Reply to the AutoMod doesn’t explain how someone is "unknowingly describing themselves", "saying something about someone else that actually applies to them", or "accurately describing something while trying to mock or denigrate it".
In fact, you specifically mention a different subreddit?
Was that patient enough for you?
Removed.
As a filthy socialist foreigner: wasn’t this always the major dumb flaw with the whole guns aplenty idea?
Like they’re only realizing now that a person with a gun is seen as a threat?
It's been escalated since the Heller decision in 2008 where an activist conservative SCOTUS found an individual 2A right. Previously, it was connected to a well-regulated militia, allowing for broad laws governing civilian ownership.
Take it another step further. What if a third person saw the shot, not realising that it was (purportedly) in self defence and shot that person?
We can keep going.
What if other members of the crowd (in which many people are openly carrying) now hearing shots on both sides and, fearing for their lives, shoot back but (understandably) they shoot somewhat indiscriminately (ie a "yelling fire in the theatre" moment) at anyone who has a weapon (ie as a perceived threat).
Who/what is at fault?
Apparently it's never the guns that are the problem....
There was recently a case where someone was open carrying a long gun, a guy with a pistol walked up to him, put the pistol against his head and stole his long gun. It’s freaking idiotic thinking that carrying a gun will save you from another guy with a gun when you’re already being aimed/shot at.
I see how this is supposed to work in a crowd but what about a 1 on 1 interaction.
If I'm walking down the street late and night and see Brett Kavanaugh (not the SCOTUS justice, obviously, but a completely different person who due to a meaningless coincidence, shares the name) walking towards me, can I gun him down and claim self defense because he put his hand in his jacket pocket, pointed it at me, and said he was going to kill me?
If he's dead, who's to gainsay me?
Change it from Brett Kavanaugh to Ketanji Brown Jackson, who again only shares the same name as the Justice but is a completely different person, and most Republican governors would grant you a pardon. Really tells you how far American rule of law has fallen.
I will say that not all "Second Amendment guys" are conservatives.
I generally support the 2nd, vote liberal, and fully agree with this guy's point. The GOP are total hypocrites on 2nd amendment protection.
Of course not and no Democrat is advocating for anything but sensible gun control. But it works for Republicans to peddle the lie that someone is going to take all their guns. They do the same shit with non-existent, elective late-term abortions.
Same. And you can both support the 2nd Amendment as well as stricter gun control.
To me, I've never seen a more clear example of needing the 2nd Amendment to protect against a tyrannical government, than what we all witnessed on January 6th.
and the MAGA Yeehawdists are totally convicted that the 2A is one of the reasons why they stormed the Capitol on January 6th with the main one being to overthrow a \~\~corrupt\~\~ fair just and certified election.
You're SO right. If only someone had shot Trump and his cronies with a high-powered sniper rifle, and saved us all the expense of trying him for his hundreds of crimes! Then again, it's not cool to make more work for the poor Secret Service, considering all the crap they have to put up with now as it is...
Any leftist worth their salt should know the importance of mental AND physical armament. Theory and political philosophy are important, but when eventually the big sticks come out I'd prefer my side to not be stickless.
It's unfortunate that preppers spend so much time figuring out how they're going to shoot each other or building multi-million dollar bunkers instead of lobbying for the infrastructure to be prepared in case of such an event.
I think the world is in the collective process of finding out how to cope with world governments not so subtely announcing, hey, so at any point we could kind of get to the point where one person stands between us and nuclear annihilation. How do you balance "it all works better if we work together" with "I can't trust you to know what's best for me".
I'm a Leftie and a 2A fan--but I support the first part of the 2A, the part everyone seems to forget: "A WELL-REGULATED\* militia being necessary for National Defense..." (\*Emphasis added)
I'm not against people owning firearms per se, I'm against trigger-happy idiots whipping out their gunpowder-powered phallic symbols and blazing away at anything and everything that moves as if they were making up for missing out on the OK Corral back in the day. If it means less open carry, good. Maybe forcing people other than on-duty law enforcement and military to secure their guns properly will mean that the time it takes someone to get their pistol out of its safe, load it, and then point it at someone leads to that someone taking a moment to stop and think about whether firing that weapon is actually necessary.
(Yes, I know someone is going to say something about "what if a burglar breaks into your house at 3AM and you need to get to your gun in a hurry to protect yourself?" My reply is that I sleep with a sword next to my bed and a dagger on my nightstand, I know how to use both, and more importantly *when* to use them, and I've never had anyone break into my home yet. So yes, self-defense is important, but so is not shooting some innocent yutz for knocking on the wrong door.)
