#wasre free | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

yoekko-novels · 3 years

Text

[To Touch The Skies] (#008) - Whispers

"Hey… who are you guys?" Hybrid says, leering into the robe as his eyes are nearly blinded by the light, almost dislocating his neck to do so.

The robe that was illuminated in an orangish-yellow light began to decay slowly as Hubrid continued speaking to them.

"Hey! Hey!" Hubrid shouts as they do their best to ignore him with cold sweat dripping down their miniature foreheads.

"Ignore him and he'll go away, just focus on the mission-." Hybrid reaches into the robe and pulls out the two sprites that'd been talking.

"What the-." The sprite cries out as he sits in the closed palm of Hubrid alongside his friend.

The two sprites look at each other in confusion as they stare into the robe looking at the two faces they'd despised more than anything before being dragged out.

'This kid uses magic, doesn't he? So how is he touching us?' The two sprites thought as they looked at each other with their fear growing and bewilderment showing.

"Who are you!" The sprites say in utter awestruck as they begin trying to struggle free from Hubrid's iron-tight grip to no avail. He eyed them down with wonder as he tried to remember the lessons he'd learned from Druchess.

Hubrid smacks his head in an attempt to remember their names. "You guys are… melons? No, wait you guys are oranges!" Hubrid says with confidence as he stared at them with their faces nearly reaching his eyeballs.

"Rijal! Ignore him and start draining him of his magic!"

"Alright, Bigal!" The two of them stick their needle-like tails in Hubrid as it pierces his skin and they bin to steal his magic energy as their tails begin to bulge from the amount of power being sucked away.

"Rijal, Bigal, did you guys know Druccshess? Yoou wasre inside oaf hies rove." Hubrid says as he begins drooling, nearly assaulting the two sprites with his saliva.

"Looks like we were worried for nothing Rigal, this guy isn't as tough as I thought he'd... be?

Hubrid slobbers as he lifts the black-winged humanoid figures towards his mouth as he began to crunch. The two of them screamed out in pain but it was too late for them. The moment Hubrid had his magic drained, he saw the sprites as cockroaches, which to him was a good meal.

"Foob!" Hubrid cried out in joy as it was the first time he'd eaten in a while. As he swallowed and with a gigantic gulp, he felt his senses returning

"Where did those felons go?" Hubrid wondered as a strange aftertaste lingered in his mouth.

Suddenly, more voices were heard coming from the cloak.

"Help us! Help us!" A tiny hoarse voice of a female could be heard whimpering inside of the robe as the light that encumbered them began to fade slowly.

"Be quiet! With those sprites gone we can finally escape on our own!" The tiny voice of a man says hushedly despite his loud tone as chains began to clank and struggling was heard only for it to end with a large huff and an awkwardly long pause.

"Help us! Help us!" The voice of a man is heard again, this time joining in with the cries of the female.

Hubrid quickly darts his hands into the cloak and reaches around, as he continues digging he feels himself being pulled into it, eventually entering inside of it to see a library that could dwarf even the great library of Eruna. Hubrid looked around in awe, scouring the library, and glancing swiftly over the abundance of books surrounding him from all angles. He dashed around merrily at the large expanse of books, he'd finally begun to feel true warmth, not the facade of warmth that the robe usually gave him as it covered him head to toe.

The oak bookshelves piqued Hubrids interest, he'd always wondered where Druchess had gotten his wide variety of books from. Whenever Hubrid would ask, Druchess would give some petty excuse to him such as "Knowledge dwells inside of all of us," Hubrid touched the books with both hands outspread as he flew across the ground like an eagle with its arms outstretched searching for prey.

The bookshelves appeared to look endless as Hubrid continued running down the isles taking book after book off of the shelf. Lights shined so brightly Hubrid had thought he'd found himself outside of the cave while sleepwalking. Hubrid continued down the isles, knocking book after book off of the shelves as he heard more strange voices calling out to him. The cries of the fairies were nearly ignored as Hubrid began skipping around the library in joy, with this abundance of books he could learn anything he wanted.

Hubrid begins sniffing around the library as the two fairies stood in front of him malnourished and weak. He continued inhaling air through his nose as he walked closer to the fairies, the two fairies looked at the disgruntled appearance of Hubrid and began planning for the worst.

"Damnit! Hey! Get us out of these chains!" The struggling voice of a male is heard once again, this time without the exaggerated high-pitched voice.

