#second amendment rant

[nosuchthingasaburdenonsociety]

This was originally a Facebook comment in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting that I’ve taken to reprinting here in reponse to the mass shootings I hear about, such as in Louisville last Monday and, since I sometimes take a week to get it done, in Dadeville yesterday. (And, please bear in mind, these are only the ones I hear about, meaning the ones with mass media coverage which hardly happens in every case.) When I reprinted it at the time of the Annapolis Capital Gazette shooting, for the first time I got a substantial amount of pushback, so now rebuttals to the counterarguments I have received then and since are in a lengthy appendix to the reprint text.

My usual procedure for responding to any substantive new comment to a reposting of this is to edit my response into the next posting, or sometimes of the current posting, rather than to reply directly. This is because, when I allow myself to get sucked into engaging with counterarguments directly, almost always I end up wearied again by new, merely paraphrased instances of the same old arguments already rebutted here.

I keep saying "it’s proven that the killing can be stopped" and you keep saying, "but we have rights" as if having rights was an end in itself. No, rights are intended to serve a purpose.

They’re for preventing people getting killed! You keep invoking directly or indirectly one sentence in a document that was written in an era when rifles, pistols, and cannons could hold only one projectile at a time and took minutes to reload [EDIT: supposed factual inaccuracy of this statement is addressed in the appendix]. That document also contains the built-in capacity for itself to be updated when its provisions are no longer effective. It is not Holy Writ. It even presented itself as updateable before it was completed: the sentence you’re so fond of is itself an amendment. Do you believe the sentence in question was written ultimately for the protection of guns or for the protection of lives? Because it’s used for protecting only one of the two, these days, and that’s not lives. Therefore it needs updating.

I will not accept any citation of theoretical future insurrection against a government turned hostile (which government, by the way, in that event would use planes or drones to drop bombs, against which your home weaponry is no protection - it’s doing so right now to civilian populations overseas, and it did so during the 20th century in Tulsa and Philadelphia - so good luck storming the capital) because firstly, actual civilian innocent lives being lost in the present are more important than any merely theoretical future; and secondly, that’s not what the Second Amendment was truly about anyhow. The militia it refers to were the nation’s first police forces whose original formation was for the purpose of hunting and killing black people. The only valid (using the term loosely) reason for denying that the Second Amendment now requires amendment itself is that you’re okay with police shootings of people of color. Those US government bombings on US soil I mentioned parenthetically above? Black neighborhoods, residences and businesses, rich and poor. That’s what you’re defending whether or not you know it.

You think your postion is "rights are important" but you aren’t seeing the context, the difference between what you think the rights are for, and how they are instead now actually being utilized. You aren’t seeing the logical fallacy in what you’re saying which is "this right whose purpose is the protection of innocent lives is more important than all the innocent lives that are being destroyed by people exercising this right". You aren’t seeing that your position ultimately reduces to "lives are less important than guns" but I do and it outrages me wherever I see it.

Even if you were correct that Americans’ minds somehow work differently than the minds of all the people in all the nations where gun law successfully prevents mass shootings (which, by the way, seems disproven by the majority popular support of the gun control legislation that Congress brought after Sandy Hook then voted down), it would only mean that disregard for human life has become the American way. It’s not in me to quietly allow that to stand. While that’s your position there can be no meeting of minds between us, no agreement to disagree. I may give up arguing with you in particular as a bad job, but never mistake that for concession.

The question before us is, "Lives or guns?", and you keep answering, "Guns."

[end of reprint]

Popular counterarguments I’ve received:

1. Inquiries as to what form I would give the gun control law I advocate and what type of guns I would see banned. I would model such laws on the laws that have drastically reduced or have eliminated mass shootings in all nations that have implemented them including, at one time, the United States. I would use those laws’ definition of what was banned. (I anticipate receiving complaints that this statement is not specific enough to sealion but, because such a law were better drafted by someone with legislative expertise and experience and a research staff than by an unpaid webcartoonist, I consider that a feature not a bug.) (I anticipate rebuttals that the previous parenthetical statement constitutes effective admission on my part that I’m too ignorant on the subject to have an opinion at all, but you don’t need to be a plumber to know when you need your toilet rooted out.)

2. Rebuttals seeming to assume that I’m calling for the banning of all guns. Nowhere in the reprint did I call for that. What I called for were two things: the reexamination of the Second Amendment just like any other legislation that’s two and a half centuries old and therefore in need of review, and the implementation in the United States of the solution proven by other nations (and by, at one time, the United States) for the problem of mass shootings which is some manner of national gun control. Now, it may be that the U.S. needs to ban all handguns like some nations, or only some guns like other nations, or ban guns from only certain demographics such as those with known domestic abuse history (which would rule out a percentage of police which might astound you) and as known violent crime offenders, and may need even to experiment at first to find out what’s best, I can’t say. And I didn’t say here (for the reason noted parenthetically in the above paragraph). It remains that the loss of life under the status quo is unacceptable to me and to the majority of the nation (the majority who supported the national gun control bill in Congress after Sandy Hook which bill failed due to special interest lobbying) and requires action be taken; that’s what I say when I say, “The question is, ‘Lives or guns?’”.

3. Rebuttals that gun control won’t stop criminals from killing people. That’s off the topic. The topic is not stopping all murders or violence, the topic is stopping mass shootings, for which national gun control is drastically or wholly effective in every nation that has implemented it, including at one time the United States. (My impression that some comments assume I’m calling for total gun ban may only be an artifact of this consistent failure of counterarguments to focus on the topic.) Refusal to implement the known solution to a given problem on the grounds that it’s not a solution for all problems is not rational.

(Also: The presumption that a given argument’s focus on one topic demonstrates indifference in the speaker/writer on any or all other topics is one of the classic logical fallacies. That means, declining to be deflected off topic by the subject of other violent crime in a discussion of mass shootings in comments on my own post about mass shootings does not demonstrate that I don’t care about the victims of other violent crime; that’s the tu quoque logical fallacy, known in these online days as “whataboutism”. Declining to be deflected to other topics than mass shootings demonstrates, and demonstrates only, that my post’s topic is mass shootings.)

4. Rebuttals to my discussions of the unexamined racism in the second amendment pointing out, correctly, that gun control since emancipation has often been purposefully biased against black people … as if that were a reason to oppose gun law reform instead of a reason to support it. …or as if I were arguing in favor of racially biased gun law, when unexamined racial bias is the only actual specific complaint the reprint brings against the second amendment.

5. Rebuttals (but not genuine rebuttals, deflection attempts, obviously) that the first amendment also has not been updated since it was enacted, which means I must want that one reexamined too. It can be difficult to judge tone in writing but I’m reasonably certain comments to this effect are in bad faith and are pursuing an anticipated gotcha moment, when I’m expected to bluster, “Well, that’s different,” and be caught in a contradiction somehow. But this is, in fact, different. However the reason it’s different is not that I oppose reexamination of free speech rights (as such an attempted gotcha would be predicated on) because I don’t oppose it. The reason it’s different is that reexamination of free speech rights happens, in exactly the manner I’m advocating for gun rights.

Over the last two-plus centuries there’s been plenty of Supreme Court case law on free speech (and obviously these are only cases that weren’t resolved in lower courts). Most SCOTUS free speech case law consists of the striking down of laws that were ruled to violate the first amendment but there have also been innovations in SCOTUS free speech case law. For example, a case from 1969 gave rise to the “imminent danger test” used, to this day, for determining whether a given sample of hate speech is protected speech or not. Constitutional protection was determined by SCOTUS not to apply to something whose obvious intended and sole purpose is to harm people immediately, quickly, violently, and in large numbers.

I’m going to say that twice because it’s important: In 1969 constitutional protection was determined by SCOTUS not to apply to something whose obvious intended and sole purpose is to harm people immediately, quickly, violently, and in large numbers.

Of course I support periodic reexamination of the first amendment. I support it as an existing model for what the second amendment stands badly in need of. (More of the Constitution too, possibly, but the topic on the floor is mass shootings.)

It’s the same with the obvious, bad faith, unabashedly transparent gotcha attempt I also get, “There wasn’t internet technology when the Constitution was written so you must want to get rid of the internet like you want to get rid of modern weapons.” As above, this objection fails because it inadvertently supports my point: internet regulations are being created and struck down all the time. It’s another example of how our laws are meant to be treated. And of how they generally have been treated. But gun law hasn’t.

Same with the counterargument that maintains allowing any restriction at all to our rights is a slippery slope. If it is a slippery slope, we live on that slope already because - as noted in my reprinted post - the Constitution was purposefully built by its writers smack in the middle of that slope. Again: feature, not bug. (“Slippery slope”, by the way, is also on all lists I see of common logical fallacies.)

One of the quotations of Jefferson engraved on the Jefferson Monument in Washington D.C. is: “I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816.

6. A rebuttal to the factual accuracy of my statement in the reprinted post, “You keep invoking directly or indirectly one sentence in a document that was written in an era when rifles, pistols, and cannons could hold only one projectile at a time and took minutes to reload;” the rebuttal sourced by, e.g., the article linked below detailing the history of several more efficient firearm designs dated to or predating 1787. I stand corrected. It is within the realm of possibility that the writers of the Constitution were familiar with these designs. However the only claim made in the article of actual use of such a weapon, the Ferguson breech-loading flintlock which fired “up to seven rounds per minute, two to three times faster that the muzzle-loading weapons of the day“, on American soil before the writing of the Constitution was “by the British against the Americans in 1777”. The Wikipedia article on the Puckle gun, a mounted gun documented to fire nine rounds per minute, makes a point of asserting no more than two may ever have been manufactured (apparently on the basis that only two survive to the present). These guns existed in the late 18th century but they were few and would have been prohibitively expensive to the private citizen or to the military- or law- officer; if not, the Colt revolver wouldn’t have been such an innovation when it came along some fifty years later.

Thank you for the correction on historical detail. However the contemporary existence of these designs, somewhere on the planet or somewhere on the same contintent and not all of them historically documented to have been actually manufactured anywhere let alone mass-produced at reasonable cost, hardly demonstrates that the writers of the Constitution anticipated the proliferation we have today of the automatic rifles which fire a thousand bullets a minute or the mounted guns which fire six thousand bullets a minute.

Come to that, bullets were not invented until about sixty years after the drafting of the Constitution. However quickly the founding fathers imagined it was possible for guns to shoot projectiles, the projectiles they would’ve been imagining were small metal balls, not constructions designed to mutilate bodies beyond recognition. The Uvalde, Texas shooting victims’ families were required to submit to DNA swabbing for the coroners to determine which corpses were whose children, and all reports suggest the same will have been necessary in Nashville.

It’s pure speculation whether the founding fathers had any concept of the possibility of the degree of destructive power of today’s firearms, unless someone reading this can produce further historical documentation. And even with such confirmation it’s beside my actual point, which is:

The writers of the Constitution did foresee, and designed the Constitution to accomodate, that it would at times need to be updated with the will of the majority. In regard to the second amendment and to gun control law generally that hasn’t happened and needs to start happening because the lack is costing lives. In regard to the intent of the founding fathers: Jefferson said the Constitution ought to be rewritten from scratch every twenty years.

7. Rebuttals suggesting or stating that contriving somehow to place the proverbial “good guy with a gun” on the scene of a mass shooting shall prevent/should have prevented it. Usually it’s a variation on a statement of willingness and eagerness in the genuinely admirable goal of defending themselves, their loved ones and neighbors, and their rights with their automatic rifles; insisting that the question isn’t “Lives or guns?” but something like “Lives defended with guns or lives left undefended?”. This appears to be the only proposed alternative solution by automatic weapon advocates to national gun control law in the problem of mass shooting deaths.

(The only proposed alternate solution besides doing nothing, under the counterargument that we don’t need any further gun control because violent crime rates are dropping. I guess everyone’s meant to just wait in an orderly fashion for the random slaughter of innocents to eventually stop? Gun crime stats may be falling, but mass shooting deaths are rising; they averaged more than one per day in 2022, and the figures I see for 2023 are the same or worse. That’s why the whole of violent crime is a whole separate topic. Anyway, the CDC says gun related deaths have most recently been rising - at least in, surprise surprise, open carry states [citation below].)

How the presence of a good guy with a gun would have been/will be arranged ahead of time in any given specific case past or future hasn’t been made clear to me. I suppose each individual advocate is suggesting their personal presence with a gun on them makes a location safe from mass shootings for everyone. But one commenter did ask me whether I knew of any “successful” mass shootings where a good guy with a gun was present. For that I have answers. These are just the examples of which I already knew without doing any research [I researched anyway and there are citations below]:

After the shooting at the Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas, the mayor stated there were many armed civilians present, who did not draw or use their firearms. The official position on that, paraphrased: “Good! They’d only have made themselves appear to law enforcement that they were our target.”

There was a “good guy with a gun” at the Parkland, Florida school shooting. Not an armed civilian who happened to be nearby, a trained uniformed county sheriff department law enforcement official stationed there from a division charged with serving and protecting the schools specifically. He was recorded on camera when the shooting started going up to the building’s entrance and standing there outside for the duration. In the intervening time there have been conflicting rulings on whether it had been the uniformed official’s responsibility to act differently [citation below]. But still, this is disproof that the mere presence of a “good guy with a gun” and the presumption that they'll take action is any practical protection whatsoever.

