New Sanctuary State Declared

Sweet, sweet relief

Gov. Ricketts designates Nebraska as ‘sanctuary state’ for gun rights

LINCOLN — Doubling down on his pro-gun rights credentials, Gov. Pete Ricketts signed a symbolic proclamation Wednesday designating Nebraska as a “Second Amendment Sanctuary State.”

And that’s when I closed the tab and stared out the window.

This entry was posted in Ammosexuals, Crazeee States, Gundamentalists, Guns! Guns! Guns!, Nebraska. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to New Sanctuary State Declared

  1. genelms says:

    The profound juvenility of this is appalling.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. DarkStar says:

    NRA – Everyone should buy a gun to protect themselves.
    US – Protect themselves from what?
    NRA – From all the guns we sold.

    Liked by 6 people

  3. Dennis Cole says:

    “On Thursday, a mass shooting in Bryan, Texas, left one dead and several injured.
    Just hours before, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted his support of a ‘Second Amendment Sanctuary State’ bill.
    The bill would make it so Texas authorities would not have to abide by federal gun control laws.”
    Just a few hours later, a gunman kills 6 at a cabinet shop.

    WTG!!!

    https://www.businessinsider.com/texas-gov-abbott-tweets-gun-rights-support-before-mass-shooting-2021-4

    Liked by 2 people

  4. R Whiten says:

    Nebraska is one of those forgotten states like the Dakotas which outside the objections from a few redneck assholes like the Ricketts family, could easily be given back to Native Americans. Besides, that’s probably a great idea moving forward since it’s been proven that the Ricketts family cannot manage a MLB team (the Cubs luckingly winning the World Series in ‘16, but with a depleted farm system, are again the lovable losers of the northside) much less government institutions as well as they cannot help cramming their feet into their mouths with incredibly tone-deaf and racist statements anytime they are questioned by the media.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. this guy knows that guns don’t kill people, but he’s worried that people will kill guns.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. lofgren says:

    If you have ever had any violent or menacing behavior on your record – stalking, domestic assault, a restraining order – you should not have guns, full stop. This really should not be controversial. Literal violent criminals, even if the plead down to a misdemeanor, should not have guns. Period. I get so sick when I read about somebody who has finally murdered someone and you get to to paragraph 10 which says they once paid a hundred dollar fine for violating a restraining order against a girlfriend, even if it was a decade ago. We need to finally recognize the science that says that people who commit these crimes are very, very likely to escalate. (A prior accusation of violence against a woman is the best predictor of future gun violence.)

    The legal system is predicated on prescientific fantasies that it’s unfair to think somebody who beat up one girlfriend will beat up future girlfriends. In fact the default position should be that once you have been convicted of a violent crime, it’s your responsibility to prove that you are rehabilitated.

    Yes, I realize that this approach is ripe for abuse. Good ol’boys will gladly escalate charges against African Americans in order to limit their rights as much as possible, while they may become less likely to pursue charges against White men because they are “good guys” who “just lost their temper” and “it wouldn’t be fair to take away their rights just because they slipped up once and beat their girlfriend unconscious.” However, I believe that these are two separate problems that need to be addressed independently. One is a cultural change that we have been working on for centuries and will likely be working on for at least a century to come, making incremental progress with each generation. The other is about rooting our legal system in actual science that actually saves lives. The situation I described already happens today, except that neither of the two men end up with their guns removed, and both are more likely to have their rights treated as more valuable than the lives of the women they abuse.

    The other thing that would help is if everybody in the household over 18 had to agree to keep any firearms in the house. If everybody did not agree, you can keep your guns but you’ll have to store them elsewhere. Given that guns are a clear health and safety risk, this should also be possible without violating the 2nd amendment, though it’s much less likely than the above proposal which is just to take the guns away from literal violent criminals.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.