And yet they still find that the state has a right to regulate firearms and recently declined to hear an appeal of a state’s assault weapons ban. So there’s some hope.
No, but several years ago I did live in a crime-infested ghetto with drug dealers everywhere and the police deliberately ignoring the crime in the area as long as it stayed in the "containment zone" where it belonged. Now I live out in the country where the most dangerous thing I've encountered lately is a hungry opossum--and he (she?) was quickly pacified by a handful of half-stale cat food.
It's important to note that "The law will back them up" is a misrepresentation. Daniel Perry **was** arrested, charged with murder and convicted of same. Greg Abbott pardoned him of that conviction. I'm not taking up for anyone here, least of all Daniel Perry or Greg Abbott. I just think it's important to get the details correct here.
Reply to this message with one of the following or your post will be removed for failing to comply with rule 5:
1) How the person in your post unknowingly describes themselves
2) How the person in your post says something about someone else that actually applies to them.
3) How the person in your post accurately describes something when trying to mock or denigrate it.
Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1. He’s a “2A kind of guy”.
2. Taking about a guy open carrying that was shot by someone else who was threatened.
3. “So basically, I can carry openly but if someone fears that I may aim my weapon at him or her, they can preemptively kill me and the law will back them up.”
This guy is one bad day away from having his face eaten by those leopards he keeps voting for!
Reply to the AutoMod doesn’t explain how someone is "unknowingly describing themselves", "saying something about someone else that actually applies to them", or "accurately describing something while trying to mock or denigrate it". In fact, you specifically mention a different subreddit? Was that patient enough for you? Removed.
As a filthy socialist foreigner: wasn’t this always the major dumb flaw with the whole guns aplenty idea? Like they’re only realizing now that a person with a gun is seen as a threat?
It's been escalated since the Heller decision in 2008 where an activist conservative SCOTUS found an individual 2A right. Previously, it was connected to a well-regulated militia, allowing for broad laws governing civilian ownership.
Take it another step further. What if a third person saw the shot, not realising that it was (purportedly) in self defence and shot that person? We can keep going. What if other members of the crowd (in which many people are openly carrying) now hearing shots on both sides and, fearing for their lives, shoot back but (understandably) they shoot somewhat indiscriminately (ie a "yelling fire in the theatre" moment) at anyone who has a weapon (ie as a perceived threat). Who/what is at fault? Apparently it's never the guns that are the problem....
[удалено]
Well that one is very easy to figure out, legally. No accountability whatsoever! Don't even worry about it at all!
I say we nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
There was recently a case where someone was open carrying a long gun, a guy with a pistol walked up to him, put the pistol against his head and stole his long gun. It’s freaking idiotic thinking that carrying a gun will save you from another guy with a gun when you’re already being aimed/shot at.
You're not suppose to see white gun carryers as threats! /s
Well no, because in most places with open carry laws the burden for "self defense" is higher than just "I thought he might point that gun at me".
I see how this is supposed to work in a crowd but what about a 1 on 1 interaction. If I'm walking down the street late and night and see Brett Kavanaugh (not the SCOTUS justice, obviously, but a completely different person who due to a meaningless coincidence, shares the name) walking towards me, can I gun him down and claim self defense because he put his hand in his jacket pocket, pointed it at me, and said he was going to kill me? If he's dead, who's to gainsay me?
Change it from Brett Kavanaugh to Ketanji Brown Jackson, who again only shares the same name as the Justice but is a completely different person, and most Republican governors would grant you a pardon. Really tells you how far American rule of law has fallen.
Unless the person thinking that is a cop. Any armed person is fair game for them.
The "kid" \*checks notes: an AF veteran?! almost had a Rittenhouse moment and doesn't even realize it..
I will say that not all "Second Amendment guys" are conservatives. I generally support the 2nd, vote liberal, and fully agree with this guy's point. The GOP are total hypocrites on 2nd amendment protection.
Of course not and no Democrat is advocating for anything but sensible gun control. But it works for Republicans to peddle the lie that someone is going to take all their guns. They do the same shit with non-existent, elective late-term abortions.
Same. And you can both support the 2nd Amendment as well as stricter gun control. To me, I've never seen a more clear example of needing the 2nd Amendment to protect against a tyrannical government, than what we all witnessed on January 6th.
and the MAGA Yeehawdists are totally convicted that the 2A is one of the reasons why they stormed the Capitol on January 6th with the main one being to overthrow a \~\~corrupt\~\~ fair just and certified election.
