Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

From a pragmatic point of view.


A few things stand out to me:

1. The whites have a lot of guns.

2. The strictest gun laws tend to be in places with a high minority population.


So Hawaii with its 60% Asian population, diverse places like New York City, all have very strict laws.

There's a disparate impact on who gets guns easier.


Add in the fact police are not considered reliable protection, and targeted killers usually bring guns..

I just wonder why you can't lobby for stronger gun control laws, AND maybe encourage vulnerable populations to arm themselves for their own protection?


I mean, you can do both. Go after guns, while also dealing with a reality that they are out there, and they'll probably be used against you. Why make it easy by disarming yourselves and let them have all the guns?

Originally posted by cdtm
From a pragmatic point of view.


A few things stand out to me:

1. The whites have a lot of guns.

2. The strictest gun laws tend to be in places with a high minority population.


So Hawaii with its 60% Asian population, diverse places like New York City, all have very strict laws.

There's a disparate impact on who gets guns easier.


Add in the fact police are not considered reliable protection, and targeted killers usually bring guns..

I just wonder why you can't lobby for stronger gun control laws, AND maybe encourage vulnerable populations to arm themselves for their own protection?


I mean, you can do both. Go after guns, while also dealing with a reality that they are out there, and they'll probably be used against you. Why make it easy by disarming yourselves and let them have all the guns?


If you disarm a populace, the chances of revolution are much smaller.

Criminals don't follow the law.

Taking guns away from law abiding, low risk citizens, is not the answer to gun violence.

Just make the supply of bullets to the retail market illegal.

And control the mining, manufacture and sale of all ingredients used to make bullets.

Have a no questions asked Buy Back scheme for ammunition.

Do this for 5 to 10 years.

The End.

You mean penis control or selective breeding!?

Making things illegal incentivizes criminality.

If everyone was growing pot it wouldn't be a commodity.
If you make it illegal it's scarcity immediately sky rockets.
Very simple shit.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Making things illegal incentivizes criminality.

If everyone was growing pot it wouldn't be a commodity.
If you make it illegal it's scarcity immediately sky rockets.
Very simple shit.

At the same time, I do think making hard drugs like meth and crack illegal a good thing.

Originally posted by SquallX
At the same time, I do think making hard drugs like meth and crack illegal a good thing.

Disagree, all drugs should be legal.

Didn't Michael Moore say there were more guns in Canada than the US yet it still has less gun crime?

You should be able to buy guns if you pre-register for their purchase. You can buy one gun, but you can only buy on one Tuesday in November, every four years at one predetermined location. (Same location for thousands of residents from your county.). You will need to present a photo id and a signature that matches (according to a random citizen assigned to look at thousands of signatures) the one you pre-registered with.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/aaronsmith/2021/03/10/americans-are-spending-their-stimulus-checks-on-guns/?sh=80a74c0e5871

Just ban them all ffs (with the obvious exceptions before someone gets funny and tells me alligators or bears can attack somewhere, but even then you just need shot guns).

But yeah F*** your constitutional rights on this one.

I do think that certain restriction on guns, and perhaps the outright banning of certain types makes sense. But the mass shooting crisis in the United States has many more causes that need to be addressed.

Originally posted by cdtm
https://www.forbes.com/sites/aaronsmith/2021/03/10/americans-are-spending-their-stimulus-checks-on-guns/?sh=80a74c0e5871



Good.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Just ban them all ffs (with the obvious exceptions before someone gets funny and tells me alligators or bears can attack somewhere, but even then you just need shot guns).

But yeah F*** your constitutional rights on this one.

Fascist.

Originally posted by Artol
I do think that certain restriction on guns, and perhaps the outright banning of certain types makes sense. But the mass shooting crisis in the United States has many more causes that need to be addressed.

Why does the banning of "certain ones" make sense?

I love guns, don't own any, but it's fun to go shooting targets.


But I'd laugh my ass off if extremely strict Federal gun laws passed.

Originally posted by Artol
I do think that certain restriction on guns, and perhaps the outright banning of certain types makes sense. But the mass shooting crisis in the United States has many more causes that need to be addressed.

Name a certain type of gun that needs to be ban that has not been ban already?

Originally posted by Robtard
Why does most of the US military use 5.56 round rifles (eg M4/M4A1 rifle) as its standard weapon compared to a shotgun then, if a shotgun is more effective in killing large groups of people?

Range and environment.

Military work in units and employ tactics on battlefields. 500 trained guys with rifles would pick off 500 guys with shotguns in open terrain.

A shotgun is much better in close quarters, such as against home invasions.

All Americans should get a free shotgun then.

Originally posted by Klaw
All Americans should get a free shotgun then.

Of course, it's also true rifles are capable of shooting through several buildings.


