Lurker > youenjoymyself1

RuneterranSnap posted...

Running through a crowd is not.

A perp running through a crowd being chased by police is no danger to the public?

No way that could cause any mass panic and people getting trampled!/s

I think we should make it to where if criminals run, cops shouldn't be able to chase them. Better idea than just telling them there is no penalty for running or passively resisting.

UnfairRepresent posted...

most of those dead are killed by cops

Sauce?

RuneterranSnap posted...

I'm talking about just physically running. You aren't putting the public in danger with that.

If you're talking things like high speed pursuits? Reckless driving and endangerment are already crimes.

Making a cops job harder should not be a crime.

Running across an intersection, on foot, is putting public in danger. Running,on foot, into a crowded area is putting the public in danger.

RuneterranSnap posted...

Making a cops job harder should not be a crime

RuneterranSnap posted...

Nobody is calling for this.

Obviously you are if you think that. You want an example of a city where cops have to work harder, I just gave you one.

Unsuprised_Pika posted...

Its just a spiteful way for officers to tack extra time on to peoples sentences and to justify ego trips and beatings/shootings.

Or it is a deterrent for criminals not to be assholes and fight cops because they committed a crime and now are acting like a toddler when they get caught and refuse to follow orders.

RuneterranSnap posted...

Running shouldn't be a crime.

You're putting the public in danger by running. Plenty innocent people dead because criminals decided to run.

If y'all want to live in a lawless place where the cops can't do shit to criminals to move to Memphis and see how much you like it.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I think you're missing my point. Normal people (moderate voters) don't see little kids sexualized dancing (with or without drag queens) and say, "hey it's 2023, completely normal."

Democrats shooting themselves in the foot, how new and surprising!

pinky0926 posted...

Ok but what about the hill where it's just people reading books but they happen to be wearing gender non conforming outfits

I don't really give a fuck tbh, but you've already defended them twerking with kids, so you're kinda being disingenuous

One bad apple spoils the bunch. Just like people talking about Catholic priests itt. By far, the majority of Catholic priests never molest children, but a very small percentage do, and that makes everyone say "well what about priests?".

And honestly all this culture war shit doesn't really interest me, I'm just saying the videos and pictures in question, moderate voters see them and they don't usually say "well all kids twerk now".

Nirvanas_Nox posted...

There's even a movie on Netflix about little girls twerking

Nice to see CE still defend Cuties.

Nirvanas_Nox posted...

There's tons of videos of parents with their kids twerking in videos and s***. It's normal now.

It's not "normal". Sexualized dancing with kids was never "normal". It might be what some parents want to be normal, but that is not reality.

Nirvanas_Nox posted...

A drag queen reading a kids book to a group of kids is a nothing burger.

Dying on this hill(especially enabling drag queens twerking with kids) is not gonna bring moderate voters to your side I'm sorry.

I've seen two videos where they are teaching kids how to twerk

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I'm suggesting, as someone who has lived in the south his whole life(including Memphis and Nashville), that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about

You're the one making suggestions as to his political affiliations, not me

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Disengaged posted...

So pro life.

Yeah Mitarius Boyd sure sounds like some pro life gun happy republican with a thin blue line sticker. So funny how people inject their team sports into this.

Oh no, how am I gonna get over this. Shocks and cyricz dont like me

CyricZ posted...

Not surprised you're calling suicide by firearm "self euthanasia".

But good job bringing that up again for reminding us how absolutely wild that sounded the first time.

against death penalty for convicted murderers
wants the government to shoot gun owners, to call their bluff
doesn't think terminally ill people should be allowed to off themselves even if a gun is their only option

CyricZ posted...

Yeah I'm not surprised you can't tell the difference between state-led violence and calling the bluff of the gun culture literally holding us hostage.

Not surprised you think the state killing it's own citizens isn't "state led violence" but self euthanasia is, in fact, gun violence.

Malcrasternus posted...

Ah yes, best to just give up now since the government can just. . .

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/9/8/AAL4msAADpRq.jpg

. . .nuke its own citizens?

Yes we fought in Vietnam and Afghanistan for almost two decades apiece (and lost) and never nuked them to "send a message" but as soon as the Maga rednecks get bout it the daddy Joe IS PICKING UP THAT RED TELEPHONE.

DarkBuster22904 posted...

And as soon as they have too much trouble they drop a nuke or two to send a message. No reason not to, as there is no threat of nuclear retaliation.

Game over.

Lol if you think the us government would glass it's own cities to just to make a point. We woulda nuked Vietnam an d Afghanistan before we nuke our own people.

Like damn did you even read that post before you started in on the nukes and drones bs again?

DarkBuster22904 posted...