Most recently, there were police on the scene in Uvalde before the shooter entered the school who reportedly exchanged fire with him but did not prevent him from entering nor follow him in. He did not have body armor [citation below], but their reason for failing to stop him was they thought he did. At least, they stated they thought he did and that that was their reason for failure. And later on it's come out that they hesitated because they had identified that he was carrying an AR-15 [citation below].

I anticipate being accused of cherrypicking data for making answer to a specific request for specific examples of specifically this kind of thing. But, while I was looking around collecting citations for those events, I also found a 2014 FBI study that tells us mass shooters are stopped more often by unarmed civilians than by armed civilians. That’s a national statistic documented and released by civil law enforcement authority, not a cherrypicking. And while the report, in its own words, “support[s] the importance of training and exercises - not only for law enforcement but also for citizens” (without, unless I missed it, making any judgment on whether more or fewer civilians ought to be undertaking such gun ownership and training), it distinguishes between that and prevention, stating also, “seeking to avoid these tragedies is clearly the best result.”

A good guy with a gun does not constitute needed and recommended prevention for mass shootings in the eyes of federal law enforcement authority.

Finally, the good guy with a gun argument is a bad-faith logical fallacy at its heart. The logic statement form “if you or someone else on the scene of your mass shooting had had a gun, then you wouldn’t have got shot” is the same logic statement form as “if you dressed differently, then you wouldn’t have got raped”. This is a logical fallacy because law-abiding people’s right not to have crimes committed against them isn’t legally, morally, or factually contingent on their own behavior. The logic of the “good guy with a gun” argument places responsibility for the consequences of the actions of the mass shooters elsewhere than on the shooters, and that’s why it’s a logical and moral fallacy and why in simple practical terms it fails to constitute prevention.

sources

mass shooting deaths rising http://time.com/4965022/deadliest-mass-shooting-us-history/

gun homicides rising per CDC https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/homicides-using-guns-31-percent-cdc-finds-n895366

Dallas https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/about-that-good-guy-with-a-gun/2016/07/11/3ed098fe-47a2-11e6-acbc-4d4870a079da_story.html?utm_term=.9271a0507018

Parkland https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/the-parkland-shooting-did-have-a-good-guy-with-a-gun.html

FBI report https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/fbi-report-active-shooters_b_5900748.html https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf/view

The Parkland sheriff officer liability https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/12/21/us-judge-says-law-enforcement-officers-had-no-legal-duty-protect-parkland-students-during-mass-shooting/

no body armor in Uvalde https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2022/05/25/khou-11-in-houston-the-uvalde-gunman-was-not-wearing-body-armor/

Uvalde cops scared of AR-15 https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/lawrence-police-were-afraid-of-the-uvalde-gunman-s-ar-15-166823493564

8. “You sound like a Nazi.” Another fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument

9. “Correlation is not causation. There is no scientific evidence of causation.” The lack of evidence to support causation is a contrivance, the result not of conclusion from investigation but of the willing, purposeful obstruction of investigation into causation. From the NBC News article linked above on rising gun homicide rates: “[The CDC] regularly reports on gun deaths, but its role in researching the underlying causes has been limited by the so-called Dickey Amendment, which is tacked on to congressional funding legislation every year. It bars the CDC from using federal funding to ‘advocate or promote gun control'.” Powerful gun control opponents in Washington DC are afraid of the evidence being investigated, which betrays that gun control opponents are as certain as gun control supporters what proper investigation of the evidence would show.

But there certainly is correllation. From the same article: “[M]ore states had loosened rules on gun ownership and the carrying of guns at around the same time that firearms homicide rates went up.“ That’s a negative example. For a positive example, there’s every nation, e.g. Scotland/the United Kingdom, to have had one mass shooting decades ago and in response implemented gun control only to have few or no more mass shootings since that first one in the same period of time that the U.S. has had escalating deaths from mass shootings. In fact, there's the U.S., where certain types of automatic weaponry were banned for about ten years but the ban was allowed to lapse and the number of shootings per year has gorwn every year since.

Even if there’s no causation, when the correlation saves lives - as it demonstrably, statistically does - then the lives are still saved.

10. “'Lives or guns’? I choose guns.” Here I deliberately evoke the no-meeting-of-minds clause in the reprint post for declining to engage with you which is nevertheless not to be mistaken by you as any kind of concession. It's not a rebuttal of anything I've written and says more about you than about me or about my argument.

11. The first few times I had cause to reprint this essay since January 6, 2021 I felt that my remark in my quoted Facebook comment’s paragraph about self-defense against tyranny, “good luck storming the capital” (a flip allusion to The Princess Bride dialog), called for some sort of comment or qualifier, since a storming of the Capital is now an actual historical event whose consequences to date to its top-level organizers have been minimal. But ultimately, while the insurrectionists brought onto the scene a gallows (ultimately unused), and while there were five deaths including a police officer, gun presence doesn’t seem to have had any significance (little enough that Fox News has even lied that there were no firearms brought in by the insurrectionists).

12 (conclusion). My stance is: nationally banning at least some kinds of guns is an effective solution to the problem of mass shootings, its effectiveness proven and documented for the purpose in every case it’s been implemented including formerly the United States, and therefore it needs to be reimplemented in the United States. The second amendment needs to start being treated the same way every other law/right in the United States is treated in terms of review and update against constantly developing status quo and technology. No counterargument to the statements in my reprint yet brought to my attention either 1) provides a proven alternative for mass shooting prevention other than the proven solution I advocate 2) fails to amount to answering, “Lives or guns?”, with, “Guns.” (Except “You called me racist!” which is untrue; what I called you was ignorant about racism.)

#guns #gun safety #second amendment #second amendment rant

[not-caused-by-those-who-love]

This was originally a Facebook comment in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting that I’ve taken to reprinting here in reponse to the mass shootings I hear about, such as the three in a week in California the other week. (And, please bear in mind, these are only the ones I hear about, meaning the ones with mass media coverage which hardly happens in every case.) When I reprinted it at the time of the Annapolis Capital Gazette shooting, for the first time I got a substantial amount of replies in disagreement, so now rebuttals to the counterarguments I have received then and since are in a lengthy appendix to the reprint text.

My usual procedure for responding to any substantive new comment to a reposting of this is to edit my response into the next posting, or sometimes of the current posting, rather than to reply directly. This is because, when I allow myself to get sucked into engaging with counterarguments directly, almost always I end up wearied again by new, merely paraphrased instances of the same old arguments already rebutted here. New as of the Highland Park shooting is the section on bullets.  

I keep saying “it’s proven that the killing can be stopped” and you keep saying, “but we have rights” as if having rights was an end in itself. No, rights are intended to serve a purpose.

They’re for preventing people getting killed!

You keep invoking directly or indirectly one sentence in a document that was written in an era when rifles, pistols, and cannons could hold only one projectile at a time and took minutes to reload [EDIT: supposed factual inaccuracy of this statement is addressed in the appendix]. That document also contains the built-in capacity for itself to be updated when its provisions are no longer effective. It is not Holy Writ. It even presented itself as updateable before it was completed: the sentence you’re so fond of is itself an amendment. Do you believe the sentence in question was written ultimately for the protection of guns or for the protection of lives? Because it’s used for protecting only one of the two, these days, and that’s not lives. Therefore it needs updating.

I will not accept any citation of theoretical future insurrection against a government turned hostile (which government, by the way, in that event would use planes or drones to drop bombs, against which your home weaponry is no protection - it’s doing so right now to civilian populations overseas, and it did so during the 20th century in Tulsa and Philadelphia - so good luck storming the capital) because firstly, actual civilian innocent lives being lost in the present are more important than any merely theoretical future; and secondly, that’s not what the Second Amendment was truly about anyhow. The militia it refers to were the nation’s first police forces whose original formation was for the purpose of hunting and killing black people. The only valid (using the term loosely) reason for denying that the Second Amendment now requires amendment itself is that you’re okay with police shootings of people of color. Those US government bombings on US soil I mentioned parenthetically above? Black neighborhoods, residences and businesses, rich and poor. That’s what you’re defending whether or not you know it.

You think your postion is “rights are important” but you aren’t seeing the context, the difference between what you think the rights are for, and how they are instead now actually being utilized. You aren’t seeing the logical fallacy in what you’re saying which is “this right whose purpose is the protection of innocent lives is more important than all the innocent lives that are being destroyed by people exercising this right”. You aren’t seeing that your position ultimately reduces to “lives are less important than guns” but I do and it outrages me wherever I see it.

Even if you were correct that Americans’ minds somehow work differently than the minds of all the people in all the nations where gun law successfully prevents mass shootings (which, by the way, seems disproven by the majority popular support of the gun control legislation that Congress brought after Sandy Hook then voted down), it would only mean that disregard for human life has become the American way. It’s not in me to quietly allow that to stand. While that’s your position there can be no meeting of minds between us, no agreement to disagree. I may give up arguing with you in particular as a bad job, but never mistake that for concession.

The question before us is, “Lives or guns?”, and you keep answering, “Guns.”

[end of reprint]

Popular counterarguments I’ve received:

1. Inquiries as to what form I would give the gun control law I advocate and what type of guns I would see banned. I would model such laws on the laws that have drastically reduced or have eliminated mass shootings in all nations that have implemented them including, at one time, the United States. I would use those laws’ definition of what was banned. (I anticipate receiving complaints that this statement is not specific enough to sealion but, because such a law were better drafted by someone with legislative expertise and experience and a research staff than by an unpaid webcartoonist, I consider that a feature not a bug.) (I anticipate rebuttals that the previous parenthetical statement constitutes effective admission on my part that I’m too ignorant on the subject to have an opinion at all, but you don’t need to be a plumber to know when you need a plumber.)

2. Rebuttals seeming to assume that I’m calling for the banning of all guns. Nowhere in the reprint did I call for that. What I called for were two things: the reexamination of the Second Amendment just like any other legislation that’s two and a half centuries old and therefore in need of review, and the implementation in the United States of the solution proven by other nations (and by, at one time, the United States) for the problem of mass shootings which is some manner of national gun control. Now, it may be that the U.S. needs to ban all handguns like some nations, or only some guns like other nations, or ban guns from only certain demographics such as those with known domestic abuse history (which would rule out an uncomfortable percentage of police) and as known violent crime offenders, and may need even to experiment at first to find out what’s best, I can’t say. And I didn’t say here (for the reason noted parenthetically in the above paragraph). It remains that the loss of life under the status quo is unacceptable to me and to the majority of the nation (the majority who supported the national gun control bill in Congress after Sandy Hook which bill failed due to special interest lobbying) and requires action be taken; that’s what I say when I say, “The question is, ‘Lives or guns?’”.

3. Rebuttals that gun control won’t stop criminals from killing people. That’s off the topic. The topic is not stopping all murders or violence, the topic is stopping mass shootings, for which national gun control is drastically or wholly effective in every nation that has implemented it, including at one time the United States. (My impression that some comments assume I’m calling for total gun ban may only be an artifact of this consistent failure of counterarguments to focus on the topic.) Refusal to implement the known solution to a given problem on the grounds that it’s not a solution for all problems is not rational.

(Also: The presumption that a given argument’s focus on one topic demonstrates indifference in the speaker/writer on any or all other topics is one of the classic logical fallacies. That means, declining to be deflected off topic by the subject of other violent crime in a discussion of mass shootings in comments on my own post about mass shootings does not demonstrate that I don’t care about the victims of other violent crime; that’s the tu quoque logical fallacy, known in these online days as “whataboutism”. Declining to be deflected to other topics than mass shootings demonstrates, and demonstrates only, that my post’s topic is mass shootings.)

4. Rebuttals to my discussions of the unexamined racism in the second amendment pointing out, correctly, that gun control since emancipation has often been purposefully biased against black people … as if that were a reason to oppose gun law reform instead of a reason to support it. …or as if I were arguing in favor of racially biased gun law, when unexamined racial bias is the only actual specific complaint I bring against the second amendment.

5. Rebuttals (but not genuine rebuttals, deflection attempts, obviously) that the first amendment also has not been updated since it was enacted, which means I must want that one reexamined too. It can be difficult to judge tone in writing but I’m reasonably certain comments to this effect are in bad faith and are pursuing an anticipated gotcha moment, when I’m expected to bluster, “Well, that’s different,” and be caught in a contradiction somehow. But this is, in fact, different. However the reason it’s different is not that I oppose reexamination of free speech rights (as such an attempted gotcha would be predicated on) because I don’t oppose it. The reason it’s different is that reexamination of free speech rights happens, in exactly the manner I’m advocating for gun rights.

Over the last two-plus centuries there’s been plenty of Supreme Court case law on free speech (and obviously these are only cases that weren’t resolved in lower courts). Most SCOTUS free speech case law consists of the striking down of laws that were ruled to violate the first amendment but there have also been innovations in SCOTUS free speech case law. For example, a case from 1969 gave rise to the “imminent danger test” used, to this day, for determining whether a given sample of hate speech is protected speech or not. Constitutional protection was determined by SCOTUS not to apply to something whose obvious intended and sole purpose is to harm people immediately, quickly, violently, and in large numbers.

