🔥 | Latest

America, Memes, and New York: ONEWS RELEASE MEDIA CONTACT: Jordan Stein Director of Communications jordan.stein@gunowners.org AMER 703-321-8585 January 22, 2019 For immediate release GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York City's Draconian Gun Laws Springfield, VA Today the United States Supreme Court qranted a Writ of Certiorari in P v. NY City, a case in which Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) have submitted an amicus brief. This case challenges New York City's near-prohibition on possessing or transportin handguns, and this is the first major Second Amendment challenge to be reviewed by the Supreme Court in almost a decade. GOA's executive director, Erich Pratt, stated, "Gun owners across the country especialy those behind enemy lines living in anti-qun states are rejoicing that the Supreme Court is taking up a Second Amendment case. For far too long, judges have ignored the Second Amendment, along with the Heller and McDonald decisions, instead employing a alancing' test that effectively leaves gun owners in anti-gun states with a second-class right to keep and bear arms In fact, GOA's brief specfically challenges the "balancing" approach taken by judges in the lower courts GOA's brief states, "Heller and McDonaldleave little doubt that courts are to assess qun Ewhere judges] usurp the role of the Framers of the Second Amendment. "GOA's hard-hitting brief before the Supreme Court cuts to the heart of this problem by arguing that judges have to follow the Constitution and the text of the Second Amendment rather than imposing their own preconceived views upon the text," Pratt concluded. GOA's brief can be viewed here Erich Pratt, or another GOA spokesman, is available for interviews. Gun Owners of America BREAKING: GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York City’s Draconian Gun Laws “GOA’s hard-hitting brief before the Supreme Court cuts to the heart of this problem by arguing that judges have to follow the Constitution - and the text of the Second Amendment - rather than imposing their own preconceived views upon the text,” - GOA's Erich Pratt SCOTUS 2A nyc secondamendment goasupporters gunowners gunownersofamerica
America, Memes, and New York: ONEWS RELEASE
 MEDIA CONTACT: Jordan Stein
 Director of Communications
 jordan.stein@gunowners.org
 AMER 703-321-8585
 January 22, 2019
 For immediate release
 GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York
 City's Draconian Gun Laws
 Springfield, VA
 Today the United States Supreme Court qranted a Writ of Certiorari in
 P v. NY City, a case in which Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners
 Foundation (GOF) have submitted an amicus brief.
 This case challenges New York City's near-prohibition on possessing or transportin
 handguns, and this is the first major Second Amendment challenge to be reviewed by the
 Supreme Court in almost a decade.
 GOA's executive director, Erich Pratt, stated, "Gun owners across the country especialy
 those behind enemy lines living in anti-qun states are rejoicing that the Supreme Court
 is taking up a Second Amendment case. For far too long, judges have ignored the Second
 Amendment, along with the Heller and McDonald decisions, instead employing a
 alancing' test that effectively leaves gun owners in anti-gun states with a second-class
 right to keep and bear arms
 In fact, GOA's brief specfically challenges the "balancing" approach taken by judges in the
 lower courts
 GOA's brief states, "Heller and McDonaldleave little doubt that courts are to assess qun
 Ewhere judges] usurp the role of the Framers of the Second Amendment.
 "GOA's hard-hitting brief before the Supreme Court cuts to the heart of this problem by
 arguing that judges have to follow the Constitution and the text of the Second
 Amendment rather than imposing their own preconceived views upon the text," Pratt
 concluded.
 GOA's brief can be viewed here
 Erich Pratt, or another GOA spokesman, is available for interviews. Gun Owners of America
BREAKING: GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York City’s Draconian Gun Laws “GOA’s hard-hitting brief before the Supreme Court cuts to the heart of this problem by arguing that judges have to follow the Constitution - and the text of the Second Amendment - rather than imposing their own preconceived views upon the text,” - GOA's Erich Pratt SCOTUS 2A nyc secondamendment goasupporters gunowners gunownersofamerica

BREAKING: GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York City’s Draconian Gun Laws “GOA’s hard-hitting brief before...

Crying, God, and Lol: LEVITICUS 19:9 107 man have sexual telations with yoursell have sexual relations with her. vomit on 29"'Everyone who does respect ave sexual relations with both a woman and JUDGES 8:5 223 ater er rink Grasping go down your hands crying out go down give into your go down ands. down on the seashore your hand the inection you ridiculedt Go o inside Abimeles to the entrance of killed as they fle in Arumah, s and his clan out of Sh ext day the people the fields, and this v 3So he took his r three companies a the fields. When he I get to the edge an 714 JEREMIAH 28:13 Do not let name you or harm your heart. gath- er A Letter to the Exiles raise the sword, against them said:they scorn and reproach, not listened and again For they have again have not listened you ver . You became very 1You took your father an rubbed salt in No one looked on you with pity or had compassion er for on the day you were born you were despised your sons and daughters not enoughYou slaughtered I looked enough at you and saw that you were ACTS 27:41 1021 should en bluemantle: Recently my grandmother found out I’m queer. Her response was to tell me that she disapproves of me living with my “friend” (i.e. my girlfriend) and that I should give up my vile queer ways and become a Christian (Lol). She even sent me a bible.  Here are its remains, which I made into black-out poetry. Poem 1: Bisexual (from Leviticus 19:9)– “Have sexual relations with her.  Have sexual relations with him.  Have sexual relations with both a woman and a man.  Have sexual relations with yourself. Vomit on everyone who does not respect you.” Poem 2: Fisting (from Judges 8:5)– “water/ lap the water/ drink/go down to drink/your hands/go down/I give into your hands/go down/encouraged/down/on the seashore/the whole hand/your hand/inside/I get to the edge/and shout/grasping/crying out/Beth/Beth/Beth/Beth/Beth/God/I came” Poem 3: A Letter to the Exiles (from Jeremiah 28:13) – “Ze said: ‘Do not let lies name you, nor harm your heart. Gather. Raise the sword against them. They scorn and reproach, for they have not listened– again and again have not listened.’ ” Poem 4: Child (from Ezekiel 16:22) – “Your father and your mother rubbed salt in. No one looked on you with pity or had compassion enough for you, for on the day you were born you were despised. Live! Grow.  I looked at you and saw you were enough.” Poem 5: Father (from Ezekiel 16:22) – “You never adored us. You became very angry. You took some out on us. Your sons and daughters were not enough? You slaughtered– in all your detestable practices– our youth.” Poem 6: Misandry (from Acts 27:41) – “Dangerous men should be broken.”
Crying, God, and Lol: LEVITICUS 19:9 107
 man
 have sexual telations with
 yoursell
 have sexual relations
 with her.
 vomit
 on
 29"'Everyone who does
 respect
 ave sexual relations with both
 a woman and