I'm not an expert, but I'd imagine a shotgun at a crowded place would be far more limited by range then a semi-auto rifle. You can run out of, say, a store and still get picked off at the street.

Originally posted by cdtm
Range and environment.

Military work in units and employ tactics on battlefields. 500 trained guys with rifles would pick off 500 guys with shotguns in open terrain.

A shotgun is much better in close quarters, such as against home invasions.


The situation is regarding mass shootings, where say a AR15 style rifle is generally going to better at racking up a body count than say a 12 gauge pump shotgun which holds 6-10 rounds.

Originally posted by Klaw
All Americans should get a free shotgun then.

What is it with you and the government giveaways recently? Weren't you against the stimulus?

Originally posted by truejedi
What is it with you and the government giveaways recently? Weren't you against the stimulus?

No.

Are you confusing me with someone else?

Originally posted by Robtard
The situation is regarding mass shootings, where say a AR15 style rifle is generally going to better at racking up a body count than say a 12 gauge pump shotgun which holds 6-10 rounds.

Ah.

Makes sense.

Of course, there's always ways. Seen some ridiculous examples of ammo belts, custom feeds, all kinds of stuff.

But of course not everyone has the knowhow or imagination.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Didn't Michael Moore say there were more guns in Canada than the US yet it still has less gun crime?

Wouldn't that be a good reason to own a gun then?


Come to think of it, the US has pretty screwed up narratives. Somehow we're the land where everyone peacefully protests and everyone is safe with a gun, yet also have high rates of gun homicides and burning buildings during protests (And capital insurgents, can't forget that.)


I mean, if we all think every other guy is a potential blood thirsty murderer, maybe we should be having a different conversation. Like why we have so many bloodthirsty murderers.

Thinking about it, the black community should take after the asians and arm themselve.

Gun control was originally intended to disarm black americans anyways. If everyone who can afford to legally purchase a gun did so, I bet you the Gestapo would think twice before murdering a black life. Not if everyone in the community is openly armed.


Maybe start a gofundme to arm people who can't afford it.


See the NRA argument change overnight.

Originally posted by cdtm
Thinking about it

Probably best not to.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Probably best not to.

Har har.


Do you have a specific criticism?

In all seriousness, why do you think NRA supporters would shoot up a place

I do not.


Do you feel blacks should not have guns?


I do not.

I've been to states with low crime rates and ridiculous gun enthusiasts. I've known a man who owns 50 guns, and has never used one on a human being.



I think many people do believe black people are inherently dangerous, and should not be armed. I think this is why police officers shoot black men.

I also believe police officers value their own lives, and would behave very differently if blacks armed themselves like NRA nuts do. If you're surrounded by legally armed citizens, you'd think twice before murdering one of them.


I am 100% serious. Prove me wrong.

Disarming the police would reduce the number of accidental police shootings.

Originally posted by cdtm
If you're surrounded by legally armed citizens, you'd think twice before murdering one of them. In 2018 there was 393 million firearms in civilian ownership in the U.S. with a population of 326 million people. 252.7 million if you don't want to include children under 18. So that's 1.55 civilian firearms for every adult. Wowzers.

You are 4% the global population. And they own 46% of the global civilian firearms. Y'all love guns. Y'all have a huge concentration of civilians guns in civilian hands. Y'all average out to being armed to the f*ckin teeth.


Y'all also have a weirdly disproportionate rate of firearm-homicides that's fantastically higher than the rest of the developed world--mostly by handgun. 13,958 gun-murders in 2018. Unclear if the 990 Americans shot and killed by police in 2018 are a part of that. Let's say they're not... that's then 14,948 gun-homicides, or 6.62% of the gun-deaths being at police hands.

Every adult has 1.55 guns on them, but 6.62% of all deadly shootings are the police not being afraid of that ratio. So I dunno if I'm 155% onboard with the idea that the police think twice about it.


Course that was all gun-DEATHS. Didn't include all the shootings that happened that didn't result in death... so it's probably even less often that police are thinking twice about the sheer saturation of civilian firearms in the hands of the American population.

All those guns to stop their government from taking their freedoms but now complaining the government have taken their freedoms because of covid and they didn't do anything about it with all their guns. I'm beginning to think having all those guns doesn't have anything to do with stopping the government from taking their freedoms.

all i need are my two samurai swords and glock

Maybe police should be forced to use guns as a last resort and tasers as a first resort. But any weapon used for defense should have safety training and proper procedures dealing with the public.

Let's face it the police who are supposed to protect the citizens are becoming the law. They are enforcing their own interpretation of what is right and imposing those rules on certain individuals who they believe are a threat to themselves.

Originally posted by rudester
Maybe police should be forced to use guns as a last resort and tasers as a first resort. Exactly. Just like the well-trained gentlemen who emptied their clips into this fella --- but only AFTER politely tasing him.