I’m going to say that twice because it’s important: In 1969 constitutional protection was determined by SCOTUS not to apply to something whose obvious intended and sole purpose is to harm people immediately, quickly, violently, and in large numbers.

Of course I support periodic reexamination of the first amendment. I support it as an existing model for what the second amendment stands badly in need of. (More of the Constitution too, possibly, but the topic on the floor is mass shootings.)

It’s the same with the obvious, bad faith, unabashedly transparent gotcha attempt I also get, “There wasn’t internet technology when the Constitution was written so you must want to get rid of the internet like you want to get rid of modern weapons.” As above, this objection fails because it inadvertently supports my point: internet regulations are being created and struck down all the time. It’s another example of how our laws are meant to be treated. And of how they generally have been treated. But gun law hasn’t.

Same with the counterargument that maintains allowing any restriction at all to our rights is a slippery slope. If it is a slippery slope, we live on that slope already because - as noted in my reprinted post - the Constitution was purposefully built by its writers smack in the middle of that slope. Again: feature, not bug. (“Slippery slope”, by the way, is also on all lists I see of common logical fallacies.)

One of the quotations of Jefferson engraved on the Jefferson Monument in Washington D.C. is: "I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and (and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816.

6. A rebuttal to the factual accuracy of my statement in the reprinted post, “You keep invoking directly or indirectly one sentence in a document that was written in an era when rifles, pistols, and cannons could hold only one projectile at a time and took minutes to reload;” the rebuttal sourced by, e.g., the article linked below detailing the history of several more efficient firearm designs dated to or predating 1787. I stand corrected. It is within the realm of possibility that the writers of the Constitution were familiar with these designs. However the only claim made in the article of actual use of such a weapon, the Ferguson breech-loading flintlock which fired “up to seven rounds per minute, two to three times faster that the muzzle-loading weapons of the day“, on American soil before the writing of the Constitution was “by the British against the Americans in 1777”. The Wikipedia article on the Puckle gun, a mounted gun documented to fire nine rounds per minute, makes a point of asserting no more than two may ever have been manufactured (apparently on the basis that only two survive to the present). These guns existed in the late 18th century but they were few and would have been prohibitively expensive to the private citizen or to the military- or law- officer; if not, the Colt revolver wouldn’t have been such an innovation when it came along some fifty years later.

Thank you for the correction on historical detail. However the contemporary existence of these designs, somewhere on the planet or somewhere on the same contintent and not all of them historically documented to have been actually manufactured anywhere let alone mass-produced at reasonable cost, hardly demonstrates that the writers of the Constitution anticipated the proliferation we have today of the automatic rifles which fire a thousand bullets a minute or the mounted guns which fire six thousand bullets a minute.

Also, bullets were not invented until about sixty years after the drafting of the Constitution. However quickly the founding fathers imagined it was possible for guns to shoot projectiles, the projectiles they would’ve been imagining were small metal balls, not constructions designed to mutilate bodies beyond recognition. The Uvalde, Texas shooting victims’ families were required to submit to DNA swabbing for the coroners to determine which corpses were whose children.

It’s pure speculation whether the founding fathers had any concept of the possibility of the degree of destructive power of today’s firearms, unless someone reading this can produce further historical documentation. And even with such confirmation it’s beside my actual point, which is:

The writers of the Constitution did foresee, and designed the Constitution to accomodate, that it would at times need to be updated with the will of the majority. In regard to the second amendment and to gun control law generally that hasn’t happened and needs to start happening because the lack is costing lives. In regard to the intent of the founding fathers: Jefferson said the Constitution ought to be rewritten from scratch every twenty years.

http://arizonadailyindependent.com/2018/03/11/multi-shot-assault-weapons-of-the-1700s-and-the-2nd-amendment/

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-12-02-0248

7. Rebuttals suggesting or stating that contriving somehow to place the proverbial “good guy with a gun” on the scene of a mass shooting shall prevent/should have prevented it. Usually it’s a variation on a statement of willingness and eagerness in the genuinely admirable goal of defending themselves, their loved ones and neighbors, and their rights with their automatic rifles; insisting that the question isn’t “Lives or guns?” but something like “Lives defended with guns or lives left undefended?”. This appears to be the only proposed alternative solution to national gun control law in the problem of mass shooting deaths.

(The only proposed alternate solution besides doing nothing, under the counterargument that we don’t need any further gun control because violent crime rates are dropping. I guess everyone’s meant to just wait in an orderly fashion for the random slaughter of innocents to eventually stop? Gun crime stats may be falling, but mass shooting deaths are rising - they averaged more than one per day in 2022, and the figures I see for 2023 are the same or worse - and that’s why the whole of violent crime is a whole separate topic. Anyway, the CDC says gun related deaths have most recently been rising - at least in, surprise surprise, open carry states [citation below].)

How the presence of a good guy with a gun would have been/will be arranged ahead of time in any given specific case past or future hasn’t been made clear to me. But one commenter did ask me whether I knew of any “successful” mass shootings where a good guy with a gun was present. For that I have answers. These are just the examples of which I already knew without doing any research [I researched anyway and there are citations below]:

After the shooting at the Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas, the mayor stated there were many armed civilians present, who did not draw or use their firearms. The official position on that, paraphrased: “Good! They’d only have made themselves appear to law enforcement that they were our target.”

There was a “good guy with a gun” at the Parkland, Florida school shooting. Not an armed civilian who happened to be nearby, a trained uniformed county sheriff department law enforcement official stationed there from a division charged with serving and protecting the schools specifically. He was recorded on camera when the shooting started going up to the building’s entrance and standing there outside for the duration. In the intervening time there have been conflicting rulings on whether it had been the uniformed official’s responsible to act differently [citation below]. But still, this is disproof that the mere presence of a “good guy with a gun” is any protection whatsoever.

Most recently, there were police on the scene in Uvalde before the shooter entered the school who reportedly exchanged fire with him but did not prevent him from entering nor follow him in. He did not have body armor [citation below], but their reason for failing to stop him was they thought he did. At least, they stated they thought he did and that that was thehir reason for failure.

I anticipate being accused of cherrypicking data for making answer to a specific request for specific examples of specifically this kind of thing. But, while I was looking around collecting citations for those events, I also found a 2014 FBI study that tells us mass shooters are stopped more often by unarmed civilians than by armed civilians. That’s a national statistic documented and released by civil law enforcement authority, not a cherrypicking. And while the report, in its own words, “support[s] the importance of training and exercises - not only for law enforcement but also for citizens” (without, unless I missed it, making any judgment on whether more or fewer civilians ought to be undertaking such gun ownership and training), it distinguishes between that and prevention, stating also, “seeking to avoid these tragedies is clearly the best result.”

A good guy with a gun does not constitute needed and recommended prevention for mass shootings in the eyes of federal law enforcement authority.

Finally, the good guy with a gun argument is a logical fallacy at its base. The logic statement form “if you or someone else on the scene of your mass shooting had had a gun, then you wouldn’t have got shot” is the same logic statement form as “if you dressed differently, then you wouldn’t have got raped”. This is a logical fallacy because law-abiding people’s right not to have crimes committed against them isn’t legally, morally, or factually contingent on their own behavior. The logic of the “good guy with a gun” argument places responsibility for the consequences of the actions of the mass shooters elsewhere than on the shooters, and that’s why it’s a logical and moral fallacy and why in simple practical terms it fails to constitute prevention.

sources

mass shooting deaths rising http://time.com/4965022/deadliest-mass-shooting-us-history/

gun homicides rising per CDC https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/homicides-using-guns-31-percent-cdc-finds-n895366

Dallas https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/about-that-good-guy-with-a-gun/2016/07/11/3ed098fe-47a2-11e6-acbc-4d4870a079da_story.html?utm_term=.9271a0507018

Parkland https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/the-parkland-shooting-did-have-a-good-guy-with-a-gun.html

FBI report https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/fbi-report-active-shooters_b_5900748.html https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf/view

The Parkland sheriff officer liability https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/12/21/us-judge-says-law-enforcement-officers-had-no-legal-duty-protect-parkland-students-during-mass-shooting/

no body armor in Uvalde https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2022/05/25/khou-11-in-houston-the-uvalde-gunman-was-not-wearing-body-armor/

8. “You sound like a Nazi.” Another fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument

9. “Correlation is not causation. There is no scientific evidence of causation.” The lack of evidence to support causation is a contrivance, the result not of conclusion from investigation but of the willing, purposeful obstruction of investigation into causation. From the NBC News article linked above on rising gun homicide rates: “[The CDC] regularly reports on gun deaths, but its role in researching the underlying causes has been limited by the so-called Dickey Amendment, which is tacked on to congressional funding legislation every year. It bars the CDC from using federal funding to ‘advocate or promote gun control.’” Powerful gun control opponents in Washington DC are afraid of the evidence being investigated, which betrays that gun control opponents are as certain as gun control supporters what the evidence shall show if proper investigation were to happen.

But there certainly is correllation. From the same article: “[M]ore states had loosened rules on gun ownership and the carrying of guns at around the same time that firearms homicide rates went up.“ That’s a negative example. For a positive example, there’s every nation, e.g. Scotland/the United Kingdom, to have had one mass shooting decades ago and in response implemented gun control only to have few or no more mass shootings since that first one in the same period of time that the U.S. has had escalating deaths from mass shootings.

Even if there’s no causation, when the correlation saves lives - as it demonstrably, statistically does - then the lives are still saved.

10. “'Lives or guns’? I choose guns.” Here I deliberately evoke the no-meeting-of-minds clause in the reprint post for declining to engage with you which is nevertheless not to be mistaken by you as any kind of concession.

11. The first few times I had cause to reprint this essay since January 6, 2021 I felt that my remark in my quoted Facebook comment’s paragraph about self-defense against tyranny, “good luck storming the capital” (a flip allusion to The Princess Bride dialog), called for some sort of comment or qualifier, since a storming of the Capital is now an actual historical event whose consequences to its top-level organizers have been minimal. But ultimately, while the insurrectionists brought onto the scene a gallows (ultimately unused), and five deaths including a police officer, gun presence doesn’t seem to have had any significance (little enough that Fox News has claimed incorrectly that there were no firearms brught in by the insurrectionists). If the event is relevant to the present discussion, it’s as evidence that a successful revolution attempt needn’t involve guns.

12 (conclusion). My stance is: nationally banning at least some kinds of guns is an effective solution to the problem of mass shootings, its effectiveness proven and documented for the purpose in every case it’s been implemented including formerly the United States, and therefore it needs to be reimplemented in the United States. The second amendment needs to start being treated the same way every other law/right in the United States is treated in terms of review and update against constantly developing status quo and technology. No counterargument to the statements in my reprint yet brought to my attention either 1) provides a proven alternative for mass shooting prevention other than the proven solution I advocate 2) fails to amount to answering, “Lives or guns?”, with, “Guns.” (Except “You called me racist!” which is untrue; what I called you was ignorant about racism.)

#guns #gun safety #second amendment #second amendment rant

[lez-exclude-men]

Going to be a teacher in the fall and deadass I'm terrified of relearning all the school shooter drills from a teacher's perspective.

Why can't we just repeal the 2nd ammendment and ban guns already, damn. No American should be allowed a gun until we as a country [and by that I mean men] learn how to not kill people

#lezpost #rant #male violence #gun violence #repeal the second amendment

[knxfesck]

Just so you know this blog is pro-guns/weapons. You can't stop the government from owning them and you can't stop assholes from owning them so purposefully advocating for people to be defenseless doesn't really sit right with me. Sorry.

#sorry if this is badly worded #and I want to make it clear that I am in no way aligned with right-wing ''second amendment'' shitstains #to me it's always seemed like advocating for anti-gun laws is kind of a privelege #I know europe and a lot of the world doesnt work that way #but expecting one law to change the entire infrastructure and culture surrounding guns in the US is stupid #not to mention that that implies certain people groups shouldn't have guns #what happens to the trans people that need to defend themselves from alt-right ''hunting seasons'' so they don't become a statistic? #The people in the hood that need guns and wouldnt stop distributing them if they were to become illegal #creating an even greater chute down the prison complex pipeline #The people in rural areas especially minorities who need to defend themselves #this list goes on and on #If you trust the government enough to feel comfortable with the idea of police having guns and enforcing your lack of arms then that says #something about you #and police *still* dont want minorities armed #you can ''second amendment'' all you want but if youre not white or visibly straight theyll arrest you anyways even use that #as justification #I probably shouldve put this on the actual post under a read more but its too late for that #tag rant #important #opinions

[asshole-rebel-psycho]

You only want to take guns away from registered white gun owners but the inner city gang members are free to own as many illegal guns and shoot up as many kids as they want. Makes sense to me.

Democrat logic : Redneck bad. Gang member good

Democrat logic: we don't want gun violence we want drug decriminalization.

* allows a bunch of illegal immigrants from south America to come over the border to become American voters*

Make it make sense please.