 JUDGES 8:5 223
 ater
 er
 rink
 Grasping
 go down
 your hands
 crying out
 go down
 give
 into your
 go down
 ands.
 down
 on the seashore
 your hand
 the inection
 you ridiculedt Go o
 inside
 Abimeles
 to the entrance of
 killed as they fle
 in Arumah, s
 and his clan out of Sh
 ext day the people
 the fields, and this v
 3So he took his r
 three companies a
 the fields. When he
 I get to the edge
 an

 714 JEREMIAH 28:13
 Do not let
 name
 you
 or
 harm
 your heart.
 gath-
 er
 A Letter to the Exiles
 raise
 the sword,
 against them
 said:they
 scorn
 and reproach,
 not listened
 and again
 For they have
 again
 have not listened

 you
 ver
 . You became
 very
 1You took
 your father
 an
 rubbed salt
 in No one looked on you
 with pity or had compassion er
 for on the day
 you were born you were despised
 your sons and daughters
 not
 enoughYou slaughtered
 I looked
 enough
 at you and saw that you were

 ACTS 27:41 1021
 should
 en
bluemantle:

Recently my grandmother found out I’m queer. Her response was to tell me that she disapproves of me living with my “friend” (i.e. my girlfriend) and that I should give up my vile queer ways and become a Christian (Lol). She even sent me a bible.  Here are its remains, which I made into black-out poetry.
Poem 1: Bisexual (from Leviticus 19:9)– “Have sexual relations with her.  Have sexual relations with him.  Have sexual relations with both a woman and a man.  Have sexual relations with yourself. Vomit on everyone who does not respect you.”
Poem 2: Fisting (from Judges 8:5)– “water/ lap the water/ drink/go down to drink/your hands/go down/I give into your hands/go down/encouraged/down/on the seashore/the whole hand/your hand/inside/I get to the edge/and shout/grasping/crying out/Beth/Beth/Beth/Beth/Beth/God/I came”
Poem 3: A Letter to the Exiles (from Jeremiah 28:13) – “Ze said: ‘Do not let lies name you, nor harm your heart. Gather. Raise the sword against them. They scorn and reproach, for they have not listened– again and again have not listened.’ ”
Poem 4: Child (from Ezekiel 16:22) – “Your father and your mother rubbed salt in. No one looked on you with pity or had compassion enough for you, for on the day you were born you were despised. Live! Grow.  I looked at you and saw you were enough.”
Poem 5: Father (from Ezekiel 16:22) – “You never adored us. You became very angry. You took some out on us. Your sons and daughters were not enough? You slaughtered– in all your detestable practices– our youth.”
Poem 6: Misandry (from Acts 27:41) – “Dangerous men should be broken.”

bluemantle: Recently my grandmother found out I’m queer. Her response was to tell me that she disapproves of me living with my “friend” (i....

Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the
 Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to
 Get What they Want
 Cops routinely break the law. Here's how.
 By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015
libertarirynn:

gvldngrl:

wolfoverdose:

rikodeine:

seemeflow:

Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.
1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.
2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.
3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)
4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.
5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.
6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.
7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.
U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).
Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.
Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want

One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else


Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.


Important 


Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.

libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced t...

Work, Thought, and Bread: Made this at work for a contest. One of the judges thought it was sacrilegious. “The Walking Bread”
Work, Thought, and Bread: Made this at work for a contest. One of the judges thought it was sacrilegious. “The Walking Bread”

Made this at work for a contest. One of the judges thought it was sacrilegious. “The Walking Bread”

Work, Thought, and Bread: Made this at work for a contest. One of the judges thought it was sacrilegious. “The Walking Bread”
Work, Thought, and Bread: Made this at work for a contest. One of the judges thought it was sacrilegious. “The Walking Bread”

Made this at work for a contest. One of the judges thought it was sacrilegious. “The Walking Bread”

Funny, Work, and Thought: Made this at work for a contest. One of the judges thought it was sacrilegious. “The Walking Bread” via /r/funny https://ift.tt/2D06KZK
Funny, Work, and Thought: Made this at work for a contest. One of the judges thought it was sacrilegious. “The Walking Bread” via /r/funny https://ift.tt/2D06KZK

Made this at work for a contest. One of the judges thought it was sacrilegious. “The Walking Bread” via /r/funny https://ift.tt/2D06KZK