I think there has to be new laws before there can be any type of sensitively training. And it's happening everywhere because cops assume their lives are in danger when infact they are the ones that are inhibiting prejudice. These types of hierarchy are deeply rooted and its something that needs to be made law. Cops have to be held accountable or they will continue to abuse power.

The problem is training. Not training on how to use a gun. Training on how to keep control of a volatile situation and project authority without having to pull the trigger. Watch any footage of UK armed police dealing criminals

SEicrTt8HjA

hSRv3sIkPQM

They get vetted before selection so they have an innate ability to handle high stress situations and are trained and drilled constantly.

American cops don't seem to get any of that. In huge numbers of shootings they've just panicked and reacted. The woman shot through her own window is a perfect example.

Originally posted by cdtm
Range and environment.

Military work in units and employ tactics on battlefields. 500 trained guys with rifles would pick off 500 guys with shotguns in open terrain.

A shotgun is much better in close quarters, such as against home invasions.
Military infantryman do carry shotguns in close quarters at times. It's a better though less accurate weapon

Originally posted by cdtm
In all seriousness, why do you think NRA supporters would shoot up a place

I do not.


Do you feel blacks should not have guns?


I do not.

I've been to states with low crime rates and ridiculous gun enthusiasts. I've known a man who owns 50 guns, and has never used one on a human being.



I think many people do believe black people are inherently dangerous, and should not be armed. I think this is why police officers shoot black men.

I also believe police officers value their own lives, and would behave very differently if blacks armed themselves like NRA nuts do. If you're surrounded by legally armed citizens, you'd think twice before murdering one of them.


I am 100% serious. Prove me wrong.

So much fail here

Was gonna reply, but looks like a troll got the last comnent:


https://i.etsystatic.com/8717093/r/il/68c32f/1985761040/il_570xN.1985761040_obxv.jpg


A Witch Troll, no less.

Food for thought on ammo capacity laws:


https://www.quora.com/Can-I-modify-handgun-and-assault-rifle-magazines-to-increase-the-ammunition-capacity


Apparently, it's easy to simply buy extenders, or even build a clip from scratch.


Your average person might not go to the trouble, but I doubt any law would stop the motivated killer with internet access and a few bucks to blow.

fj66LBel_WQ

Any comments from the NRA on the subject? Sorry ahead of time if it's been mentioned already. I didn't read through the thread.

The NRA is generally against most restrictions on guns. They're against expanding background checks, they're against getting rid of the loophole that allows people to get a gun if a background check isn't done in three days, they want to do away with waiting periods etc.

https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/

Science!

Originally posted by Robtard
The NRA is generally against most restrictions on guns. They're against expanding background checks, they're against getting rid of the loophole that allows people to get a gun if a background check isn't done in three days, they want to do away with waiting periods etc.

https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/

Pretty sure some of that pushback is against federal meddling in state affairs.

Basically, they want it left to each state, and not give the feds another reason to impose on state authorities (As an example of something Democrats would disagree with, the INS has no right to march into states, tap into local information networks, and round up undocumented immigrants)

They're against it on a state level as well. See: The NRA meddling in California: https://www.nraila.org/legal-legislation/state-legislation/california/2019/april-2020-litigation-report/

"Although litigation plays an extremely important role in the fight for the right to keep and bear arms, NRA and CRPA are heavily involved in many other tremendous and equally important endeavors throughout California and across the nation." -snip




The one time the NRA supported gun restrictions like "open & carry" in California was in the late 60's after the Black Panthers marched with guns. See: The Mulford Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act


The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, and signed into law by governor of California Ronald Reagan, the bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther Party who were lawfully conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods, -snip

Federal judge denies NRA attempt to declare bankruptcy in win for New York state attorney general.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Federal judge denies NRA attempt to declare bankruptcy in win for New York state attorney general.

Excellent news.

Ideally, the NRA needs to be completely dismantled, it's gone grotesquely wayward from its roots of being a sensible gun ownership/rights organization.

Originally posted by Robtard
Excellent news.

Ideally, the NRA needs to be completely dismantled, it's gone grotesquely wayward from its roots of being a sensible gun ownership/rights organization.

They cannot declare bankruptcy and they cannot reincorporate in Texas. They are going to go out of business.

How true!

Leftists think banning guns will make gun crime go away.

Just like Prohibition stopped people from drinking alcohol.

Originally posted by Klaw
Leftists think banning guns will make gun crime go away.

Just like Prohibition stopped people from drinking alcohol.

What's a black market ? Never heard of it.

Or the War on Drugs stopped drug distribution and use.

Originally posted by cdtm
Or the War on Drugs stopped drug distribution and use.

Or how the FDA prevented half the country from being fat.
Or how the DMV prevented accidents.
Or how the epa saved the environment.
Or how the more nationalized healthcare comes the faster the lines get.