Hubrid turned to face the fairies and they met eyes on an equal level, Hubrid was shrunk when he entered the robe making him the same size as the fairies. The fairy on the right was chained to a wall, bound by her feet and hands by a rusted, corroded chain, her hair was a light bluish color, and her eyes the same. Her eyebrows frowned at the sight of Hubrid staring at her on the wall as she sat there in little clothing with bruises and scratches covering her body head to toe. The Red-haired fairy next to her began to bargain. He looked similar to the female fairy but with manlier features and his eyes matched his hair color.

"Hey, kid! Get these chains off of us and we'll give you-."

Before he could finish talking, Hubrid had already broken the chains from their links freeing both of them from their internment. The rust cracked away from the chains as the three of them coughed from the rust-infused dust that littered the air around them.

"Are you guys felons?" Hubrid says in confusion as he scratches his head as his other hand trembled with excitement. He'd heard of the fairies, Druchess told him of the war that took place between fairy and sprite long ago, he was told about how they could go into different worlds and planes of existence, he looked around the library once again as books flooded his eyes and wondered if he was in the world Druchess had told him about.

"No! We were kidnapped by those sprites ages ago! Why'd it take Regil so long to send someone for us and why'd he send a kid-." The fairy looked on, realizing that Hubrid was missing his wings, the trademark symbol for a fairy. He examined Hubrid wearily as he gestured to the blue-haired fairy to attack.

She attempts to attack but hardly manages to summon a small droplet of water from the magic she'd begun summoning, her body faltered as she was too weak to even fight and the single water droplet was gobbled up by Hubrid as he dashed across the room so it would not be wasted. He slid underneath her as the water droplet fell to the ground and slurped it up as it made connection with his mouth.

"Do you have food too?" Hubrid says as he eyes down the fairy standing above him as he lay at her feet while letting out a huff of relief from the water he'd drank.

"By the way, what are your names?" Hubrid says as his mouth drool left his mouth as he stared at the two of them with what appeared to be delusions.

The two fairies looked at Hubrid with fear drawn over their faces. They had no idea what a man like Hubrid would do with them, and neither of them could use their magic or wings to defend themselves or run away due to their prolonged imprisonment.

"... I-I'm Barry… and she's… … Mwopy…" The fairy says while lingering on every word he speaks.

"But the voice inside of my head told me you were Arry and she was Mwop… maybe it was lying to me," Hubrid says with innocence as both Arry and Mwop looked on in shock.

"... I guess so," Arry says as a drop of sweat somehow manifests on his head despite his lack of hydration, Hubrid walks up to him and licks it off of his forehead calmly as Arry stood still.

"Oh! You guys aren't felons, your fairies! Where is this place that we're in?" Hubrid says as he heard a whisper in his head.

"You guys got caught by the oranges…" The voice whispers to Hubrid once again, "I mean the sprites right? Where'd they go?"

Hubrid perks up as he hears the voice speak to him once more.

"I did?" He says in confusion as he coughed up a bone, making the two fairies jump back in shock as a wet slimy substance covering the bones hit the wooden floor with a wet thud as Hubrid continued looking at the fairies.

"Okay," Hubrid says in determination as he stares at the fairies as he heard the voice beckoning him towards the fairies.

"I'll do whatever it takes!"

#Oc #Novel #Author #Fantasy #Magic #Fiction #fairy #sprite #series #dark #comedy #humor

0 notes

vinayv224 · 5 years

Link

Where every 2020 candidate stands on guns

Ten of the Democratic presidential candidates during the first 2020 debate. | Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The candidates agree on universal background checks and an assault weapons ban. There’s less agreement on other proposals.

In response to recent mass shootings in El Paso, Texas; Dayton, Ohio; and now Odessa and Midland, Texas, and Mobile, Alabama, supporters of stricter gun laws have voiced a simple mantra: “Do something!”

So, after little federal action on guns for more than two decades, what would the 2020 presidential candidates actually do?

President Donald Trump, for his part, doesn’t seem interested in much. He has supported a federal red flag law, which would allow police to take away someone’s guns if there’s some proof of a risk of violence (a “red flag”). But on other measures, from universal background checks to an assault weapons ban, Trump and Republican lawmakers have resisted, instead talking up questionable connections between violence, mental illness, and violent media.

Democratic candidates, however, have taken more comprehensive stances on guns. For the most part, they’re sticking to common Democratic themes like universal background checks, an assault weapons ban (which is typically paired with a ban on high-capacity magazines), and federally funded research into gun violence. But the campaigns’ plans do include some new ideas here and there — including red flag laws, which campaigns ranging from Cory Booker’s to John Delaney’s back, and requiring a license to buy and own a gun, which Booker in particular brought to the presidential stage but others, like Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg, also support.

