103
California Gov. Gavin Newsom is floating a federal tax boycott
(www.cbsnews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2025
103 points (98.1% liked)
News
30335 readers
1823 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You do have the right to own at gun in MA as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. No such right exists in Canada. In Canada gun ownership is a privilege which can be revoked and which has strict training, licensing, and handling requirements.
Strict is a loose term. A Canadian neighbour had more than 10 guns, overkill for city apartment living...but if you have a valid license its fair game
Strict by American standards. My 16 year old son is on his way into the house to get my keys so that I can unlock the ammo box to give him .22 quiets so that he can try out his new Winchester rifle that arrived by mail today.
Canadian kids 12 through 17 can apply for their gun license. Or If you are with a licensed owner you can handle guns. I went hunting with my dad in the teen days. Canada is not as strict as the US folk believe, especially if you live rurally and are hunting, you can be under 12. We just don't use it to attach our identity too like gun nuts in the USA
Used to be that way here as well. Gun nuts existed but even most of the right thought they were crazy and pathetic.
Grew up in the deep south. Guns were a tool, back then. Most people didn't own a handgun, those that did tended to have one or two. .38 special and a .22 pistol for plinking. Like other tools they are toys as well so people like guns and have a lot of fun with them. Seeing them as weapons to kill people was a distant afterthought other than safety considerations.
Most gun owners had only long guns. .22 for small game and plinking, scoped bolt or lever 30-06 for larger game. Several gauge of shotguns for different types of hunting and skeet shooting.
Live in a blue/purple state now. Our home is an old farmhouse. My study has a gun rack built in to the closet original to the house. It is sized to fit that use pattern and fits my family like a glove.
I gotta go check my groundhog traps, cute little fuckers destroy foundations and you aren't even allowed to catch and release, by law you are supposed to dispatch and not relocate. I dispatch with a long barrel .22 revolver.
My 16 year old is out shooting his brand new arrived today .22 right now. He has a PL (possession license) while I have a PAL (possession and acquisition license.) He is allowed to possess guns without supervision but he is not allowed to acquire them.
AND THIS SEEMS COMPLETELY REASONABLE.
No sarcasm. I feel the national POV of the USA is just sick.
That is completely reasonable and the person you're screaming at is Canadian. 16 year olds are perfectly capable of being responsible with long guns like a .22 rifle. This depends on the kid and the parents.
If you are a vegan and a pacifist on ethical grounds, I get it. But, hunting is a like a basic human thing. View the gun as a neat but dangerous tool that requires training.
We're talking about traditional patterns of rural gun use you even find all over Europe. These are not AR-15 killer sewing machines, they're old school long guns with most of them not even being semi-automatic.
Have you noticed that the NRA has been absolutely silent since the tyrannical government they've been warning us about for years actually came to pass?
In Canada you are required to take 16 hours of training then pass a written exam and a practical exam before being licensed.
In MA and a few other states gun ownership is a privelege that is granted based on personal bias and can be revoked. They also have training licensing and handling requirements.
Looking at the laws online the only major difference I see is in CA you can no longer buy a handgun due to the freeze.
Gun laws by state vary wildly.
I did a little bit of reading and I don't think that's true. You have the protected constitutional right to own guns as guaranteed by the second amendment but the exercise of that right is subject to licensing and permitting requirements and may be suspended under some circumstances (such as your being designated a danger to society.) (This sounds more like a, "mah rights!" argument than anything else to me. )
That's quite different from Canada where you have literally no right to own a gun at all.
Its not though, there is literally constitution legal contention over the issue. There are a few states like MA, NY and a few others where they call it a "may issue"state because it's not a right in those states.
That's not how the US constitution works.
It is in practice
Like I said, "Mah rights!"
You realize that there are different states and things can be unconstitutional right? People in may issue states have gun privileges, not rights.
This seems like a confirmation that your argument is, in fact, "Mah rights!"
I dont get what you don't understand of on paper vs in practice.
Just because thats what it says, doesn't change the fact that may issue states offer priveleges not rights. Just because the SC will likely eventually overturn the unconstitutional state law, doesn't mean that those people have those rights. They don't have those rights until it's overturned, it's the whole point of bringing it to the SC. Rights denied are rights denied.
The law is only unconstitutional if you have a right that the state law takes away.
You have the right as guaranteed by the second amendment and the supremacy clause. I'm not sure what you don't understand about how the constitution works.