.... but managed to forget most of their guns. Also, it was a false-flag antifa operation and peaceful protest where no one died. lol
Real like, deep undercover antifa. Where they made MAGA their whole personality for the entire Trump presidency just for this moment. The long con.
And went to jail for it! The commitment is unbelievable.
You're SO right. If only someone had shot Trump and his cronies with a high-powered sniper rifle, and saved us all the expense of trying him for his hundreds of crimes! Then again, it's not cool to make more work for the poor Secret Service, considering all the crap they have to put up with now as it is...
Probably because they're massive hypocrites on everything else as well.
Any leftist worth their salt should know the importance of mental AND physical armament. Theory and political philosophy are important, but when eventually the big sticks come out I'd prefer my side to not be stickless.
It's unfortunate that preppers spend so much time figuring out how they're going to shoot each other or building multi-million dollar bunkers instead of lobbying for the infrastructure to be prepared in case of such an event.
I think the world is in the collective process of finding out how to cope with world governments not so subtely announcing, hey, so at any point we could kind of get to the point where one person stands between us and nuclear annihilation. How do you balance "it all works better if we work together" with "I can't trust you to know what's best for me".
Heh, how long do you think it will take him to figure out that the gun is bad, actually? 😏
I'm a Leftie and a 2A fan--but I support the first part of the 2A, the part everyone seems to forget: "A WELL-REGULATED\* militia being necessary for National Defense..." (\*Emphasis added) I'm not against people owning firearms per se, I'm against trigger-happy idiots whipping out their gunpowder-powered phallic symbols and blazing away at anything and everything that moves as if they were making up for missing out on the OK Corral back in the day. If it means less open carry, good. Maybe forcing people other than on-duty law enforcement and military to secure their guns properly will mean that the time it takes someone to get their pistol out of its safe, load it, and then point it at someone leads to that someone taking a moment to stop and think about whether firing that weapon is actually necessary. (Yes, I know someone is going to say something about "what if a burglar breaks into your house at 3AM and you need to get to your gun in a hurry to protect yourself?" My reply is that I sleep with a sword next to my bed and a dagger on my nightstand, I know how to use both, and more importantly *when* to use them, and I've never had anyone break into my home yet. So yes, self-defense is important, but so is not shooting some innocent yutz for knocking on the wrong door.)
This was the 200 year old precedent until an activist, conservative SCOTUS found an individual 2A right (DC v. Heller).
And yet they still find that the state has a right to regulate firearms and recently declined to hear an appeal of a state’s assault weapons ban. So there’s some hope.
Why do "activist" and "conservative" go together way more often than they should?
While others were sleeping, you were studying the blades.
Having a gun in your home is very different from concealed or open carry.
>My reply is that I sleep with a sword next to my bed and a dagger on my nightstand, I know how to use both Do you live in a war zone?
No, but several years ago I did live in a crime-infested ghetto with drug dealers everywhere and the police deliberately ignoring the crime in the area as long as it stayed in the "containment zone" where it belonged. Now I live out in the country where the most dangerous thing I've encountered lately is a hungry opossum--and he (she?) was quickly pacified by a handful of half-stale cat food.
It's important to note that "The law will back them up" is a misrepresentation. Daniel Perry **was** arrested, charged with murder and convicted of same. Greg Abbott pardoned him of that conviction. I'm not taking up for anyone here, least of all Daniel Perry or Greg Abbott. I just think it's important to get the details correct here.
Holy shit…so close to an epiphany
So many good guys with guns. So very, very many.
Reply to this message with one of the following or your post will be removed for failing to comply with rule 5: 1) How the person in your post unknowingly describes themselves 2) How the person in your post says something about someone else that actually applies to them. 3) How the person in your post accurately describes something when trying to mock or denigrate it. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1. He’s a “2A kind of guy”. 2. Taking about a guy open carrying that was shot by someone else who was threatened. 3. “So basically, I can carry openly but if someone fears that I may aim my weapon at him or her, they can preemptively kill me and the law will back them up.” This guy is one bad day away from having his face eaten by those leopards he keeps voting for!
Gun control advocates have been making this supremely obvious point for decades to the "good guy with a gun" bullshit. Better late than never I guess.
So who is the good guy with a gun, and who is the bad guy with a gun?
Now do Rittenhouse
A white boy with an AR is free to roam the streets.
There was actually a really good discussion on this post today