As I’ve argued before, even the most ambitious of the candidates’ gun control proposals don’t go far enough to seriously dent gun violence. America leads the developed world in gun violence, with gun death rates nearly four times that of Switzerland, five times that of Canada, 35 times that of the United Kingdom, and 53 times that of Japan. The core problem is the US simply has way too many guns and too much access to firearms, letting just about anyone obtain a weapon to carry out a mass shooting or more typical types of gun violence, whether suicides or homicides.

But none of the Democratic proposals do anything to swiftly address that core problem and significantly reduce the number of guns in the US.

Still, the research suggests that stricter gun laws, particularly licensing, would reduce gun deaths. So the Democratic proposals would make some progress, even if they wouldn’t be enough to bring down America’s rate of gun deaths to that of its developed peers.

Some proposals show a little movement

Most of the Democratic candidates at least mention gun violence on their campaign websites and other networks (like Medium), though just a few — Booker, Warren, Buttigieg, Andrew Yang, and Kamala Harris in particular stick out — go into a lot of detail.

The Democratic candidates are in general agreement on at least two proposals: universal background checks and an assault weapons ban. When it comes to other issues, there’s a bit less agreement, or at least less attention.

The big common proposal is universal background checks. Under federal law, licensed gun dealers have to run a background check, looking at factors like criminal record and mental health history, to sell someone a firearm. But unlicensed sellers — think a family member, or perhaps someone over the internet or at a gun show — don’t have to run a check. Universal background checks attempt to stamp out the unlicensed sellers by requiring a background check for all or nearly all gun transactions.

An assault weapons ban has also received more attention with the rise of extremely deadly mass shootings, as the shooters have used weapons like AR-15s and WASR-10s (a variant of an AK-47) to carry out the attacks. There are questions about how it would be implemented and enforced, but the idea is to ban military-style semiautomatic rifles. Some Democratic candidates frame this as bringing back a previous federal assault weapons ban, which was enacted in 1994 but expired in 2004, that kept existing weapons in circulation but tried to restrict future sales. Others want to go further, mandating that gun owners actually turn in the banned weapons.

Beyond those two proposals, candidates have also supported red flag laws, which could allow a family member, neighbor, close friend, teacher, or cop to report an “extreme risk” of violence to the courts. The court could then order the seizure of a person’s weapons.

The candidates also favor closing loopholes in existing gun laws. That includes the “boyfriend loophole,” which lets people get a gun even if they have a protective order against them due to a dating relationship, and the “Charleston loophole,” which allows a small number of people to obtain a gun without completing a background check if the check takes too long. (This is how the self-described white supremacist who killed nine people at a predominantly black church in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015 got his gun.)

There’s also a lot of support for federally funded research into gun violence, as well as the repeal of special legal protections for gun companies.

Some candidates have moved to the left by calling for gun licensing, which would require a license to purchase and own a firearm. Typically, obtaining a license would involve a background check, but also a more extensive vetting process that can require submitting fingerprints and a photo, interviews with law enforcement, and a gun safety training course. Some would pair this proposal — as is done in, for example, Massachusetts — with mandatory registration of firearms. (This, in theory, allows police to pull up a database of weapons to seize if someone loses a license.)

Several candidates, including Booker, Warren, Buttigieg, and Yang, support gun licensing. But others, including Joe Biden and Michael Bennet, have been critical of it.

Otherwise, there’s been little significant movement from the typical Democratic mantras of universal background checks and an assault weapons ban.

Even the boldest proposals don’t go far enough

The Democratic proposals on guns show how stuck the debate over this issue has been for decades. In 1993 and 1994, a Democratic-controlled Congress passed federal background checks and a 10-year assault weapons ban. In the 25 years since, the debate has largely been relegated to … more background checks and an assault weapons ban. As the party has moved left on everything from single-payer health care to the Green New Deal to taxes on the wealthy, it hasn’t really moved on guns.

One reason is that Democrats’ philosophy on gun policy has remained largely the same: to prevent certain kinds of people from getting guns, and at most prohibit only a small fraction of firearms.

But America’s problem is much broader: It simply has too many guns, regardless of whether they’re in a “good” guy’s hands or a “bad” guy’s hands. The US has far more guns than any other country in the world — more guns than people, according to the Small Arms Survey. That makes it easy to get a firearm, legally or not, leading to more gun deaths.

