- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
You know you’re on the wrong side of history when you make it illegal to give to those most in need.
And claiming to be a devout Christian while making these laws is ludicrous.
Yeah, this definitely is one of the more ludicrous things Christians have done. The crusades and the child molestation I was okay with, the inquisition just sounds like an awesome time for everyone, and shoving your religion down the throat of everyone else is just what you do sometimes when you feel you’re right. But making laws against feeding homeless people really makes me wonder if maybe Christians are a bit wrong sometimes.
Srcastaball game is in session
And have to be visibly armed to stop the cops from harassing you for doing so.
And people are banning books.
No, those people are on the right side
It’s a crime in Dallas to help homeless people?
Yeah, it’s what Jesus would want, didn’t you know?
Supply-side Jesus is the worst Jesus.
For the uninitiated: https://www.beliefnet.com/news/2003/09/the-gospel-of-supply-side-jesus.aspx
That last line is truly icing on the cake.
deleted by creator
It’s generally not allowed to create an ad hoc aid group. It’s bullshit.
The “reasoning” is the are no permits/ food safety licenses, etc.
But obviously that’s bullshit given the alternatives.
We live in a world where I can see someone doing this in an effort to poison a bunch of homeless people. Of course that’s not what is happening here but it’s been at yhe back of my mind lately.
Gotta love how it’s illegal to help your community
Just wait to see what those ass clowns have planned if they win the presidency
Armed to deter cops actually sounds like a viable plan in Texas after what we saw at Uvalde
Link to tweet: https://x.com/FordFischer/status/1203485521151959040
2019 sounds like so far in the past…
Texas must have fixed those stupids rules? Maybe they have fixed the houses crisis…
Please I really could use some hope right now
Here are the current Dallas ordinances on feeding the homeless. It looks like it’s legal if you notify the city 24+ hours in advance and abide by certain food safety and hygiene measures. Still seems pretty onerous to me
Does being armed actually deter cops in Texas? In my home country being armed is more likely to alert cops
A dozen armed people attract cops.
A couple hundred armed people repel cops.
A single armed guy in a Texas school will attract cops at a medium distance but repel them at a short distance.
The thing is, those guns cause pain and injury by ejecting small pieces of metal so fast they go right through you.
That pain and injury is a deterrence, yes. Even in Texas.
It stopped the cops from entering a school while someone slaughtered 19 kids and 2 adults and that was just 1 person with a gun. So I’d say this would.
Yes, it deters the cops. You have to understand that many or most cops are paranoid, cowards, and bullies. They aren’t going around enforcing laws because they think that they need to uphold justice. Rather, they’re going around power tripping. And it’s not such a great power trip if you have to worry about getting shot because people think that you’re dirty.
Of course this is not true for all cops all the time, but it’s certainly true for many cops most of the time.
*American cops.
Everything you just said would not be true of, for example, Danish cops. Or French cops, for that matter.
less true, yes. not true? idk
The police are an arm of the state formed specifically for the purpose of maintaining a societies class structure because the laws they enforce are dictated by that societies ruling class. French and Danish cops absolutely will do whatever the state tells them because its their job, they are law enforcers not law interpreters. One day shit will go down hill for the French and Danish ruling class and when that happens they will use their law enforcers to maintain their standard of living which is to say their positions of power and wealth. This is very normal and becomes quite clear when you learn the history of labor and civil rights movements all over the world.
France maybe, but you clearly don’t know the first thing about Denmark.
deleted by creator
Judging by another reply, ey meant that French cops will engage in a fight rather than chicken out. That doesn’t make them the good guys, of course
deleted by creator
My point exactly. If you’re going to do something with weapons on display in France because of the police, the police are only going to take that as a provocation. There’d be a fire fight.
If there was one or two, sure, but 200+?
Have you ever seen what a protest looks like in Paris?
Cops much prefer to beat up their unarmed wife than an armed group.
Don’t forget about the children.
But only unarmed ones
Cops only punch down
Have you heard about Uvalde?
Texas boggles my mind because it’s such a blue state with some of the deepest red politicians running the place.
G-G-G-G-Gerrymandering!