Against my better judgment, I'll bite.

Yes, it is for safety. Because cars have utility, and in our society necessity, outside of killing things. Guns do not. They are explicitly designed to kill, whether in defense or otherwise. That is their primary function.

And the government has no interest in disarming the populace for some nefarious "control" goal. There's no point. No matter what right wing pundits like to spout, no amount of Mississippi rednecks with AR-15s has a single prayer of even slowing down the US military. For as many consumer guns are out in the wild, if the government wanted to send in the military and crack down on us, there is not a damn thing any Militia can do to stop it. Between air superiority, drone strikes, actual military training and coordination, all the way up to the nuclear arsenal. If the government wants to oppress us, they can. There's no need for "disarmament." This isn't the 1780s or even the 1920s where the gap in firepower was much less pronounced. These "empowered" citizens are literally paper tigers before a hurricane.

You cannot control an entire country and its people with tanks, jets, battleships and drones or any of these things that you believe trumps citizen ownership of firearms.

A fighter jet, tank, drone, battleship or whatever cannot stand on street corners. And enforce "no assembly" edicts. A fighter jet cannot kick down your door at 3AM and search your house for contraband.

None of these things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation. Those weapons are for decimating, flattening and glassing large areas and many people at once and fighting other state militaries. The government does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its own infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrannical assholes in the first place. If they decided to turn everything outside of Washington D.C. into glowing green glass they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive pile of shit.

Police are needed to maintain a police state, boots on the ground. And no matter how many police you have on the ground they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians which is why in a police state it is vital that your police have automatic weapons while the people have nothing but their limp dicks.

BUT when every random pedestrian could have a Glock in their waistband and every random homeowner an AR-15 all of that goes out the fucking window because now the police are out numbered and face the reality of bullets coming back at them.

If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency the the U.S. military has tried to destroy. They're all still kicking with nothing but AK-47s, pick up trucks and improvised explosives because these big scary military monsters you keep alluding to are all but fucking useless for dealing with them.

nononom0use123 posted...

whooooosh

Woosh indeed.

nononom0use123 posted...

How about both and we call it a day?

You'd never get the public behind you on banning teens from driving (even though more teenage drivers kill people than teenage shooters).

Which is my total point. You don't see one politician talking about restricting driving, but half of them talking about restricting guns. Makes one think that it isn't about our safety? No?

Strider102 posted...

I say we put them to the test. Make them stand in defense of schools, banks, stores, etc. Make them put their lives on the line holding the thing they embrace and value more than anything.

How do you suppose we "make them put their lives on the line"? How are you gonna execute this genius idea?

How do you make anyone do anything they don't want to do without government thugs threatening them with guns?

Are you going to personally make gun owners do this? Or is this a call of action for non gun owners?

Priere posted...

We should ban cars with automatic windows, high capacity tanks and anything over 250 horsepower.

Or maybe we should ban possession of cars to anyone below the age of 21 considering there are a ton more people dying to shitty young drivers than guns.

Granniez are the best

CyricZ posted...

Why do suicides not count as violence?

If someone has a terminal illness and offs themselves with a gun you really think that statistic should be used in favor of banning them?

You wouldn't say doctor assisted suicides for such people is violence, but only like 10 states allow that, and not everyone can afford that. That would be basically gatekeeping/paywalling self euthanasia.

CyricZ posted...

Who's doing that?

The politicians who run those cities who want to get reelected and those who support those politicians.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


When you consider a suicides are around 60% of "gun violence" and a good chunk of those are self euthanasia then yeah, that's padding stats.

Also, when you have a group of people who try to trivialize inner city gang violence at every corner EXCEPT when it helps ban guns it is sorta telling.

DKBananaSlamma posted...

It fits the MO to a T. If you live in a city and see gang shit all the time, it's immediately recognizable >_> They just buy illegal guns or steal them, sometimes modify them with extended (and illegal) magazines, and just shoot up other members over some dumb shit. That's just what happens.

Also I'm from Bama and that town is very gang.

Also one of the victims on the pic had a Glock with an extendo. I carry a pistol everywhere just about, but folks toting 30s to a dance party are definitely expecting shit to go down. They aren't exactly the easiest thing to conceal with a 13" long magazine poking out

AmericaTheBrave posted...

Obviously it's still tragic.

Just saying trying to tie this to mass shootings is a bit misleading. Even if it is technically a mass shooting, it's indicative of a different problem.

Gangland shootings and suicides have been padding stats for gun control since the 1930s.

If it was actually about the safety of kids then they wouldn't include 18 and 19 year olds in the "children gun deaths" and then not include them in "children car accident deaths". Because instead of having the conversation of raising the age to buy a rifle to 21 the conversation would be raising the age of drivers licenses from 16 to at least 18(if it was about safety).