Research compiled by the Harvard School of Public Health’s Injury Control Research Center backs this up: After controlling for variables such as socioeconomic factors and other crime, places with more guns have more gun deaths — not just homicides but also suicides, domestic violence, violence against police, and mass shootings.

Another way to look at this: Everywhere in the world, people get into arguments. Every country has residents who are dangerous to themselves or others because of mental illness. Every country has bigots and extremists. But in America, it’s uniquely easy for a person to obtain a gun, letting otherwise tense but nonlethal conflicts escalate into deadly violence.

Yes, stronger gun laws can help. A 2016 review of 130 studies in 10 countries, published in Epidemiologic Reviews, found that new legal restrictions on owning and purchasing guns tended to be followed by a drop in gun violence — a strong indicator that restricting access to guns can save lives.

But the types of gun control laws matter. Some of the recent research on universal background checks has been mixed, and studies on the last assault weapons ban found it ineffective for reducing overall levels of gun violence, in part because the great majority of gun deaths involves handguns, not assault weapons. But studies on licensing have been very consistent in significantly reducing gun deaths — in urban counties, Connecticut, and Missouri, including for suicides.

One reason licensing might work is that it addresses America’s core gun problem. On its face, licensing might seem like an extension of the background check model, since the idea is still to filter between qualified and unqualified people.

But a licensing process can go way further: While a background check is more often than not quick and hassle-free, gun licensing in, for example, Massachusetts is a weeks- or months-long process that requires submitting a photograph and fingerprints, passing a training course, and going through one or more interviews, all involving law enforcement. That adds significant barriers for even a would-be gun owner who has no ill intent or bad history.

“The end impact is you decrease gun ownership overall,” Cassandra Crifasi, a researcher (and gun owner) at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, previously told me, discussing Massachusetts’s laws. “Lots of folks think, ‘Well, it’s probably not worth going through all these hoops to buy firearms, so I’m not going to buy one.’ And then you have fewer firearms around, and less exposure.”

This, however, could only be a start: the kind of thing that ensures fewer people get guns now and in the future. But in a country that already has so many firearms, something also needs to be done to take out a lot of guns more quickly.

That could require rethinking the Second Amendment, possibly by appointing judges who interpret it differently — an inversion of the NRA’s campaign to portray gun ownership as an individual right. It might even mean beginning an effort to repeal the amendment, a project that could admittedly take decades but has gotten less serious consideration and support than packing the Supreme Court or even abolishing the Senate.

Significant change could involve imposing bigger hurdles to owning a gun — requiring that people provide a stronger justification, besides self-defense or recreation, to obtain a license.

It could mean banning more types of guns — perhaps all semiautomatic weapons or all handguns — and coupling that with an Australian-style mandatory buyback program, which the research supports. If the key difference between America and other countries is how many more guns the US has, then something has to be done to quickly reduce the number of firearms here.

Democrats aren’t there yet. Until that changes, there will be little voice in the presidential stage to the kinds of policies that could get American gun violence down to the levels of the US’s developed peers.

Where the Democrats stand

Former Vice President Joe Biden: Biden does not yet have a dedicated gun policy platform on his website, though his campaign said one is coming soon. In other proposals, he’s stated his support for universal background checks and an assault weapons ban. He has also indicated that he’d be for prohibiting firearms that aren’t “smart guns,” which try to ensure the person pulling the trigger is the firearm’s owner by, for example, verifying a fingerprint. But Biden has also spoken unfavorably about licensing plans, saying “gun licensing will not change whether or not people buy what weapons — what kinds of weapons they can buy, where they can use them, how they can store them.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders: Sanders’s campaign website includes a gun safety platform, and he released a separate plan to combat white supremacist extremism. He promises to make background checks universal, ban assault weapons, and crack down on “straw purchases” of firearms. On licensing, his campaign also told the Trace that he “supports the right of states, localities and tribal governments to implement licensing programs.” Sanders has historically taken more moderate stances on gun control, but he’s shifted to the left in recent years; for example, he originally voted for special legal protections for gun companies in 2003 and 2005, but has since come out against them.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: Warren’s campaign website includes a plan to fight gun violence. The plan aims to reduce gun deaths by 80 percent. Warren calls for executive actions to expand background checks, close loopholes in existing laws, and target gun traffickers and licensed gun dealers who break the law. She also proposes sweeping legislation that includes universal background checks and an assault weapons ban but also gun licensing as well as support for urban gun violence intervention programs. And with federally funded gun violence research, she promises to return to the issue of firearms annually, “adding new ideas and tweaking existing ones based on new data — to continually reduce the number of gun deaths in America.”