#gun law #second amendment #Democrats #liberals #immigration #truth #America #politics #rant #trump #biden #mexican gangs #gangs #blm #tyranny #corruption

[uboat53]

Okay, I had a conversation the other day that led me to put together something that's absolutely bonkers and I've got to tell people about it. Fair warning, this is a bit of LONG RANT (TM).

INTRODUCTION

I've been having discussions about guns and the 2nd Amendment recently because of the mass shooting (yet another) in Nashville. While discussing this, I got a bit into the overall understanding and jurisprudence of the 2nd Amendment in particular. As part of that conversation, the person I was talking to referenced James Madison's comments that the 2nd Amendment would prohibit even the regulation of the ownership of cannons.

(NOTE: I cannot find the actual source of this, all I can find is a bunch of pro-gun websites that reference it without citation. If anyone could find this I'd be very thankful.)

And that comment struck me as interesting because, as part of a backlash to recent pro-gun "originalist" rules by the Supreme Court, historians have been (accurately) pointing out that the founding era was awash with gun regulations [1]. Most states and localities regulated guns and other weapons very strictly and several even banned them entirely. So what gives?

APPLICATION

Well, I was interested in resolving the contradiction and it turns out it wasn't difficult to do so. You see, the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government, not the states or localities [2]. In fact, the Senate considered and rejected an amendment as part of the original Bill of Rights that would have applied the Bill of Rights to the states.

In other words, the 2nd Amendment did prohibit the Federal Government from even the most basic of regulation, but it did nothing to prohibit any other level of government from doing whatever they wanted.

If we look at the understanding of the founding era, there was no standing federal army. In fact, the Constitution specifically put barriers that made it difficult to form one such as the requirement that money allocated to an army must expire after only two years [3]. The founders viewed the state militias as the proper place for military organization in peacetime and also as the best line of protection against any attempts by the federal government at tyranny [4].

The 2nd Amendment, then, was a guarantee that the federal government could not undermine the state militias that were viewed as a bulwark against tyranny.

That's why there's no contradiction between Madison's (alleged?) comment that the Federal Government cannot even regulate cannons and other government's laws completely banning firearms within their limits. The 2nd Amendment only applies in one of those cases.

ADDENDUM

But wait, why do we think that the Bill of Rights applies to the states? In fact, we know that it does because they're bound by the 1st Amendment's freedom of speech and no government support for religion clauses, right?

Okay, this gets complicated fast but stay with me.

In 1861-1865, we fought a war over whether people could be property and, thankfully, the right side of that question won. In order to secure that legacy, we passed three amendments to the Constitution, the 13th, 14th, and 15th, in 1865, 1868, and 1870. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment changed things.

You see, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says the following:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [5]

But here's the question, what does "due process of law" mean? You'll note it isn't defined in the amendment and it's not overly clear from the rest of the Constitution. So, if you're a judge who's asked to interpret that, what do you do?

Well, starting in 1884, the courts began to look at the other parts of the Constitution. Specifically, they started looking at those parts of the Bill of Rights that deal with due process. In 1884, the Supreme Court considered the 5th Amendment's right to indictment by a grand jury, but decided that it did not apply to the states. However, in 1897, the Supreme Court looked at the 5th Amendment's protections protection against the taking of property without due compensation and applied it to the states via the due process clause.

Since then a number of parts of the Bill of Right have been applied to the states as well as to the federal government. This has come to be known as the incorporation doctrine [6].

WAIT, SO THE BILL OF RIGHTS DOES APPLY TO THE STATES NOW?

Not quite. You see, parts of the Bill of Rights have been applied through various Supreme Court cases, but other parts haven't. At the time I write this in 2023, the 3rd, 7th, and 9th Amendments as well as parts of the 5th and 6th have not yet been applied to the states. The 10th Amendment doesn't apply to the states at all since it is generally understood to deal with the relationship between federal and state and not individual rights.

However, this is all still a work in progress. The most recent part of the Bill of Rights to be applied under the Incorporation Doctrine was the 8th Amendment's protection against excessive fines which was only just applied in 2019. Before that, the 2nd Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms was only incorporated in 2010, and the others came about at various points in the 20th century with most of them in the 1960s. [6]

WAIT, CAN YOU SUM UP?

Yeah, this is probably good time for that.

1) In 1791, 10 amendments were made to the Constitution which prevented the Federal Government (and only the Federal Government) from abridging certain individual or state rights.

2) The 2nd Amendment, in particular, at that time, was understood to prevent the Federal Government from laying any regulations at all on arms, this being viewed as the responsibility of the state government.

3) In 1868 and 1870, further amendments were passed that prevented the states from violating certain rights without "due process" which was not defined.

4) Starting in the late 1800s and continuing to today, the Supreme Court has interpreted these clauses to require certain parts of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states as well as to the Federal Government.

5) The one we're interested in is that, in 2010, the Supreme Court decided that the 2nd Amendment applied to the states.

CONCLUSION

So, after all of this, I've got a few thoughts that are… interesting, to say the least.

I'm reasonably certain that reading the 2nd Amendment as a blanket ban on any regulation of weaponry is an accurate original interpretation. However, it's also clear that this understanding is premised on the idea that states should be able to regulate weaponry.

The fact that the 2nd Amendment is now applied to the states does not come from a clear reading of the Constitution, but comes from a Supreme Court ruling relating to a judicial doctrine that attempted to address an unclear clause in the Constitution.

In other words, we haven't gotten to our current state of jurisprudence regarding gun rights through any well thought out understanding or agreement regarding the nature of guns in our society or any clear mandate from the Constitution, we've gotten here entirely by accident and through interpretation of unclear sections of the Constitution.

So… yeah… Make of this what you will.

Let me know what you think and I hope you at least found this interesting.

SOURCES

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]

#gun control #second amendment #2nd amendment #us law #constitutional law #long rant (tm) #originalism #incorporation doctrine #supreme court #us supreme court #constitution #us constitution #14th amendment #fourteenth amendment #due process clause

[theamazingannie]

Got so many thoughts on the idiotic 2a arguments but I think the strongest one is: bombs are illegal. It is illegal to purchase bombs, or to even look like you are purchasing equipment to make bombs. Nowhere in the second amendment does it say the word “gun”. It says “arms.” Thanks to the US vs Russia “Arms Race”, we know that bombs=arms. And yet, they are illegal. Because they are destructive and violent and kill people and everyone seemed to collectively agree that the government should be allowed to ban them. You know what else is violent and destructive and kills people? Guns. Specifically, any gun stronger than a small pistol or a hunting rifle. And yet, so many people are advocating for these weapons to remain legal. Weapons that have ONLY been used to commit acts of destructive violence that kill people. These weapons are not for self-defense (something that is not technically protected under 2a, but that’s for another time) or for hunting. They are meant to kill people. And they are too often used to kill children in this country. They are used by violent people, for violent means. Just like the people who use bombs. I’ll end this by reminding you not of the “well-regulated militia” part of the 2a, as that is highly debated, but simply on the words “well-regulated”. It is not against the second amendment to have regulations on who should own a gun, and what type of gun is allowed to be owned, so stop using it to fight against regulations that will stop our children from dying

#politics #second amendment #yet another political rant that’s never gonna do anything #but Im right and you know it #regardless of whether or not you agree with what our founding fathers wanted #and regardless of whether you think it’s important what they wanted #both the text and historical precedent agree with me

[moonstruckme]

heyy :)) would you maybe write something for remus with a reader that sometimes goes nonverbal?? i would really appreciate it, no pressure tho<33

Hi! I had to read up on this a bit, so I apologize for any inaccuracies. Thanks for requesting lovely!

cw: reader gets overstimulated

Remus Lupin x fem!reader ♡ 767 words

Shamefully, Remus doesn’t notice until you’re asked a question. Sirius has been on a rant about the injustice of him being expected to work while there’s a concert he wants to go to next week (he’s used up all his personal days, and his manager has finally caught on to his strategy of pretending to have diarrhea anytime he wants out of a shift) for the past twenty minutes, and James, sweetheart that he is, has tried to bring you into the conversation by asking if you’ve been to any shows you liked. 

Remus looks to you for your answer, thinking you might say something about the small concert in the park he’d taken you to before you’d started dating (or started dating officially, that is. Remus had been flirting with you for weeks before you caught on), but you only smile with one side of your mouth and nod. James takes it for shyness and moves on. 

Remus feels for your hand under the table intertwining your fingers with his as he ducks towards your ear. “You alright, dove?” 

You nod again, neglecting to talk as you rest the side of your head against his shoulder. Remus sweeps his thumb across the back of your hand pensively. You usually don’t have much trouble with his friends, but they are particularly loud tonight. All overeager, talking over each other and making noisy, boisterous sounds whenever one of them makes a joke or a baiting remark. The tables around you aren’t much tamer, everyone in the restaurant almost needing to shout to be heard. He supposes he should have guessed earlier that it could be overwhelming for you. 

“Do you want to go?” he murmurs. 

You tilt your head back to look at him, your eyes searching. Uncertain. 

“I’m ready to leave if you are,” Remus amends. Then you rub your lips together, nodding. “Yeah? Let’s go, lovely girl.” 

He stands, moving so you can slip out of the booth. Your table wails and jeers about you leaving so early, and Remus sets a hand on your back as he fields the complaints, leading you away. He’s not entirely ungrateful for the refreshing quiet as you step outside, either. 

Your eyes are on him as you walk to the car. Remus raises an eyebrow at you. 

“Do you have your pad with you?” 

You look hesitant, but nod. 

“Is there something you want to tell me?” 

You frown, digging the small notepad out of your back pocket. Remus passes you a pen. He unlocks his car and opens the door for you, going around to his own seat while you scribble on the page. Once he starts the engine to get the heat going, you nudge the notepad against his leg. 

He takes it, reading silently. Are you upset that I made us leave? We can go back if you want.

He suspects his incredulity shows on his face before he schools his expression into gentleness, looking up at you. “Of course I’m not upset,” he says, making sure to hold your gaze when you shy a bit, self-conscious. “I was ready to leave too, but besides that I wouldn’t want to stay if you weren’t having a good time. It’s never a bother.” He sets the notepad back in your lap, taking your hand in his. “Understand?” 

You nod, and the bashful little smile you give him makes Remus’ heart feel too big for his chest. 

“Good.” He imbues his voice with exaggerated sternness, rewarded when your cheek dimples. “Glad we’re clear on that. Is there anything else you need? You hardly touched your dinner, do you wanna get something before we go home?” 

You stick your tongue in your cheek. Remus recognizes the hesitance and releases your hand, pushing the pen back into it. 

“Write it down, sweetheart.” 

You sigh as though defeated. Your eyes squint a bit as you write, stopping for a second before finishing and passing the notepad back. 

Can we drive through somewhere? I don’t want to have to talk to anyone.

“Yeah, easy.” Remus slides it back to you, shifting the car into reverse and backing out of his parking spot. “Do you feel like a milkshake? We could go by the place just down our street, or whatever you—” You nod eagerly, and he smiles. “Yeah? Alright, just write down your order, okay? I’ll read it out when we get there.” You laugh your ass off when Remus unthinkingly reads your whole order aloud to the drive-thru worker, including the note at the end that says Thanks handsome, love you.

#remus lupin #remus lupin x reader #remus lupin x fem!reader #remus lupin x y/n #remus lupin x you #remus lupin x self insert #remus lupin fanfiction #remus lupin fanfic #remus lupin fic #remus lupin fluff #remus lupin hurt/comfort #remus lupin imagine #remus lupin scenario #remus lupin drabble #remus lupin blurb #remus lupin oneshot #remus lupin one shot #marauders #the marauders #marauders era #marauders fanfiction #marauders fandom #hp marauders #marauders x reader

[stevenspringphotography]

Gun Ownership In Itself Is Not A Second Amendment Right

Gun Ownership In Itself Is Not A Second Amendment Right

May 25, 2022 I hate to keep posting an updated version of my original post, which first appeared on July 28, 2012 after the horrific shooting at the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado that left twelve dead and fifty-eight wounded, however, once again a mass shooting has shaken America to its knees. Those who lost their lives yesterday, along with their families dealing with a lifetime…

View On WordPress

#Mass Murder #Politics #Rants #Second Amendment #Uvalde Texas

[leo-muscle]

I’ve heard a little bit about this King Leon guy. Who does he think he is to call himself a king? Seems far to pretentious if you ask me. I wouldn’t be caught dead bowing to someone like that. Not in a million years.

Sure I’m the most basic looking white dude on the planet. My face gets lost in the crowd and my body is light enough to be blown by a breeze. But a king can’t change that, and I would like to see him or any of his subjects try to.

"Are you sure about that?" The bartender told you. You had just arrived on your vacation in Haiti, and the resort's bartender had decided to strike up a conversation with you over drinks. He was enormous, seven feet of pure surfer boy muscle, with a thick gut that was the very picture of strength. He would have been the most beautiful man you had ever seen, if you weren't in the middle of a massive rant.

"Oh, absolutely." You continued. "Whoever these 'kings' are, I don't want anything to do with 'em. Who are they to declare rule over the entire world, and who are we to listen to them?"

It was true, of course. Much of Africa, the British Isles, Central America, and even the islands you were now in had been united under the rule of these Kings. While many praised them for their novel social reforms and exponential increase to quality of life in their domains, many others, yourself included, remained attached to the old ways. Even this vacation was a scouting trip, to see if whatever propaganda these Kings were putting out was true.

