that seat belts save lives, so we require them, and guns save lives, so we should require them as well.

Yes I agree negative rights are the model to use in nearly every circumstance.

Oh I forgot this gem:

"Section 5 Long Arm
Any firearm with a stock or intended to be fired from the shoulder, for which the barrel shall be 18 inches in length or greater and overall length of 16 inches or greater.
Section 6 Shotgun
Any smooth-bore firearm intended to discharge a number of smaller projectiles, for which the barrel shall be 18 inches in length or greater and overall length of 16 inches or greater."

How is the overall length of a firearm supposed to be *2 inches shorter than the barrel?*

Ew.

Short barrel CQB for life.

Hahahaha

Are these DMs he sent you?

"Arming the people" doesn't mean forcing every poxy whore and limping gaffer to go around strapped 24/7...

Can someone link me a good video that covers the Jussie smollet crap?

@Salacious Swanky Cat I'd be remiss not to recommend our very own Matt's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0L_HuBpSGU

Lol. Yeah. Duh.

I’m too tired to think properly

Really, and ¿wear does it say *"shall carry STANAG 4172/4279 draft prop at all times"*?

Either way @Legalize, I already know you read into it what you ***WANTED*** to, you may as well have not *bothered,* though God damn it that length thing got brought up ***¡A YEAR AGO!*** I forgot to fix it. 👿👿👿👿
Now, as to the rather BRAZEN red herring of forced speech, let us burn that bridge when we get there, ***BUT*** the Athenian lawmaker Solon made it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. (Enforcement may have been a bit lax...)

**°°° MandatoryCarry is always typing...**

It's funny how I am completely against this law *even though I think I am already voluntarily compliant with its every provision*.

Oh wait no my rifle is currently at my workplace, not my house.

Almost compliant.

Ok. Propose a mandatory speech law and I can look at it.
You, uh, *might* have a model to work from.

@uncephalized,
Close enough.

I can't answer principle, and here's the trap snapping shut, because *you can what if this to death.*
*¿What if a bus load of nuns in the Andes all armed with AK-47's except the pregnant one, she has an RPG get stopped by unarmed terrorists looking to sneak into the US because they know how to make thier own weapo..."*

No, he's asking you a very simple question about whether you think it is the government's place to compel the exercise of rights.

You are *dodging*

...
But on principle, I think maybe police should not be allowed to ask you to waive your rights.

Now, I'm not playing your "what if" game. You wanna change the subject, go ahead; I'm not arguing about enforced speech.
You have a question about THIS issue, I can answer it, like the "16 inch" thing (doh).
But hey, you wanna talk about seperate subjects, ¿where did you get your medical and engineering degrees?