Sen. Kamala Harris: Harris’s campaign website promises “action on gun violence.” As president, she plans to give Congress 100 days to pass stronger gun laws, including universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and the repeal of special legal protections for gun companies. But if Congress doesn’t act, she promises to sign executive orders to expand background checks, crack down on bad gun companies and dealers, make it more difficult for some people with criminal records (including domestic violence) to buy firearms, and ban the importation of some assault weapons into the US. She also said, on gun licensing, “I like the idea.”

South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg: Buttigieg’s campaign website includes a section on gun laws, and he also released a separate plan to “combat the national threat posed by hate and the gun lobby.” In the plans, Buttigieg says he supports universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, gun licensing, closing the “Charleston loophole,” closing loopholes in gun laws related to domestic violence and hate crimes, red flag laws, federally funded research on gun violence, and investing money into urban gun violence intervention programs.

Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke: O’Rourke’s campaign website includes a section on gun safety. He supports universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, red flag laws, closing loopholes in gun laws like the “Charleston loophole” and those linked to domestic violence, and funding for trauma support and community programs related to firearm education and disrupting gun violence. He also told the Trace he supports gun licensing.

Sen. Cory Booker: Booker’s campaign website includes two proposals to combat gun violence and gun suicides. He emphasizes gun licensing and registration as his main proposal, but his plans also include the typical mainstays of Democratic gun policy: universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, closing loopholes in existing laws and regulations, red flag laws, safe storage requirements, and more funding for gun violence research. He also vows to take executive action to tighten gun laws as much as possible if Congress doesn’t act.

Andrew Yang: Yang’s campaign website includes a gun safety plan. He supports universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, gun licensing, closing loopholes in existing laws, repealing special legal protections for gun companies, federally funded research on gun violence, and creating financial incentives for firearm owners to obtain smart guns.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Gabbard’s campaign website includes a section on gun safety legislation. She supports universal background checks, closing loopholes in laws regarding domestic violence and suspected terrorism, and an assault weapons ban.

Former HUD Secretary Julián Castro: Castro’s campaign website does not include a gun policy platform, and his campaign did not return requests for comment. He has voiced support for universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and red flag laws.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar: Klobuchar’s campaign released a plan on gun violence. She backs universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, closing loopholes in existing laws, repealing special legal protections for gun companies, and federally funded research on gun violence.

Tom Steyer: Steyer’s campaign website does not include a gun policy platform, and his campaign did not return requests for comment.

Marianne Williamson: Williamson’s campaign website includes a section on gun policy. She supports universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, gun licensing, mandatory waiting periods, stricter laws regarding children’s use of guns, child safety locks for all guns, red flag laws, and federally funded research into gun violence.

Montana Gov. Steve Bullock: Bullock’s campaign website does not include a gun policy platform, and his campaign did not return requests for comment. He has voiced support for universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and red flag laws.

Former Rep. John Delaney: Delaney’s campaign website includes a gun safety platform. He supports universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, closing loopholes in existing laws, red flag laws, and federally funded research on gun violence.

Rep. Tim Ryan: Ryan’s campaign website does not include a gun policy platform, and his campaign did not return requests for comment. He has voiced support for universal background checks and an assault weapons ban.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio: De Blasio’s campaign website does not include a gun policy platform, and his campaign did not return requests for comment. He’s voiced support for universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and urban gun violence intervention programs (some of which he implemented as mayor of New York City).

Former Rep. Joe Sestak: Sestak’s website includes a section on violence prevention. He supports an assault weapons ban, closing loopholes in existing background check laws, and federally funded research on gun violence.

Sen. Michael Bennet: Bennet’s campaign website does not include a gun policy platform, and his campaign did not return requests for comment. He told the Trace he supports universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, red flag laws, repealing special legal protections for gun companies, and federally funded research on gun violence. But he opposes gun licensing.

Miramar, Florida, Mayor Wayne Messam: Messam’s campaign website includes a section on gun reform. He backs expanded background checks.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2Yu4xSA

#IFTTT #Blogger

0 notes

californiaprelawland · 5 years

Text

Ban On Bump Stock Is Enacted

By Tygre Perl, Loyola Marymount University Class of 2020

March 31, 2019

When the political issue of guns comes to mind, it might be easy to guess that Democrats are pro gun control and Republicans are pro second amendment, given what we hear and see in the media. But, often issues aren’t as clear cut as they seem to be. President Trump’s administration has put forward a ban on bump stock devices which means that bump stocks are no longer considered allowed under second amendment rights.