"On the contrary, my friend, I am perfectly happy to listen to the rule of my King. You should have seen this island before King Kai came here. Homelessness, poverty... it's all been amended since he arrived."

"Really?" You asked, taking a big swig of your drink, savoring its tingle on your lips. "And NO one's uncomfortable being ruled by just one person?"

"People love King Kai. He is kind and just, like any good king should be. You'll see that soon enough." The bartender said.

"What do you mean by that?" You asked, your heart racing.

"Oh, nothing much. Just give it a few seconds."

"What are you-- UGH!" You doubled over, your skin on fire with a sensation entirely alien to you.

The bartender walked out from behind the bar, and soon, his magical hands went to work. With his kingly essence in your system, you could be molded into a respectable citizen of the world.

He started with your pecs, cupping them from behind as they burst through your tropical shirt with new strength. They were enormous, voluptuous pillows, jiggling with muscle and a thin layer of fat.

He then moved his hands along your shoulders, pumping them into cannonballs of strength. The moment his hands reached your arms, they pulled and pushed, leaving your twiggy biceps and forearms as but a fleeting memory, replacing them with pulsing, powerful cannons of strength. In awe, you flexed your right arm, forming a mound easily as big as a baseball if not more.

You moaned softly as King Kai's beautiful hands lightly traced a six-pack onto your stomach, each ab popping into existence, forming an impenetrable wall of strength.

Soon, his hands navigated south, one massive hand palming your flat ass, while the other grabbed your tiny three-inch cock. You moaned, long, low, and hard as both of his hands began to move out from your body, pulling your cock and ass with them. Your cheeks rounded out into a big, bouncy bubble butt, bigger than most women's. It shook with strength and sexuality with every slight movement you made, much like your cock, which had grown so big with the King's touch that no pair of pants could conceal your enormous bulge. His touch was electric on your shaft, causing you to pre almost endlessly.

Your mind was in heaven as he continued to your legs. Your cock was at full mast at its enormous eleven inches as he took his hands to your legs, and blew them up into corded steel pillars as big as any christmas ham. You moaned, your cock firing blanks as he looked you deep into your eyes, placing one hand to completely cover your currently-unchanged face.

"As much as I love my people, we cannot be a global community if all my citizens are homogenous." King Kai said. "Hmm, where should I send you..."

Your skin flickered through thousands of shades in a single moment, before settling on a tone a few shades darker than your original. Your hair darkened to black, and you instantly sprouted a thick dark mustache, and a chinstrap beard to match. Your eyes became narrower and monolid, your stare intensifying into a sexy smolder. As King Kai leaned in and kissed you, your bulk increased, and your muscle became padded with a thin sexy layer of fat.

"Cum." King Kai commanded you, his voice sexy enough to send you over the edge.

You had been reborn, a Vietnamese stud in the Carribean. Your brain was aflame with new neurons, making connections faster and better than ever before. You knew you had been improved, in every conceivable way. You were stronger, smarter, wiser, and you had no one but your new king to thank.

#male tf #male transformation #race change #muscle bear #bear tf #jock tf #pec growth #butt growth #asian tf #mental change #kings of the world

[nosuchthingasaburdenonsociety]

This was originally a Facebook comment in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting that I’ve taken to reprinting here in reponse to the mass shootings I hear about, such as in Nashville last Monday. (And, please bear in mind, these are only the ones I hear about, meaning the ones with mass media coverage which hardly happens in every case.) When I reprinted it at the time of the Annapolis Capital Gazette shooting, for the first time I got a substantial amount of pushback, so now rebuttals to the counterarguments I have received then and since are in a lengthy appendix to the reprint text.

My usual procedure for responding to any substantive new comment to a reposting of this is to edit my response into the next posting, or sometimes of the current posting, rather than to reply directly. This is because, when I allow myself to get sucked into engaging with counterarguments directly, almost always I end up wearied again by new, merely paraphrased instances of the same old arguments already rebutted here. New this time is citation and sourcing of reports that the Uvalde cops held back because they were scared of the shooter's AR-15.

I keep saying “it’s proven that the killing can be stopped” and you keep saying, “but we have rights” as if having rights was an end in itself. No, rights are intended to serve a purpose.

They’re for preventing people getting killed!

You keep invoking directly or indirectly one sentence in a document that was written in an era when rifles, pistols, and cannons could hold only one projectile at a time and took minutes to reload [EDIT: supposed factual inaccuracy of this statement is addressed in the appendix]. That document also contains the built-in capacity for itself to be updated when its provisions are no longer effective. It is not Holy Writ. It even presented itself as updateable before it was completed: the sentence you’re so fond of is itself an amendment. Do you believe the sentence in question was written ultimately for the protection of guns or for the protection of lives? Because it’s used for protecting only one of the two, these days, and that’s not lives. Therefore it needs updating.

I will not accept any citation of theoretical future insurrection against a government turned hostile (which government, by the way, in that event would use planes or drones to drop bombs, against which your home weaponry is no protection - it’s doing so right now to civilian populations overseas, and it did so during the 20th century in Tulsa and Philadelphia - so good luck storming the capital) because firstly, actual civilian innocent lives being lost in the present are more important than any merely theoretical future; and secondly, that’s not what the Second Amendment was truly about anyhow. The militia it refers to were the nation’s first police forces whose original formation was for the purpose of hunting and killing black people. The only valid (using the term loosely) reason for denying that the Second Amendment now requires amendment itself is that you’re okay with police shootings of people of color. Those US government bombings on US soil I mentioned parenthetically above? Black neighborhoods, residences and businesses, rich and poor. That’s what you’re defending whether or not you know it.

You think your postion is “rights are important” but you aren’t seeing the context, the difference between what you think the rights are for, and how they are instead now actually being utilized. You aren’t seeing the logical fallacy in what you’re saying which is “this right whose purpose is the protection of innocent lives is more important than all the innocent lives that are being destroyed by people exercising this right”. You aren’t seeing that your position ultimately reduces to “lives are less important than guns” but I do and it outrages me wherever I see it.

Even if you were correct that Americans’ minds somehow work differently than the minds of all the people in all the nations where gun law successfully prevents mass shootings (which, by the way, seems disproven by the majority popular support of the gun control legislation that Congress brought after Sandy Hook then voted down), it would only mean that disregard for human life has become the American way. It’s not in me to quietly allow that to stand. While that’s your position there can be no meeting of minds between us, no agreement to disagree. I may give up arguing with you in particular as a bad job, but never mistake that for concession.

The question before us is, “Lives or guns?”, and you keep answering, “Guns.”

[end of reprint]

Popular counterarguments I’ve received:

1. Inquiries as to what form I would give the gun control law I advocate and what type of guns I would see banned. I would model such laws on the laws that have drastically reduced or have eliminated mass shootings in all nations that have implemented them including, at one time, the United States. I would use those laws’ definition of what was banned. (I anticipate receiving complaints that this statement is not specific enough to sealion but, because such a law were better drafted by someone with legislative expertise and experience and a research staff than by an unpaid webcartoonist, I consider that a feature not a bug.) (I anticipate rebuttals that the previous parenthetical statement constitutes effective admission on my part that I’m too ignorant on the subject to have an opinion at all, but you don’t need to be a plumber to know when you need your toilet rooted out.)

2. Rebuttals seeming to assume that I’m calling for the banning of all guns. Nowhere in the reprint did I call for that. What I called for were two things: the reexamination of the Second Amendment just like any other legislation that’s two and a half centuries old and therefore in need of review, and the implementation in the United States of the solution proven by other nations (and by, at one time, the United States) for the problem of mass shootings which is some manner of national gun control. Now, it may be that the U.S. needs to ban all handguns like some nations, or only some guns like other nations, or ban guns from only certain demographics such as those with known domestic abuse history (which would rule out a percentage of police which might astound you) and as known violent crime offenders, and may need even to experiment at first to find out what’s best, I can’t say. And I didn’t say here (for the reason noted parenthetically in the above paragraph). It remains that the loss of life under the status quo is unacceptable to me and to the majority of the nation (the majority who supported the national gun control bill in Congress after Sandy Hook which bill failed due to special interest lobbying) and requires action be taken; that’s what I say when I say, “The question is, ‘Lives or guns?’”.

3. Rebuttals that gun control won’t stop criminals from killing people. That’s off the topic. The topic is not stopping all murders or violence, the topic is stopping mass shootings, for which national gun control is drastically or wholly effective in every nation that has implemented it, including at one time the United States. (My impression that some comments assume I’m calling for total gun ban may only be an artifact of this consistent failure of counterarguments to focus on the topic.) Refusal to implement the known solution to a given problem on the grounds that it’s not a solution for all problems is not rational.

(Also: The presumption that a given argument’s focus on one topic demonstrates indifference in the speaker/writer on any or all other topics is one of the classic logical fallacies. That means, declining to be deflected off topic by the subject of other violent crime in a discussion of mass shootings in comments on my own post about mass shootings does not demonstrate that I don’t care about the victims of other violent crime; that’s the tu quoque logical fallacy, known in these online days as “whataboutism”. Declining to be deflected to other topics than mass shootings demonstrates, and demonstrates only, that my post’s topic is mass shootings.)

4. Rebuttals to my discussions of the unexamined racism in the second amendment pointing out, correctly, that gun control since emancipation has often been purposefully biased against black people … as if that were a reason to oppose gun law reform instead of a reason to support it. …or as if I were arguing in favor of racially biased gun law, when unexamined racial bias is the only actual specific complaint the reprint brings against the second amendment.

5. Rebuttals (but not genuine rebuttals, deflection attempts, obviously) that the first amendment also has not been updated since it was enacted, which means I must want that one reexamined too. It can be difficult to judge tone in writing but I’m reasonably certain comments to this effect are in bad faith and are pursuing an anticipated gotcha moment, when I’m expected to bluster, “Well, that’s different,” and be caught in a contradiction somehow. But this is, in fact, different. However the reason it’s different is not that I oppose reexamination of free speech rights (as such an attempted gotcha would be predicated on) because I don’t oppose it. The reason it’s different is that reexamination of free speech rights happens, in exactly the manner I’m advocating for gun rights.

Over the last two-plus centuries there’s been plenty of Supreme Court case law on free speech (and obviously these are only cases that weren’t resolved in lower courts). Most SCOTUS free speech case law consists of the striking down of laws that were ruled to violate the first amendment but there have also been innovations in SCOTUS free speech case law. For example, a case from 1969 gave rise to the “imminent danger test” used, to this day, for determining whether a given sample of hate speech is protected speech or not. Constitutional protection was determined by SCOTUS not to apply to something whose obvious intended and sole purpose is to harm people immediately, quickly, violently, and in large numbers.

I’m going to say that twice because it’s important: In 1969 constitutional protection was determined by SCOTUS not to apply to something whose obvious intended and sole purpose is to harm people immediately, quickly, violently, and in large numbers.

Of course I support periodic reexamination of the first amendment. I support it as an existing model for what the second amendment stands badly in need of. (More of the Constitution too, possibly, but the topic on the floor is mass shootings.)

It’s the same with the obvious, bad faith, unabashedly transparent gotcha attempt I also get, “There wasn’t internet technology when the Constitution was written so you must want to get rid of the internet like you want to get rid of modern weapons.” As above, this objection fails because it inadvertently supports my point: internet regulations are being created and struck down all the time. It’s another example of how our laws are meant to be treated. And of how they generally have been treated. But gun law hasn’t.

Same with the counterargument that maintains allowing any restriction at all to our rights is a slippery slope. If it is a slippery slope, we live on that slope already because - as noted in my reprinted post - the Constitution was purposefully built by its writers smack in the middle of that slope. Again: feature, not bug. (“Slippery slope”, by the way, is also on all lists I see of common logical fallacies.)

One of the quotations of Jefferson engraved on the Jefferson Monument in Washington D.C. is: “I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816.

6. A rebuttal to the factual accuracy of my statement in the reprinted post, “You keep invoking directly or indirectly one sentence in a document that was written in an era when rifles, pistols, and cannons could hold only one projectile at a time and took minutes to reload;” the rebuttal sourced by, e.g., the article linked below detailing the history of several more efficient firearm designs dated to or predating 1787. I stand corrected. It is within the realm of possibility that the writers of the Constitution were familiar with these designs. However the only claim made in the article of actual use of such a weapon, the Ferguson breech-loading flintlock which fired “up to seven rounds per minute, two to three times faster that the muzzle-loading weapons of the day“, on American soil before the writing of the Constitution was “by the British against the Americans in 1777”. The Wikipedia article on the Puckle gun, a mounted gun documented to fire nine rounds per minute, makes a point of asserting no more than two may ever have been manufactured (apparently on the basis that only two survive to the present). These guns existed in the late 18th century but they were few and would have been prohibitively expensive to the private citizen or to the military- or law- officer; if not, the Colt revolver wouldn’t have been such an innovation when it came along some fifty years later.

