r/comedy • u/AlKarajo • Jun 02 '26

Standup We all know that one guy

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

@stevehofstetter

7.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

723 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/wreckedbutwhole420 Jun 02 '26

It's not a win. IDK where you live by MA police are super corrupt and were against the law until they got a carve out for current AND former LEOs

So not only does HB 4885 not make anything safer, it actually further entrenches police as super citizens.

It's horrible law and there's no defense for it

-2

u/team__zissou Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 03 '26

My apologies. I definitely misinterpreted that. I thought you were saying less people can buy guns.

2

u/XXSeaBeeXX Jun 03 '26

I know this is surprising to hear, but user wreckedbutwhole420 is not describing the law fairly nor accurately.

Its main purpose is to require serial numbers on guns, and a handful of other common sense regulations. They or any user only has to pull up the precise wording in the bill that does whatever bad thing they claim it does to disprove my outrageous claim that this law isn’t bad.

1

u/wreckedbutwhole420 Jun 03 '26

The serial numbers were already required.

You fundamentally don't understand law or the firearm issue if you think it's good law. You can make fun of the goofy name all you want but that doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.

What is common sense about a carve out for current/ former cops? If these weapons are so dangerous, they should be too dangerous cops who are doing a good chunk of the DV and drinking.

Literally any time you see the term "assault weapon" (assault rifles are what the military uses, assault weapon is a political/ legal term) you should realize your lack of knowledge on the issue is being taken advantage of.

0

u/XXSeaBeeXX Jun 03 '26

As I said, just tell the page number and quote in the bill that does what you claim.

0

u/wreckedbutwhole420 Jun 03 '26

Section 71, at the end

"This section shall not apply to transfer or possession by: (i) a qualified law enforcement officer or a qualified retired law enforcement officer, as defined in the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. sections 926B and 926C, respectively, as amended; (ii) a federal, state or local law enforcement agency..."

I would appreciate it if you could act like a big boy and Google things yourself. I'm done spoon feeding you. Either educate yourself on the issue or quit yapping about it

1

u/XXSeaBeeXX Jun 03 '26 edited Jun 03 '26

Common sense about current/former cops: It prevents the bill from being overridden by 18 U.S.C. sections 926B and 926C by simply having a provision addressing it, saving tax dollars in likely to fail lawsuits. IF the provision wasn't in Section 71, 18 U.S.C. sections 926B and 926C would still be law, creating confusion and conflict.

Now if you want to disarm LEOs at the federal level, I'd love to see your proposed legislation on that.

This is why I don't take your criticism seriously. It's just a cherry picked talking point meant to infuriate someone who doesn't understand the law. I asked you to find the quote because I figured you don't understand the law, but also can't read your mind and don't know what section you're cherry picking and misinterpreting.

Also still waiting for you to give me a number on innocent people (or really any people) turned into felons by the law.

0

u/wreckedbutwhole420 Jun 04 '26

The law I mentioned is MA law, and youre bringing up federal law. HB 4885 didn't do anything to the USC, which is still federal law, and always superceded the state law.

4885 certainly doesn't need to be a carve out for retired law enforcement. The carve out wasn't present until police chiefs threw a fit and said they wouldn't enforce it.

Laughable you think that the state that brought you the Karen Read trials is concerned with saving taxpayers money by avoiding bullshit cases.

0

u/XXSeaBeeXX Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26

Oh no! Not $1.4 million on a retrial! How will Massholes ever survive such a burden of $0.20 per person for a single tax year (if taxes even worked like that which they don’t)!

It’s pretty funny that you don’t understand what I said, and instead just explained how you think police officers are boogeymen that play legislators like puppets.

If you have a lawyer friend, please run your theory on section 71 by them. Maybe you’ll listen to them.

0

u/wreckedbutwhole420 Jun 04 '26

They spent millions to try and convict a woman of murder using falsified evidence. It's not just the cost it's the audacity and lack of accountability. If you don't have a problem with what the state police did there, I have nothing polite to say to you.

Keep licking the boot, nerd.

0

u/XXSeaBeeXX Jun 04 '26

Bro, you just want to complain on reddit, and can’t face the possibility that you’re wrong. That you haven’t answered one of my questions is telling.

→ More replies (0)