The second amendment to the constitution allows Americans the right to own specific types of arms. The amendment itself states “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”6. The second amendment has been understood as allowing gun ownership within the home7. However, while this amendment is why Americans are able to own guns, it still does not come without restrictions. There are some people restricted from owning guns, some weapons which are not to be owned and some restrictions on keeping weapons concealed8. But with exceptions to the rule come questions of what counts as an exception. In this case, the question is whether a gun with a bump stock device is allowed or whether it falls into the category of weapons which cannot be kept.

The process to add legal protections banning bump stocks has been in the works for a while. On March 23, 2018 President Trump tweeted “Obama Administration legalized bump stocks. BAD IDEA. As I promised, today the Department of Justice will issue the rule banning BUMP STOCKS with a mandated comment period. We will BAN all devices that turn legal weapons into illegal machine guns.”1. Bump stocks are described in Rolling Stone as “attachments that turn semi-automatic rifles into automatic weapons”2. Bump stocks allow shooters to fire much more rapidly, and so inherently allow for much more harm to occur. The Las Vegas shooting of 2017 was perpetrated using rifles with bump stocks attached, which led to the tragic deaths of fifty-eight people3.

Out of this tragedy, President Trump began working on changing the regulations about bump stocks being sold. Under the Obama administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives decided that bump stocks were legal for the possession of citizens3. However, under the Trump administration the same bureau has changed their decision. While at both times the organization would have been interpreting the same law, the old bureau looked at bump stocks as a weapon which was allowed to be owned by citizens under the law, such as a handgun, whereas the current bureau looks at bump weapons as qualifying as a weapon not allowed to be owned, such as a machine gun.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives website explains that in December of 2018, Acting Attorney General Whitaker announced “bump stocks fall within the definition of “machine gun” under federal law, as such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger”5.

On Tuesday March 26, the Supreme Court denied the chance to temporarily halt the ban on bump stock devices, and in doing so allowed the ban to go into effect4. The same day, the ban went into effect, requiring anyone who does own a bump stock either surrender or destroy the bump stock3. This was a step forward for those who believe the sales of guns should be more regulated. This decision means that the law today is that you cannot own a bump stock, and if you already own one you have to get rid of it. It follows then, that bump stocks will not be sold any more. Given that weapons which have been enhanced with bump stocks have been used in shootings such as the Las Vegas shooting in 2017, this ban on bump stocks presents with it the chance of lowering the amount of injuries and deaths caused by guns. However, this can’t be predicted for sure so we will have to wait and see both if the ban on bump stocks stays in tact and whether it makes a difference in deaths by gun.

_______________________________________________________________

1https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/977286489410240514?lang=en

2https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/bump-stock-rule-771259/

3https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-supreme-court-bump-stock-ban-20190328-story.html

4https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-denies-attempt-to-stop-bump-stock-ban-11553805513

5https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks

6https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment

7https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

8https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-do-u-s-gun-laws-compare-to-other-countries

Photo Credit: WASR

0 notes

shadow-dragonss · 7 years

Note

Modern/Coffee shop AU: Berin as barista. You started this.

Ooooooooh why would you do this to me…I’ve thought about this one for awhile…

So Berin works in the coffee shop to save up for school and he takes the early morning shift so he's working when Correnten walks in at like 6 am for his morning coffee to get through his classes (I think he'd end up either going to technical school or helps kids, something like that)so maybe he has a job before classes and that's why he comes in so early.

Correnten, while extremely chatty to begin with, takes special interest in Berin and tries to befriend him, swaps stories about college and eventually find out they lived in towns right next to each other. And Berin of course, thinks it's strange that anyone could be that talkative in the morning and still need coffee, but he really doesn't mind talking to Correnten, because after awhile they actually become decent friends. Not to mention both of them think the other looks very hot.

Then one Friday morning, Correnten's walking in and he looks a bit nervous, but he tells Berin he's got a test today. He orders his usual coffee (that's being made before he even walks in) and when handing Berin the cash, also hands him a slip of paper with his number on it.

Berin would freeze for a second, not really sure what just happened as he stared at the phone number, so Correnten would hurriedly explain "It's, uh, if you're ever interested in seeing each other outside of here. Maybe if you're free tonight..."

"Uh, sure. Yeah." Berin would recover, though it would be impossible to tell which of the two are redder.