Congressional districts should have a perimiter-area ratio limit, and the largest district should not be allowed to contain 10% more people than the smallest district.
I like that and it would probably work better than suing over a gerrymandered map only for the courts to uphold the crazy district, exactly what happened with the Texas 2nd Congressional District map.
Honestly with our current level of technology, a more direct democracy approach like a popular vote representation based on stance alignment would probably work better. For example, Average Joe would optionally select a party and then vote on policies, and the representatives would have selected their policies to align with constituents. Policies and candidates on ballot would be chosen through a regular primary, so each party might have separate policies on the ballot. Independents could select a mix of each and get automatically assigned a politician.
I bet the GOP wouldn’t even oppose it because they love forcing people to commit to a party.
Nice
The way americans look at texas is the way the world looks at amerikkka
A whole lot of empty land seems to have really important votes, since theirs seems go count for than mine.
They passed a law that every ceo gets an axtra vote for every ear of corn grown on Texas soil
♥️
Lol we are so fucked.
More of this, please
A SWWOORD MY LIEGE?!!
Work with what you got
I got a fully loaded tree branch and pretty killer smile.
Ironically speaking to kings.
Damn, giving food and clothes is a crime.
Pretty sure its not, this is just more bullshit lemmy propaganda.
Look up how many times “Food Not Bombs” gets arrested for feeding the homeless.
More like look up what OP says and realize its bullshit. Lemmy has become so disappointing with all the blind acceptance of this kind of nonsense.
So this video is manufactured “bullshit”, I assume.
Show me the law saying feeding homeless people is a crime
This article talks about the ordinance. Yes, you can feed them in specific situations and places. Still, you can’t tell me it isn’t making it intentionally hard to do.
Pretty big assumption that all the governments in the many cities with laws like this are evil people coordinating efforts to starve homeless people.
deleted by creator
Its not a crime to feed homeless people. They say that because they want to cause division in the US and anger against the government.
Like the fact that that headline is sensational and wrong? Its not illegal to feed homeless people in those cities, the city governments just require people to get permits and do it in a safe way.
It’s food serving legislation being taken too far. The clothes I think are fine, but since they’re not inspected by the health department like a restaurant the government can technically shut it down which is complete bullshit.
So if I buy the food let’s say 100 burgers from a fast food joint. That would be ok right?
Anecdotally, I don’t think so. I used to do some work with a place that did a lot of charity work and would get together bi-weekly to talk about travel and have a banquet. The banquet was always prepared and served in accordance with the law, and there were often tons of leftovers. So we would give the leftovers to the homeless. The health department fined us because we weren’t allowed to serve food outside of our establishment.
Did you have some kind of serve safe license that was limited? I wonder why the rules were different than a restaurant letting people take leftovers home.
Were you guys handing out huge trays of food like after thanksgiving or a party, like “who wants this half a turkey in these ziplock bags”, or was it more like a bunch of to go containers handed out?
Seems like the seal of government approval on a person’s ability to handle food safety should apply equally to serving in the restaurant and to prepping food for serving outside that building. Right? Just too complex to have it separated out like that.
That’s what the to-go bags are for.
When I was living on the streets of Boston, one day a random dude showed up giving out McDonalds cheeseburgers. Didn’t look very official. He just rolled up with a big bag and started giving them out.
Maybe I’ll go out and do this today in LA
The double cheeseburgers differ from the McDouble only in that the McDouble has one more slice of cheese.
The double cheeseburgers are also buy one, get one for $1. Here in denver that means $4.50 for two of them.
Probably the most bang for your buck if they’ve got the same deal going there.
Hell yeah, it’s embarrassing but I did already know this, lol. Double cheese for life. Also, Denver for life, I’m from Colorado originally :)
No, the Good Samaritan Act says free food doesn’t have to be inspected as long as it’s given “in good faith apparently wholesome food or apparently fit grocery products to a nonprofit organization for ultimate distribution to needy individuals”
All fifty states and the District of Columbia have additional food donation statues that limit food donor’s liability—these currently vary widely, such as by who (i.e., donors, nonprofit organizations), and what foods and food products are covered.
state laws may provide greater protection against liability, but not less
TIL. Thanks.