Thank you for the correction on historical detail. However the contemporary existence of these designs, somewhere on the planet or somewhere on the same contintent and not all of them historically documented to have been actually manufactured anywhere let alone mass-produced at reasonable cost, hardly demonstrates that the writers of the Constitution anticipated the proliferation we have today of the automatic rifles which fire a thousand bullets a minute or the mounted guns which fire six thousand bullets a minute.

Come to that, bullets were not invented until about sixty years after the drafting of the Constitution. However quickly the founding fathers imagined it was possible for guns to shoot projectiles, the projectiles they would’ve been imagining were small metal balls, not constructions designed to mutilate bodies beyond recognition. The Uvalde, Texas shooting victims’ families were required to submit to DNA swabbing for the coroners to determine which corpses were whose children, and all reports suggest the same will have been necessary in Nashville.

It’s pure speculation whether the founding fathers had any concept of the possibility of the degree of destructive power of today’s firearms, unless someone reading this can produce further historical documentation. And even with such confirmation it’s beside my actual point, which is:

The writers of the Constitution did foresee, and designed the Constitution to accomodate, that it would at times need to be updated with the will of the majority. In regard to the second amendment and to gun control law generally that hasn’t happened and needs to start happening because the lack is costing lives. In regard to the intent of the founding fathers: Jefferson said the Constitution ought to be rewritten from scratch every twenty years.

7. Rebuttals suggesting or stating that contriving somehow to place the proverbial “good guy with a gun” on the scene of a mass shooting shall prevent/should have prevented it. Usually it’s a variation on a statement of willingness and eagerness in the genuinely admirable goal of defending themselves, their loved ones and neighbors, and their rights with their automatic rifles; insisting that the question isn’t “Lives or guns?” but something like “Lives defended with guns or lives left undefended?”. This appears to be the only proposed alternative solution by automatic weapon advocates to national gun control law in the problem of mass shooting deaths.

(The only proposed alternate solution besides doing nothing, under the counterargument that we don’t need any further gun control because violent crime rates are dropping. I guess everyone’s meant to just wait in an orderly fashion for the random slaughter of innocents to eventually stop? Gun crime stats may be falling, but mass shooting deaths are rising; they averaged more than one per day in 2022, and the figures I see for 2023 are the same or worse. That’s why the whole of violent crime is a whole separate topic. Anyway, the CDC says gun related deaths have most recently been rising - at least in, surprise surprise, open carry states [citation below].)

How the presence of a good guy with a gun would have been/will be arranged ahead of time in any given specific case past or future hasn’t been made clear to me. I suppose each individual advocate is suggesting their personal presence with a gun on them makes a location safe from mass shootings for everyone. But one commenter did ask me whether I knew of any “successful” mass shootings where a good guy with a gun was present. For that I have answers. These are just the examples of which I already knew without doing any research [I researched anyway and there are citations below]:

After the shooting at the Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas, the mayor stated there were many armed civilians present, who did not draw or use their firearms. The official position on that, paraphrased: “Good! They’d only have made themselves appear to law enforcement that they were our target.”

There was a “good guy with a gun” at the Parkland, Florida school shooting. Not an armed civilian who happened to be nearby, a trained uniformed county sheriff department law enforcement official stationed there from a division charged with serving and protecting the schools specifically. He was recorded on camera when the shooting started going up to the building’s entrance and standing there outside for the duration. In the intervening time there have been conflicting rulings on whether it had been the uniformed official’s responsibility to act differently [citation below]. But still, this is disproof that the mere presence of a “good guy with a gun” and the presumption that they'll take action is any practical protection whatsoever.

Most recently, there were police on the scene in Uvalde before the shooter entered the school who reportedly exchanged fire with him but did not prevent him from entering nor follow him in. He did not have body armor [citation below], but their reason for failing to stop him was they thought he did. At least, they stated they thought he did and that that was their reason for failure. And later on it's come out that they hesitated because they had identified that he was carrying an AR-15 [citation below].

I anticipate being accused of cherrypicking data for making answer to a specific request for specific examples of specifically this kind of thing. But, while I was looking around collecting citations for those events, I also found a 2014 FBI study that tells us mass shooters are stopped more often by unarmed civilians than by armed civilians. That’s a national statistic documented and released by civil law enforcement authority, not a cherrypicking. And while the report, in its own words, “support[s] the importance of training and exercises - not only for law enforcement but also for citizens” (without, unless I missed it, making any judgment on whether more or fewer civilians ought to be undertaking such gun ownership and training), it distinguishes between that and prevention, stating also, “seeking to avoid these tragedies is clearly the best result.”

A good guy with a gun does not constitute needed and recommended prevention for mass shootings in the eyes of federal law enforcement authority.

Finally, the good guy with a gun argument is a bad-faith logical fallacy at its heart. The logic statement form “if you or someone else on the scene of your mass shooting had had a gun, then you wouldn’t have got shot” is the same logic statement form as “if you dressed differently, then you wouldn’t have got raped”. This is a logical fallacy because law-abiding people’s right not to have crimes committed against them isn’t legally, morally, or factually contingent on their own behavior. The logic of the “good guy with a gun” argument places responsibility for the consequences of the actions of the mass shooters elsewhere than on the shooters, and that’s why it’s a logical and moral fallacy and why in simple practical terms it fails to constitute prevention.

sources

mass shooting deaths rising http://time.com/4965022/deadliest-mass-shooting-us-history/

gun homicides rising per CDC https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/homicides-using-guns-31-percent-cdc-finds-n895366

Dallas https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/about-that-good-guy-with-a-gun/2016/07/11/3ed098fe-47a2-11e6-acbc-4d4870a079da_story.html?utm_term=.9271a0507018

Parkland https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/the-parkland-shooting-did-have-a-good-guy-with-a-gun.html

FBI report https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/fbi-report-active-shooters_b_5900748.html https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf/view

The Parkland sheriff officer liability https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/12/21/us-judge-says-law-enforcement-officers-had-no-legal-duty-protect-parkland-students-during-mass-shooting/

no body armor in Uvalde https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2022/05/25/khou-11-in-houston-the-uvalde-gunman-was-not-wearing-body-armor/

Uvalde cops scared of AR-15 https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/lawrence-police-were-afraid-of-the-uvalde-gunman-s-ar-15-166823493564

8. “You sound like a Nazi.” Another fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument

9. “Correlation is not causation. There is no scientific evidence of causation.” The lack of evidence to support causation is a contrivance, the result not of conclusion from investigation but of the willing, purposeful obstruction of investigation into causation. From the NBC News article linked above on rising gun homicide rates: “[The CDC] regularly reports on gun deaths, but its role in researching the underlying causes has been limited by the so-called Dickey Amendment, which is tacked on to congressional funding legislation every year. It bars the CDC from using federal funding to ‘advocate or promote gun control'.” Powerful gun control opponents in Washington DC are afraid of the evidence being investigated, which betrays that gun control opponents are as certain as gun control supporters what proper investigation of the evidence would show.

But there certainly is correllation. From the same article: “[M]ore states had loosened rules on gun ownership and the carrying of guns at around the same time that firearms homicide rates went up.“ That’s a negative example. For a positive example, there’s every nation, e.g. Scotland/the United Kingdom, to have had one mass shooting decades ago and in response implemented gun control only to have few or no more mass shootings since that first one in the same period of time that the U.S. has had escalating deaths from mass shootings. In fact, there's the U.S., where certain types of automatic weaponry were banned for about ten years but the ban was allowed to lapse and the number of shootings per year has gorwn every year since.

Even if there’s no causation, when the correlation saves lives - as it demonstrably, statistically does - then the lives are still saved.

10. “'Lives or guns’? I choose guns.” Here I deliberately evoke the no-meeting-of-minds clause in the reprint post for declining to engage with you which is nevertheless not to be mistaken by you as any kind of concession. It's not a rebuttal of anything I've written and says more about you than about me or about my argument.

11. The first few times I had cause to reprint this essay since January 6, 2021 I felt that my remark in my quoted Facebook comment’s paragraph about self-defense against tyranny, “good luck storming the capital” (a flip allusion to The Princess Bride dialog), called for some sort of comment or qualifier, since a storming of the Capital is now an actual historical event whose consequences to date to its top-level organizers have been minimal. But ultimately, while the insurrectionists brought onto the scene a gallows (ultimately unused), and while there were five deaths including a police officer, gun presence doesn’t seem to have had any significance (little enough that Fox News has even lied that there were no firearms brought in by the insurrectionists).

12 (conclusion). My stance is: nationally banning at least some kinds of guns is an effective solution to the problem of mass shootings, its effectiveness proven and documented for the purpose in every case it’s been implemented including formerly the United States, and therefore it needs to be reimplemented in the United States. The second amendment needs to start being treated the same way every other law/right in the United States is treated in terms of review and update against constantly developing status quo and technology. No counterargument to the statements in my reprint yet brought to my attention either 1) provides a proven alternative for mass shooting prevention other than the proven solution I advocate 2) fails to amount to answering, “Lives or guns?”, with, “Guns.” (Except “You called me racist!” which is untrue; what I called you was ignorant about racism.)

#guns #gun safety #second amendment #second amendment rant

[not-caused-by-those-who-love]

You know what they also didn't have yet in the late 18th century? Bullets. Those little arrowhead shaped things we've only had for about 200 years replacing metal balls, sometimes built with "soft noses" for an exit wound orders of magnitude larger than the entrance wound. Try convincing me the founding fathers expected and intended for people on the street (not even getting into what color and gender and social class they would have assumed of such people) to be carrying firearms which shoot hundreds of such bullets in a minute. Just try.

Posting this comment in response to the Highland Park mass shooting in lieu of my usual lengthy canned second amendment rant. Please know, any and every rebuttal to my positions presented in the last few years is already covered by that. You'd have to be innovative to come up with one that isn't refuted. It'll be back next mass shooting if you don't want to bother hunting it up in my archive now.

#guns #gun safety #second amendment #second amendment rant

[obxone]

Being A Pogue

Edited-ish. ~625 words. Another cute, but short one.

“They are being hard on me for no reason!” Kiara groans, throwing the remote down against your bed. It bounces from the impact, knocking her on the knee. She groans loudly, and you frown at her. “Since when is being a pogue so bad?”

You shrug, “I wouldn’t know.”

She sighs, hand pushing through her curly hair. “You’re a pogue. Even if you did not grow up that way.”

“I’m middle-class Kie. I’m neither pogue nor kook.” You take a bite of your fruit bowl that you had been making when she came over upset at her parents, needing a friend to rant to. “Besides, I like being neutral.”

She frowns, nails picking at the chipping nail polish on her fingers. “You are a pogue, and my dad is a pogue. He is being an asshole!”

“Was,” you amend, and she frowns deeper. “He was. He’s full kook now Babe.”

“He should know better than to lump us all as trash.”

“He called us trash?” You ask, arching an eyebrow in annoyance. “You should have led with that.”

She sighs, hands pressing to her face. Her scream of annoyance is muffled by her palms.

“Whoa, everything okay here?”

Both of your heads swivel at the same time to see JJ and Pope grinning in your bedroom doorway.

“No!” Kie snaps, biting the head off a gummy worm. She had pillaged your snack cabinet citing comfort treats after you had suggested she spend the night to cool off. “My parents are freaking out again.”

“That sucks,” Pope offers, moving past JJ and dropping onto the foot of your bed. You roll your eyes at his lame attempt at flirting before your eyes catch on JJ. He grins, dimple showing, as he drags those gorgeous eyes over you. He tips his head back, and you get the memo. Kie and Pope are busy talking as you slip out of the bed and pad out. Your hand grasping his and tugging him along to the kitchen. He follows, his hand tightening around yours until you pull away to lift yourself onto the counter.

“Where are the parents?” He asks, glancing around the mostly dark and quiet house.

“Mom is visiting her sister in Nashville for the week, and Dad is on a boat for another month.”

He nods, hands bracing against the counter on either side of you. You inhale shakily, uncrossing your ankles to let your legs settle on either side of him.

“Did you use the hide a key?”

“Maybe.”

You laugh, arms hooking around his shoulders before your lips brush his. “My smart man.”

“All yours, Baby.” He kisses you, hands snaking their way under your sweatshirt.

“Gross!” Pope whines, and you laugh, ending the kiss. JJ rolls his eyes in annoyance.

Kiara rolls her eyes at you as she stalks past you to the fridge. “Way to be supportive friends by sneaking away to make out during my moment of need,” she huffs. “I want to watch a movie.”

“We barely kissed!” JJ defends himself, but you shake your head at him before turning to look at Kie, aware of how close JJ still is. One hand remains tucked under your sweatshirt. Fingertips teasing and eliciting goosebumps up your back.

“What movie?”

She shrugs, leaning back against the closed fridge. A soda in her hand. “Something funny.”

“Got it!” JJ snaps his fingers and is gone from you within seconds, running into the family room. You laugh and hop off the counter. Kie’s arm snaking around your waist as you walk side by side into the family room. Pope is already hot on JJ’s heels, ready to bicker about their different choices.

“We’ll get through it,” you whisper to her, lips pressing to her cheek. “You have us, and we are family too.”

“Thank you,” she returns, hugging herself against you. “But no more making out during a crisis.”

“Deal!” You laugh before you both plop down onto your sofa.