DKBananaSlamma posted...

If it's mostly teenagers, sounds like it's some gang bullshit >_>

Yeah in the picture one of the victims has a Glock with an extended mag laying on top of him

remandramdoll posted...

There's a lot of people who don't have the inner thought processes to consider that something may not be a good idea. Especially since they're also sharing those pics? Yikes.

This is 100% gang shit and they are likely desensitized from seeing violence all of the time. I'm from Alabama and Dadeville is a high crime/gang area outside of Montgomery. Small town but there are lot of those outside of Montgomery that I wouldn't even want to pass through at night time

I already gave it up before while I was driving eh

Guess I'm gonna have to start drink pbr

Questionmarktarius posted...

There's several things I can beat an intruder to death with who enters my house, an an intruder knows were none of those are.

You come and and give people some of the worst advice for home defense (a .410/.45 caliber 5 shot revolver with bad QC and loading it with different recoiling/effective loads) and then go to make a bunch of anti 2A statements. Like you're doing it on purpose.

Call and sign up for a pistol class by literally any reputable instructor that allows revolvers and tell them you want to use a Taurus judge and use .410 shells and see how much they laugh.

A Judge is only good for snakes. The SW Governor might be a decent idea if you were a handloader because it can shoot spicy .45LC and it is scandium alloy so lighter so makes sense for bears (I wouldn't shoot handloads out of any Taurus) but even then there are better options.

The only reason I could see someone buying a Governor is for outdoorsmen who handload and who run up on a lot a snakes AND have odds of running up on a grizzly (could carry 45 in a moon clip for bears and pop it out and put in a clip of shot shells if you ran up on danger noodle). Would be a sidearm a 45LC long gun, or even a 12 gauge with slugs for bear.

John McLane goes to work in a dirty wife beater and a old rusty non department issued Beretta saying "anyone got any aspirin? I got a bad fuckin hangover"

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I mean I kinda like John McLane frfr

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


When a home invader comes in I'll be sure to tell him that before I dirty Harry their ass

Questionmarktarius posted...

The actual answer:
Get a Taurus Judge or a Rossi Circuit Judge. Load it with .45, .45, 410 slug, 410 slug, 410 shot, 410 shot, in that order.

Or you could get a 9mm with some hollow points and have 18 of them and not mess with some elmer fudd ass Brazilian revolver.

Or hell you could get a 1911 with a 8-10 round of .45. or a Glock 21 with 13 round of .45

If someone breaks into your house and you stab them like 20 times even if the cops don't charge you, good luck not getting sued by the family of the perp and losing

If I didn't have a gun I'd definitely use a blunt object

Cons: People with less experience with guns can easily short stroke a pump shotgun under stress, causing a hell of a malfunction. Semi auto shotguns (that are reliable) are out of most people's price range.

Also they tend to have a lower capacity and higher recoil than something like a pistol caliber carbine or AR-15.

Pros: they tend to be one shot stops hitting center mass from normal home defense range with any respectable load.

Ones with shorter barrels tend to be pretty maneuverable and shootable to the untrained

That was you behind me at Taco Bueno?

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

f*** the constitution,

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


A_Good_Boy posted...

How the hell does wanting to change the constitution amount to "f*** the constitution"

Error1355 posted...

No no no, silly! You MUST know by now that just like the Bible, the US Constitution is meant to be taken directly literally, under no context of modern times or situation, while at the same time, the parts of the Bible or US Constitution that they don't like were not meant to be taken directly literally and can be ignored and no amount of explaining to them that what I just wrote above makes no sense will get through their heads because they are intentionally being irrational to get the way they want.

EXACTLY! See DC vs Heller

https://youtu.be/_71w4UA2Oxo

Reminds me of evil dead

Kloe_Rinz posted...

people like this are too lazy to make an attempt

Me not wanting to ban guns has exactly nothing to do with laziness. Gun laws are unconstitutional

hockeybub89 posted...

Is this why most of Europe, and Australia, and New Zealand, and etc developed nations are currently violent hellholes run by crime lords? Because only the criminals having guns has shifted the power structure and made the law-abider powerless?

How many guns were in those countries before they banned them?

Funkydog posted...

So what job she intending to go for after they sadly turn on her?a

She could just switch parties like that person did in NC after the Democrats in that state turned on her.

It would be funny to see CE's reaction

Nirvanas_Nox posted...

Fedex is WAY worse. At least with ups you can have them hold it at the nearest location and then you can pick it up when you can

FedEx packages can be held at any Walgreens location or Fedex store.