"Great." Correnten would smile hesitantly, happy he didn't get rejected. "Give me a text when you're done with classes. You were talking about seeing Rogue One, right?" (because I can see Berin being a huge Star Wars fan, and Correnten wanting to go because it's one of the latest popular movies and Star Wasrs was pretty good, but never really jumped on the fanwagon).

Flustered, Berin would be surprised Correnten remembered that from weeks ago, but nod. "I-Is this a..."

"Date. Is that okay?"

"Y-yeah."

Another worker (Alysson? She's usually on drive-thru duty if there is one, if not she makes all the treats) would slide the coffee over to Correnten with a sly smile because she totally saw the whole thing. Correnten would grab it, thank her, and then smile at Berin, all "I've got to go meet some of my group partner's early. I'll see you later." and he'd walk out the door. Totally using it as an excuse so he doesn't have to face getting rejected right there. Though Berin would definitely text him once he's free, and with Alysson bugging the hell out of him.

#strawberry-and-neon #my writing #ocs #sorry this took forever #AU

1 note · View note

pulp2pixel · 4 years

Text

Episode #120 - Secret Wars & Beyond #34

Marvel's Secret Wars & Beyond is be a monthly show where Sean, Greg, and Doctor G will read & review Marvel's 1984 series Secret Wars as well as the sequels and connected issues.

With Secret Wars II firmly behind us we are now looking to the next iteration of the the Secret Wars title. To this end we will be reading an reviewing the Jonathan Hickman run of Secret Wars from 2015

In this episode, Sean and Dr. G begin Secret Wars Vol. 3 proper covering the Zero issue of the series released on during a Free Comic Book Day event. The final collision of universes is at hand as the multiverse draws to a close. Earth 616 and the Ultimates Universe are poised to collide as the Future Foundation tries for one last hope. Listen in to hear our review and recommendations for this issue.

Follow these episodes on the new dedicated Marvel Secret Wars & Beyond feed through iTunes:https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/marvels-secret-wasr-beyond/id1355993531?mt=2

You can also subscribe to our main podcast feed through iTunes, where you can also leave a rating and review:https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pulp-2-pixel-podcasts/id1019004523?mt=2

You can also find episodes, articles, and art work about the podcast and leave comments or messages at:

https://www.pulp2pixel.com/

http://pulp2pixel.tumblr.com

http://www.facebook.com/pulp2pixelpodcasts

https://www.instagram.com/pulp2pixel/

Check out this episode!

0 notes

bluehottubzombie-blog · 7 years

Text

Ak porn

Some AK porn for ya'll. Not my picture, found it years ago. - Imgur

Pasty stressed my yugo m70ab2 battlefield pick-up+ more than one another. It sounded like strippers ak porn wasr 10 63 - shooting sports forum • view topic - free sex videos - page 13. True. Now. Selina ak files forums. 2102 4 жасмин джей дьявольский анал #23 анальное порно фильмы смотреть онлайн. My reputation was coming down my sister. Ak porn for a company working cheap. http://BlueHotTubZombie.tumblr.com http://ThoughtfulTriumphThing.tumblr.com http://SwimmingNachoAnchor.tumblr.com http://SwimmingNachoAnchor.tumblr.com

0 notes

randomuser678 · 7 years

Note

2 danganronpa

Oh wow that wasr really fastAnyways, a popular fandom OTP that I only BrOTP, I guess that’d have to be ChiakixHinata. I never got really invested on their relationship neiteher on the game nor on the anime, and there were parts on their interactions that used cliches that I dislike a lot, like, if I remember well, pretty much all of Nan’s free time events were just her and Hina walking around with Nan while teaching her basic concepts, like where milk comes from, and it just felt like the “Born Sexy Yesterday” trope that I despise. And it seems that the writers knew that their relationship was kind of bland so they made up something for them to bond over, that’s why on DR3 they play video games together, even though Hina has never showed interest on it before. But I don’t really hate this ship, and I don’t hate Nan, even though I’m not too crazy abt them. I just don’t feel really interested in their relationship. But I like many of their interactions so I prefer them as best friends, and like, super BFFs.And another popular pairing that I just like as platonic is IbukixTwogami. I just think that Mio has better chemistry with other characters and that Two is more annoyed by her than anything, I also like Two being the mom friend, so like, I’d prefer a platonic relationship, with these two at least.So yeah those were the main ones, but I’m there are more, I had fun writing this, and you can ask me anything you want to know.