#outer banks #obx #jj maybank fluff #jj maybank x reader #jj maybank #obx jj maybank #outer banks jj maybank #jj maybank x you

[welikeimagines-andfandoms]

Kinktober day 3- Hate Sex: Loki

Summary: You and Loki hate each other. Can you fuck it out?

Word count: 2,346 words

It had been about 6 months since Loki had come to live in the avengers compound, and about 2 years since you were rescued from hydra and began living with them. In that time you’d both made amends and became close with the team, but not with each other. In fact the opposite was true, you couldn’t stand one another.

This feud had started off innocently enough, with you just not liking his arrogance and him liking to stir up the young midguardian woman but it’s grown worse since then. Neither of you can stand to be in the same room for too long and Nat had even made Steve change the training schedule so you 2 wouldn’t have to be around each other. Once you were even in the elevator with each other for just a bit too long and almost blew it up.

Everyone on the team had tried many times to get you both to at least tolerate each other but nothing would work. You both simply could not stand each other.

One night you could just not sleep, tossing and turning for about 2 hours before you decided to get up and do something. Your brain was not tired and your body was not shutting off so you decided to get dressed and head to the compounds gym, maybe a run or a couple punches on the bag would help.

So far it seemed to be doing the trick, but as you manoeuvred around the bag to give it another combo, you spotted him. As soon as your eyes found each other you both seem to roll them in unison.

“What the fuck are you doing here?” You spat at him, taking your earphones out.

“Well it’s a gym, darling, where one may workout, maybe that’s what I’m doing.” He retorts, words laced with sarcasm and venom.

“Fuck you, Loki! And don’t call me darling.” You roll your eyes again as you turn to face away from him and return to the bag.

Before you could make another hit however you feel a hand on your waist and see another resting on the bag. Turning around you find, Loki towering over you.

“Why don’t you like when I call you ‘Darling’, darling?” He asks you teasingly with a smirk on his face.

“Because!” You accentuate as you shove him away.

“It’s you saying it.” You reply back with just as much, if not more attitude.

“Well I suppose if it was another one of the team saying it you’d be fine? Someone you actually consider worthy of such attention.” He bites back at you.

“Yeh someone worthy, someone like Thor. He’s the worthy one, not you.” You spit back at him, knowing that would hurt him.

A snarl made its way to his face and you knew you’d won as you turned around and began to put your earphones back in, but were too late before he started up again.

“Well maybe I should save my compliments and pet names for someone who’s actually attractive. Perhaps Natasha or Wanda would be appropriate.” He bites back with just as much venom, knowing that was also a low blow.

That hurt, but you kept your head up high as you turned back to him with a smirk.

“Funny you think they’d actually want you. You’re nothing, Loki. You’re second rate and you know it, the only reason you’re even here is because we like Thor. He’s the only reason you’re not locked away,” anger now evident in Lokis face and trembling fists as you continued your assault “he’s the reason you’re not dead. Your brother, Thor, the worthy one the one who’s actu-.” Your torment filled rants was cut short as Loki smash his mouth into yours, pushing you all the way back until your back collided with the wall.

At first you wanted to push him off but in your own twisted way you saw this as a challenge. Grabbing onto his gym shirt you deepen the kiss, now opening your mouth as your tongues fight for dominance.

“You are a rude, disgusting woman!” He says now grabbing your hair and pulling it back as his body pushes against yours, using his godly strength to keep you caged in.

“Maybe you need someone to teach you some manners, or maybe you just need someone to fuck some into you. Maybe that’s why you’re such a bitch, because no one wants to fuck you.” He growled, his face now getting closer to you.

“What you think you’re the one to do it? You think if you fuck me maybe I’ll be nice to you? Maybe I’ll be compliant? That I’ll see you as a mighty god?” You ask him tauntingly with a rage filled smirk on your face.

Flipping you around before you have a second to fight back he pushes your face into the wall, his hand pulling on your hair roughly and a tight grip squeezing into your hip. Pushing his strong body against your back and ass you can now feel his very hard cock pushing into your lower back, feeling every inch of him. Without meaning to you let out a small moan and leant into his grip, your body betraying you.

“Oh haha, who’s not worthy now, little girl?” He whispers hotly into your ear, taunting you once again.

“Fuck you.” You yell back as best you can with your face being forced onto the wall.

“I will if you like. Is that what you’d like?” He asked, his hand now reaching around to grab your covered pussy, feeling just how wet you are even with your workout pants and panties on.

“Mmmhhmm it feels like that’s exactly what you want.” He moans in your ear, playing with you through your clothes and slowly but strongly humping against your back.

You both stayed quiet for a moment, the only sounds echoing through the gym were both of you quietly moaning and grunting.

Loki truly did have skilled fingers because only moments later of just playing with you over your clothes you could feel your body tingling and you knew you were close.

“Oh you dirty slut. You’re about to cum aren’t you? Do you want to cum?” He asks you tauntingly.

“Yes! Please I want to cum!” You begged, all rage now being flooded by pleasure and a need for release.

“Beg. Beg me and I’ll let you cum. Beg me to fuck you, to turn you into a good girl.” He growled in your ear, his thrusts on your behind becoming faster as did his strokes on your clit. You didn’t want to give in, you wanted to fight him and win but god damn it you couldn’t deny how hot he was and how good he was making you feeling.

“Oh fuck! Please, Loki! Please fuck me! I need you, make me a good girl. Please fuck me hard! Please! I need your cock.” You sobbed out, desperate to get some release.

“Good girl.” Was all he whispered before he took his hands away and took a step back.

Being denied your pleasure made the rage in you flood back with a great vengeance.

“What the fuck, Loki!” You shouted at him as you made your way towards him. Before you could even take a step forward though he was back on you, pushing you against the wall, hand on your throat and harsh kisses shoving your head back.

“You really think the first time I would make you cum would be over your clothes like pubescent boy? Darling I intend to give you an orgasm only a God can give you. So you be a good girl and lay on your back on the floor for me. I’ll show you why they say a have a silver tongue.” He whispered against your lips as you looked into his eyes with need and submission.

“Okay, Loki.” You said quietly, earning you a playful slap on the ass as you made your way to the ground.

Loki was quick to jump on top of you. Making quick work to use him godly strength, tearing the clothes from your trembling body, leaving you completely naked on the cold gym floor.

“Couldn’t you just have magiced them away.” You ask rudely, seeing your nice new gym outfit ripped to shreds beside you.

“Yes of course,” he says pushing a hand around your neck, pushing you further down “but then you wouldn’t be able to see my godly strength, little one.” He whispers hotly into your ear teasing you.

Before you can respond he removes his hand from your throat and drags a moan out of you as he bites down onto your neck. This bites followed by sweet kisses down your neck, to your throat and landing on your first breast. He takes your nipple in his mouth, sucking and nipping on it as your hands tangle in his hair as your eyes roll and your head falls back.

Once he’s satisfied with the treatment your first breast received he moves on to the next, giving it a similar treatment. Once he’s happy with the attention he’s given your breasts, his kisses continue down your stomach and all the way to your pussy.

He just stares at your pussy for a while taking you all in as he licks his lips and spreads your legs apart, big slender but strong hands squeezing your thighs. Suddenly he licks up your pussy and tauntingly sucks on your clit for other half a second.

“Oh, darling, if I knew you tasted his heavenly I would have shut you up ages ago.” He smirks at you cheekily as begins to lick and suck at you again.

Loki truly did have a talented tongue because less than a minute later you felt yourself about to cum again. Not wanting a repeat of last time you began to beg.

“Please, loki, please I’m about to cum. You can fuck me as hard as you like, I’ll be a good girl for you just please let me cum. Oh please let me cum, baby, I’ll be such a good girl.” You begin to babble as you can’t wait for a response any longer and you cum before you can even stop yourself. A wave of pleasure like you’ve never felt before rushes over you as you grab onto Lokis hair and scream out a moan, head falling back and eyes rolling.

Once Lokis face comes back up you begin to worry, trying to babble out an apology, still in a state of great euphoria.

“Loki I’m sorry, I couldn’t control it, I needed to cum, I’m sorry.” You begged him, worried you’d done something bad.

“Shh shh, don’t worry, darling, you did wonderful.” He told you as he stroked your face.

His sweet and calm demeanour didn’t last long however as he grabs you by your throat once again and flips you over. Pushing your head down into the ground and shoving your ass up in the air. You moan as you feel his hard cock against your ass, this clothes now removed by his magic.

“Didn’t think I’d forget to fuck you did I? You naughty little girl. I’m gonna fuck you so hard you’ll never want to be mean to me again. Make you into such a good girl.” He growls in your ear as you try to rub yourself against him.

Before you can begin begging however, he’s shoved him cock all the way inside you, forcing your body forward.

“Fuck, you’re already my good little girl, your pussy was so wet I could just slam right into you.” He taunts as he begins to fuck you at a godly pace and power.

His hands dig into your hips so hard it hurt, no doubt leaving bruises and pain you’ll feel tomorrow. He truly was a god, the roughness of his thrusts not calming down, not even once. He fucks you full speed and force for what feels like a splendid eternity.

Your head begins to go dizzy as you can feel your orgasm approaching, sensing this Loki reaches around to lightly touch your clit, his speed and power not letting up once though.

“You’re close are you, my good girl? You gonna cum for me? You want to cum for your king? Be such a good girl for me?” He asks you sweetly.

Loki had been hitting all your right spots and fucking you so hard that all you could manage was a weak nod of your head, as another moan left your body with Loki pushing down harder on your clit.

“Oh is my good girl too cock drunk to answer? To full of pleasure? Don’t worry, my darling, I’ll let you cum. Come on, little girl, cum for me.” He says only now panting as he gets closer to finishing himself.

Mere moments after his words of encouragement you scream out a moan of absolute delight and pleasure as your eyes roll back. You feel a burst of wetness between your legs as Loki holds onto your hips and fucks you even faster, now cumming himself.

He roars out a moan as he finishes inside you, both of your cum mixing together.

Before you can fall to the floor Loki quickly pulls out of you and scoops you up into his arms. As you feel the warmth of his chest and his racing heart beat you realise he’s transported you under the covers in his nice warm bed.

He’s cleaned you up nicely and holds you lovingly against his chest as he kisses your forehead and strokes your arm.

“Are you going to keep fighting me now?” He asks playfully.

“Well if being mean gets me fucked like that then I might have to.” You joke back.

“Hmmm,” he sighs “how about being nice and seeing what I give you then, sweet girl.” He whispers to you seductively as he squeezes your ass before you both drift softly off to sleep.

#loki #loki x reader #loki imagine #marvel #marvel imagine

[givemea-dam-break]

im a sucker for lockwood x reader angst and i mean angry confessions, miscommunication and the “go ahead and leave then. everyone does, it wouldnt be a surprise if u did too” 😩😩😩

a/n: AHHHHH yes!! i'm so sorry this has taken so long to be written, and the fact I've been inactive for a week or two - it's been assignment week so i needed to focus on that unfortunately, but i hope you enjoy this! angst is my favourite thing to write lol. unfortunately, there's not much miscommunication in this, but i hope I've ticked the other boxes :)

warnings: angst, language gn reader

"Will you say something?"

You keep your head turned, staring out of the night cab's rain-covered window. Your heart is pounding, filled with rage, and you're worried that if you open your mouth, it'll come spilling out and you'll say something you'll either regret or get fired for.

Lockwood was an idiot during your case. He was reckless and impulsive, and it meant that the two of you narrowly finished it with your lives and all of your limbs in good health. You would've forgiven him if it had been a one-off, but he does this almost every single time, and it's becoming a big issue.

So here you sit, arms crossed over your chest as the cab speeds along, biting your tongue. Lockwood sits across from you, watching you with those dark eyes of his while a cut oozes blood on his forehead. Any other day, you would've patched it up immediately, but tonight he'll have to cope. You've had enough.

It doesn't take long to reach Portland Row and the taxi has barely stopped when you jump out and storm off towards the house. Lockwood is delayed a few seconds, having to pay the cabbie, but he catches up easily.

"(name), come on. Talk to me."

Wordlessly, you unlock the front door, half tempted to slam it shut in his face, but this is his house. He's got more right to be here than you.

You make to angrily climb the stairs and hide out in the attic to await Lucy's return and rant to her about Lockwood, but his hand wraps around your wrist as you reach the second step, stopping you.

"Please, (name). I can't stand it."

For a minute, you just stare at him. The blood from his cut has been smeared across his forehead, and the bags under his eyes have become a little more pronounced, but your usual sympathy has disappeared, eaten away by fury.

"What do you want me to say, Lockwood? Oh, it's okay that you almost killed yourself being so reckless tonight. You're my knight in shining armour. Or, how about: I know you promised to be reasonable tonight to make amends for all the other times you've almost killed yourself, and you didn't end up being reasonable, but I forgive you."

He looks at you, his gaze soft. His eyes are desperate, but he's got you talking which was his goal. It seems that the context of the conversation doesn't matter all that much to him.

But you don't care.

"Every single case," you say, trying to keep yourself from raising your voice, "has ended the same. We almost die or get seriously injured because you get reckless. I get it. You're trying to save us, and, believe me, Lockwood, I'm grateful for that, but what would happen if you died? Who would protect us then? Because all of this - you throwing yourself in the face of danger for us - will mean nothing if you die."