You better run and tell all the cities then, because they don’t care.
Now I understand why americans need guns.
Too bad this is an extremely rare use case, but yes this is exactly the INTENT of the second amendment.
Does it actually work? Because I fear that it doesn’t and just gives cops/the state even more excuses to further militarize police in the long teem.
I’m not antigun, but this seems like an arms race you can’t win.
It does. Armed peaceful protesters don’t get hassled by the police. These are armed peaceful protesters and they were not hassled. It worked for the black panthers. Cops only brutalize the weak.
Well I’m not sure it worked that well for Fred Hampton or the MOVE guys.
There’s always a danger of escalation, and the boys in blue have no upper limit.
Armed peaceful protesters don’t get hassled by the police.
There were quite a few shoot outs between panthers and cops, no? Some even argue that the increasing use of “swat” was, in part, because of black panthers.
Again, I’m not speaking out against armed groups, but it seems a bit romantized to say “armed protesters don’t get hasseled”…
I’m pretty sure there are some statistics on the mental profiles of cops the people who end up becoming them being people who enjoy power.
And this is a failure of the system. The failure to identify and reject these sick fucks.
Failure of the system, or working exactly how it was intended?
lol okay
Well if you think about it the population has the numbers, so do the math
The vast majority is not willing to die in armed struggle against the state…
More will be willing once they realize that the state will kill them whether they support it or not.
The INTENT of the second amendment was protect the states’ militias from being disarmed by the feds. So that enslavers like Washington could rest assured that his slave state of Virginia wouldn’t be liberated by the feds
I mean, that was always the point.
To fight tyrannical bullshit.
It’s just that purist assholes don’t want any regulation whatsoever - so that anyone, anyone can get a gun. And welp… the tragic bullshit happens.
I’m not pro-gun or anti-gun. I’m pro-common-sense.
No it wasn’t. The second amendment was written to protect tyrannical bullshit. The slaveowners wanted to make sure the federal government couldn’t disarm their state-owned militias
Never heard the claim before. Looked into it, and I don’t think that’s the case.
lol you fell for the obvious bait. look at post history
I took a look at their comment history. They don’t seem like a troll to me. Maybe a bit further left than myself, but that’s not always a bad thing.
You just posted a federalist society goon. He’s one of the people that worked on the great American project to make abortion illegal, and the president a king. https://fedsoc.org/contributors/stephen-halbrook
The text of the second amendment is pretty clearly talking about militias, and the history shows the same. The individualist interpretation is very recent, and Heller was a shitty decision written by the most corrupt supreme coirt justice. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2020/10/why-heller-is-such-bad-history
I’m not anti-gun, but I hate right wing propaganda
I’m unsure what you’re arguing against.
To my knowledge, the link I provided wasn’t a treatise on individual ownership or saying that it wasn’t about militias. It was a direct rebuttal to the idea that the 2nd amendment was proposed to protect slavery.
I was unaware of Halbrook’s associations, so thank you for bringing that to my attention. However, even a broken clock is right twice a day. If you’d like to change my mind about this, I’d like to see a direct rebuttal of the facts and arguments presented.
I’m arguing against the idea that the second amendment was designed to protect individuals against tyrannical government
I didn’t say it was specifically/exclusively to protect slavery. I didn’t say anything about slave rebellions. The constitution was all about balancing the power of wealthy landed slaveholders of the south with the wealthy landed urbanites of the north. Ensuring state militias was one element of that balancing act.
Pretending the second amendment was written to protect against tyrannical governments is ahistorical right wing propaganda. * Unless you view it as one sovereign being protected from the tyranny of another. Eg Virginia is protected from the tyranny of Pennsylvania or vis versa
If you want to read a rebuttal of halbrooks legal theory, read the Heller dissents
Okay. But, I didn’t say anything about tyrannical governments, either. Only that the 2nd amendment didn’t seem to be driven by any sort of slave related anything, per the history presented in the link I read.
lol! shut up.
Sorry to trigger you with history
lol ok trooller.
I hate that this is true.
SWORDS!!
Highlander homeless ppl … I can kinda see that, yes