#answered #me #my shit #ship hate #i guess #just to be safe

0 notes

vinayv224 · 5 years

Text

Where every 2020 candidate stands on guns

Where every 2020 candidate stands on guns Ten of the Democratic presidential candidates during the first 2020 debate. | Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The candidates agree on universal background checks and an assault weapons ban. There’s less agreement on other proposals.

So, after little federal action on guns for more than two decades, what would the 2020 presidential candidates actually do?

But none of the Democratic proposals do anything to swiftly address that core problem and significantly reduce the number of guns in the US.

Some proposals show a little movement

There’s also a lot of support for federally funded research into gun violence, as well as the repeal of special legal protections for gun companies.

Several candidates, including Booker, Warren, Buttigieg, and Yang, support gun licensing. But others, including Joe Biden and Michael Bennet, have been critical of it.

Otherwise, there’s been little significant movement from the typical Democratic mantras of universal background checks and an assault weapons ban.

Even the boldest proposals don’t go far enough

One reason is that Democrats’ philosophy on gun policy has remained largely the same: to prevent certain kinds of people from getting guns, and at most prohibit only a small fraction of firearms.

Significant change could involve imposing bigger hurdles to owning a gun — requiring that people provide a stronger justification, besides self-defense or recreation, to obtain a license.

Where the Democrats stand

Tom Steyer: Steyer’s campaign website does not include a gun policy platform, and his campaign did not return requests for comment.

Miramar, Florida, Mayor Wayne Messam: Messam’s campaign website includes a section on gun reform. He backs expanded background checks.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2Yu4xSA from Blogger https://ift.tt/2Llhogs via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Blogger

0 notes

vinayv224 · 5 years

Text

Where every 2020 candidate stands on guns

Ten of the Democratic presidential candidates during the first 2020 debate. | Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The candidates agree on universal background checks and an assault weapons ban. There’s less agreement on other proposals.

So, after little federal action on guns for more than two decades, what would the 2020 presidential candidates actually do?

But none of the Democratic proposals do anything to swiftly address that core problem and significantly reduce the number of guns in the US.

Some proposals show a little movement

There’s also a lot of support for federally funded research into gun violence, as well as the repeal of special legal protections for gun companies.

Several candidates, including Booker, Warren, Buttigieg, and Yang, support gun licensing. But others, including Joe Biden and Michael Bennet, have been critical of it.

Otherwise, there’s been little significant movement from the typical Democratic mantras of universal background checks and an assault weapons ban.

Even the boldest proposals don’t go far enough

One reason is that Democrats’ philosophy on gun policy has remained largely the same: to prevent certain kinds of people from getting guns, and at most prohibit only a small fraction of firearms.

Significant change could involve imposing bigger hurdles to owning a gun — requiring that people provide a stronger justification, besides self-defense or recreation, to obtain a license.

Where the Democrats stand

Tom Steyer: Steyer’s campaign website does not include a gun policy platform, and his campaign did not return requests for comment.

Miramar, Florida, Mayor Wayne Messam: Messam’s campaign website includes a section on gun reform. He backs expanded background checks.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2Yu4xSA from Blogger https://ift.tt/32hLyrF via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Blogger

0 notes

vinayv224 · 5 years

Link

Ten of the Democratic presidential candidates during the first 2020 debate. | Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The candidates agree on universal background checks and an assault weapons ban. There’s less agreement on other proposals.

So, after little federal action on guns for more than two decades, what would the 2020 presidential candidates actually do?

But none of the Democratic proposals do anything to swiftly address that core problem and significantly reduce the number of guns in the US.

Some proposals show a little movement

There’s also a lot of support for federally funded research into gun violence, as well as the repeal of special legal protections for gun companies.

Several candidates, including Booker, Warren, Buttigieg, and Yang, support gun licensing. But others, including Joe Biden and Michael Bennet, have been critical of it.

Otherwise, there’s been little significant movement from the typical Democratic mantras of universal background checks and an assault weapons ban.

Even the boldest proposals don’t go far enough

One reason is that Democrats’ philosophy on gun policy has remained largely the same: to prevent certain kinds of people from getting guns, and at most prohibit only a small fraction of firearms.

Significant change could involve imposing bigger hurdles to owning a gun — requiring that people provide a stronger justification, besides self-defense or recreation, to obtain a license.

Where the Democrats stand

Tom Steyer: Steyer’s campaign website does not include a gun policy platform, and his campaign did not return requests for comment.

Miramar, Florida, Mayor Wayne Messam: Messam’s campaign website includes a section on gun reform. He backs expanded background checks.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2Yu4xSA

#IFTTT #Blogger

0 notes