"I'm not going to let you guys get hurt," Lockwood says, and there's an undertone in his voice that gives you a clue to how he's feeling. He's getting irritated.

Good.

"And I thank you for that," you say. "But this is constant. Do you ever stop to think what we'd feel if you died? We'd be lost, Lockwood. Not to mention jobless."

"What am I meant to do? Let you get hurt? Not a chance!"

His rising anger is feeding into yours, and soon it'll be a raging fire, ready to burn everything in its wake. You have half a mind to let it loose, to tell him exactly how you feel about his stupidity, but you reign it in for now.

"Don't you hear me? I said I'm grateful that you try to keep us safe, but not at the cost of your own life!" You tear your wrist out of his grasp, breathing heavily. "Just take a minute to imagine this: you die on a case, and we have to deal with the body. We have to watch you die, and then we have to ignore the grief to not only finish the case but also make sure your body is taken away safely, that you're given a funeral. After that, a lifetime of grief and regret and denial, hoping you step through that fucking door one more time! Of all people, I thought you'd know what that kind of thinking does to a person."

His gaze hardens. "Watch yourself."

The laugh that escapes your lips is humourless. "Right, okay. I forgot. We don't talk about that topic because you're not ready, and that's fine. But it'll be me that has the burden when you die. Then George and Lucy will have to figure out how to cope, too. But we don't have a room to hide your memories away in, Lockwood. We live in a house surrounded by you."

You climb up a few stairs and point at a photo on the wall. "These pictures? They can be stashed away, but the feeling of you can't. Your soul has practically been embedded into the walls, the floor, the ceiling. Nowhere we go in this house will allow us to escape the memory of you."

His face is a little red as he watches you. He's angrier than you've ever seen him.

"So leave then."

The words feel like a punch to the stomach. "What?"

"If you're so sick of it, if the thought of my possible death is too much, then leave. Everyone does. It wouldn't surprise me if you did."

It takes all of your willpower not to scream at him. Instead, chest filled with the pressure of your fury, you make your way back down the stairs until you're eye to eye with Lockwood. He's breathing heavily now, too, his chest rising and falling rapidly as he watches you, eyes blazing with anger but also something else... Guilt?

"You don't get to say that," you growl. "I have been here for you since the beginning. I helped you set this company up. I helped you get it licenced, and I was the one who sweet-talked our way into getting full DEPRAC insurance. I have supported every stupid decision you've made. I've questioned you, but I never pushed. And yet, you still have the gall to say that you wouldn't be surprised by me leaving?"

The anger is so strong that tears threaten to cloud your eyes, but you push them down. You will not cry.

"I've tried my hardest to make sure you stay alive." The waver in your voice is embarrassing, but something in Lockwood cracks at the sound of it. "All I do is make sure you stay alive because you're all I've had for years. I've always cared for you. I've sat and patched you up night after night because I care about you - shit, I love you, Lockwood! I always have! So, don't you even dare suggest that I would ever leave. It's as good as insulting my parents' graves."

At that, you turn on your heel and storm up the stairs, leaving Lockwood standing at the bottom.

It takes a while for you to calm down.

After cleaning yourself of all specks of blood and dirt, you change into clean clothes and sink down onto your bed, closing your eyes and trying to slow the thrumming of your heart. Your hands are shaking from a mix of rage and sadness, but they lie on your chest, easing as your heart rate slows.

It takes all of your willpower to try and not think about one of the last things you said to Lockwood - that you love him - but it proves to be harder than it should be. You didn't lie. In your years of knowing Lockwood, you've grown close to him, something that had been hard originally because of your lack of trust in people, but he charmed his way right into your life. Every smile, every touch of your fingers left your heart racing and your mind hoping, begging, that he felt the same.

Now, though, after that argument, you're almost entirely convinced that he doesn't.

When George and Lucy arrive back at the house, you trudge downstairs to the kitchen where everyone awaits to discuss the cases. Lucy's already made you a cup of tea that you accept gratefully as you sit down at the far end of the table.

Away from Lockwood.

The change in your seating is noted by everyone, your usual chair left empty beside Lockwood's at the head of the table. George frowns, glancing between you and Lockwood, and Lucy gives you a look that you ignore.

"It was a phantasm where we were," you say, scribbling away at the thinking cloth. "Well, there was that, and then there was a very angry Wraith as well. Murder victims. We dealt with them quickly."

George's eyes find the plaster on Lockwood's head, much less neatly applied than it would've been had you patched him up.

"Rawbones for us," Lucy says, sipping her tea. There's a patch on the sleeve of her jacket that smokes slightly, burned by plasm. "George found the source - a manky old mug. Made no sense. Skull was no use, either. I think he's mad at me."

"Again?" Lockwood asks. His voice isn't entirely there. "What did you do this time?"

"I didn't do anything. He's just a little prick."

You bite your tongue to stop yourself from making a snide comment. The others are watching you carefully, easily picking up on your mood, but they don't bring it up.

Lockwood's eyes haven't left you this entire time. He's trying to communicate in that silent way you both developed after years of friendship, but you tear your gaze away from his, pushing down the re-emerging fury in your chest.

"Well, we're all alive," Lockwood says, laying emphasis on the final word. "Let's get a good night's sleep. We've got a meeting tomorrow with another client."

Lucy and George get up immediately as if they were waiting for a cue to leave. They're gone in seconds, closing the kitchen door behind them. It makes no difference. You silently sip your tea, still scribbling away. Your little mess of lines has turned into an angry face.

"(name) -"

You stand, making to leave the kitchen with your mug in hand, but Lockwood blocks the door.

Staring up at him, you scowl. "Excuse me, Anthony."

There's a little smirk playing on his lips. "Using my first name? I suppose I am in trouble."

"It's nice that you think this is funny, but I certainly don't. Now, let me get past so I can go to bed. I've had enough of today."

"Please, wait." He looks down at you, his eyes soft. He doesn't seem angry anymore - that makes one of you. "Can we just... talk?"

Against your better judgement, you turn and sit back in your seat, placing one of your feet on the seat and resting your head on your knee. You're tired. Not just from the case, but from being angry.

"I'm sorry, okay?" Lockwood says, and you know he's genuine. "I saw that Wraith coming for you, and I couldn't just stand there and let you get hurt."

You sigh, more exhausted than mad now. "That's not the problem, Lockwood. You do this in every single case, even when there's no need to. Half the time, I'm not sure whether it's because you want to protect us or if it's because you want an excuse to die." Your voice catches a little.

He falters, not expecting that. Part of you wants to feel good about catching him off guard, but the topic quenches any of it. You've spent countless nights worrying that you would get up in the morning only to find Lockwood not there or scared that you'd end a case leaning over his dead body.

No one should ever have to think like that.

"I care about you a lot," you say, running a hand over your face. "You know that. But I don't think it has ever occurred to you how badly it'd affect me if you died. And, I know, I'm being selfish, but I don't want to have to live in a world without you in it."

He's silent for a moment. "I'm sorry - about what I said earlier. I didn't mean it."

You barely have the willpower to shrug. "We were both angry. People say stuff they don't mean when they'd angry."

"So, you don't mean what you said? About loving me?"

It's hard to not look at him, but you focus your gaze on the thinking cloth, tracing the messy writing and doodles with your fingers. There are a few coffee and tea stains covering it.

"I meant it." Your mouth feels dry, so you take another sip of your tea. "I meant everything."

The only sound is of both of your breathing and Lockwood's foot tapping rhythmically on the tiled floor. He's nervous.

"I don't expect you to feel the same," you clarify. "To be honest, I hadn't meant to say it right then. If I had my way, I wouldn't have said it at all unless I was sure you felt the same. But, it's out there now."

Lockwood's chair screeches against the floor and, suddenly, he's kneeling beside you, moving so that he can catch your eyes. That stupid grin of his has parted his lips. His hand grasps yours softly, and you can feel his pulse faintly. It's faster than it should be.

"Don't look so smug," you grumble. "I don't forgive you, so I don't see what you have to be cocky about."

His grin only widens. "I'll show you what."

And then his lips have captured yours.

It's a short kiss, no longer than a few seconds, but it's enough to have your stomach performing a whole gymnastics routine. The anger in your chest slowly fades away until it's nothing but a small prickle, still there but nowhere near as powerful as it was.

His lips are startlingly soft, but, really, you wouldn't put it past him to be applying chapstick every waking second. He always wants to be camera-ready. Your eyes have fluttered shut, and, by the feeling of his lashes brushing your cheeks, it seems his have also. You wonder if his brain is throwing a party, too.

When he pulls away, you find yourself wanting more. Instead, you press your forehead against his, shutting your eyes tightly for a moment.

"If that wasn't enough to convince you to stop being so self-sacrificing on cases, I honestly don't know what will."

He laughs, and the sound has your heart soaring. "I'll try my best, but if you need saving, I'll most definitely come to save you. I am your 'knight in shining armour' after all."

His gaze is already locked on yours when you open your eyes again. The darkness of his eyes entraps you, and it's impossible to look away.

"Will you forgive me?"

A sly smile curves your lips. "Maybe if you kiss me more."

#lockwood x reader #anthony lockwood x reader #lockwood and co x reader #lockwood and co fanfiction #lockwood and co #lockwood and co netflix #anthony lockwood #george karim #lucy carlyle #x reader #fanfiction #givemea-dam-break

[steveandbuckysdaughter]

Hi, again. 👋

I found the post you were talking about. The stan's account was deactivated, but yeesh. 😬 Nice replies to them, btw.

The stan that bashed on me said I was being misogynistic, even though I'm a black woman who just wanted to see another black character get their chance to shine.

Hell, it's not just the shows and movies (I think this all started with Endgame). It's also the Steve Rogers musical too. I don't know if you know about it, but Disney made the musical real, and it really did Sam and Bucky dirty.

Sam isn't even in it. Maybe he was mentioned once, but the musical showed an image of Sam as Captain America. As for Bucky, his scene from CA:TFA, where he saved pre-serum Steve, was given to Peggy instead. Bucky was mentioned once, and the musical tried to justify Steve's ending from Endgame. All for this ship.

And, frankly, I don't hate Peggy, I'm just more annoyed that other characters get shoved aside as well as this great dynamic that Steve and Bucky had, while she and her ship with Steve has been getting propped up more and more. But, seeing some of your and the others' posts, I get why you guys don't like her.

Girl, don’t get me started on the abomination that was Rogers the musical. It could have been glorious, it had so much potential, but once again Bucky’s role in Steve’s story was given to Peggy, and Sam wasn’t even there!

I feel like Marvel feels the need to tone down Stucky or their friendship overall because it was just too powerful. We all remember the hashtag that begged Marvel to make Stucky Canon, #givecaptainamericaaboyfriend. They just couldn’t let it happen, not to a main and important character like Steve, god forbid. And so ever since civil war Stucky has always had little to no scenes together no matter how well established it was in previous projects. All their scenes and dynamic were given to Peggy, their friendship was toned down, Steve’s whole ending happened. It just feels like Stucky is so menacing to Marvel that the only way to stop us is by destroying Steve, Bucky and their relationship.

I mean, Steve is given no justice in his ending and in all the other projects he appeared in. Bucky went from a victim and prisoner of war to someone who must make amends for things that were beyond his control. And the depth of their friendship was toned down and reduced every time Peggy was involved. And then they wonder why many people in the fandom dislike Peggy or why the whole Rogers the musical initiative flopped the second it went beyond Hawkeye.

Like, even if you don’t ship Stucky you can tell that they care for each other, and you can tell there was a shift after people actually wanted Marvel to take action and do something about this dynamic. Steve can’t get even one episode as his own character because Peggy must be there. Bucky had more luck, but still… and let’s not even talk about Sam, his only appearance was as a zombie!

In another post of mine I ranted about how bothered I was that Peggy was inserted in the 1602 storyline, and i haven’t changed my mind. It would have been so nice to give Steve one episode about himself, about his dynamic with his best friend and about the relationship with himself and his fellow avengers. But no, Peggy must be there too, and for no good reason as well.

I feel like Marvel trying to erase pre-existing relationships to have Peggy shine only results in fans turning their back on Marvel and hiding in fanfiction or whatever piece of media that can actually bring justice to the characters. Once someone on Tumblr said “you gave us the characters, but once you mess them up they’re not yours anymore. You don’t understand and respect them, therefore you don’t deserve them.” and I couldn’t agree more, which is why I am currently reading and writing fanfiction rather than buying into everything marvel gives us.

Peggy was the love interest with more screen time even before what if and all that jazz, she had her own show! And I fear that the day Marvel will realize that pushing a reimagined Nazi turned Mary Sue into every single what if episode where she can fit instead of enhancing the characters that are actually relevant in-universe it will be too late.

Sorry about the rant, I get carried away when it’s about my boys lol

#Steve rogers #pro Steve rogers #anti endgame steve #bucky barnes #pro bucky barnes #stucky #pro stucky #steve x bucky #anti peggy carter #anti steggy #marvel critical #mcu critical #what if #sam wilson #pro Sam Wilson #sam wilson is Captain America