Ad nauseum.

Leftists make policies based on feelings and not facts.

Originally posted by Klaw
Leftists think banning guns will make gun crime go away.

Just like Prohibition stopped people from drinking alcohol. banning guns does make gun crime go away in most countries.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
banning guns does make gun crime go away in most countries.


What the non gun based violent crimes like in those countries ?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
What the non gun based violent crimes like in those countries ? which are far less likely to end in fatality or be a massacre.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
which are far less likely to end in fatality or be a massacre.

So, I have to assume by your answer that there is far more violet crime in countries without, but guns do more tissue damage and can kill more efficiently.

Is this an accurate representation of your argument ?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
So, I have to assume by your answer that there is far more violet crime in countries without, but guns do more tissue damage and can kill more efficiently.

Is this an accurate representation of your argument ? Guns also make high school massacres etc much easier.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Or how the FDA prevented half the country from being fat.
Or how the DMV prevented accidents.
Or how the epa saved the environment.
Or how the more nationalized healthcare comes the faster the lines get.

Ad nauseum.

In the world you live in there's no external forces acting on those entities.

In the real world, however...

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Guns also make high school massacres etc much easier.

So what country, that has banned guns, would you use to forward your argument ?

What would your strongest example be ?

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
In the world you live in there's no external forces acting on those entities.

In the real world, however...

Why is the go to standard for debating libertarians to either:

1.) Say the matter is very complex
2.) Say it's human nature
3.) Claim the libertarian doesn't participate in empiricism the same way everyone else does

Hint: all three are not arguments

Originally posted by ilikecomics
So what country, that has banned guns, would you use to forward your argument ?

What would your strongest example be ? Britain is a good start.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Why is the go to standard for debating libertarians to either:

1.) Say the matter is very complex
2.) Say it's human nature
3.) Claim the libertarian doesn't participate in empiricism the same way everyone else does

Hint: all three are not arguments

Thankfully I never used any of those arguments.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Britain is a good start.

Okay, now I gotta figure out the why. Thank you.

Someone else posted a video on that, so I'll have a good place to start (think it was Jaden)

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Thankfully I never used any of those arguments.

You said the world I live in, as if it's not the same one everyone else is in, which would be bad anti libertarian argument number 3.

Unless you simply mean from my pov, but that would just be telling me I'm a libertarian and most other people aren't which isnt anything I didn't already know.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
What the non gun based violent crimes like in those countries ? In most European countries with stricter gun control laws they have a lower murder per captia rate than the U.S.

I think they also generally have a lower violent crime per capita rate as well.

Originally posted by Newjak
In most European countries with stricter gun control laws they have a lower murder per captia rate than the U.S.

I think they also generally have a lower violent crime per capita rate as well. Yup!

But who is commuting those crimes?

It's easy to compare statistics between countries with very different cultures. Israel has pretty liberal gun laws, yet their murder rates are nothing compared to Washington DC, with very strict gun laws.

Originally posted by cdtm
But who is commuting those crimes?

It's easy to compare statistics between countries with very different cultures. Israel has pretty liberal gun laws, yet their murder rates are nothing compared to Washington DC, with very strict gun laws. That's because most shooting in Israel is state sanctioned.

You can 3D print guns; I bet the Government is going to start regulating 3D printers now.

they already regulated and even prohibited scanning and printing of paper u.s. money, 20+ years ago. why should it suddenly be forbidden to simply regulate the printing of firearms so they are least have a receipt generated? because you were told to be outraged over it? or is it because you need access to an untraceable firearm? how do you even have skin in this game? bored?

Building your own gun from parts is nothing new, I'd imagime existing laws meant for that would cover 3D printing.

If Orange County Choppers can machine up a bike, it should be no trouble tooling a gun.

A Texas woman was arrested after she attempted to shoot a loose puppy that had run into the street, and accidentally struck her 5-year-old son in the abdomen, the Houston Police Department announced on Tuesday.

According to HPD, officers responding to reports of a shooting at Dunham Road on Saturday learned that 24-year-old Angelia Mia Vargas used a "small caliber pistol" to fire three shots "at a puppy running loose across the street."

One of those bullets apparently ricocheted and struck her child.

7r8dpSBlIbQ

Oh Texas...

They're also about to make it easier for most anyone to open-carry: "Legislation to remove the requirement that anyone who carries a handgun in public must be trained and licensed by the state is just one step from becoming law." -snip

Gun control in the US should be done by shooting every person in the US, with a gun. Then nobody has a gun

Originally posted by Scribble
Gun control in the US should be done by shooting every person in the US, with a gun. Then nobody has a gun

Hopefully this is mocking the nihilism inherent in anti gun proliferation sentiment and not actual nihilism.

Originally posted by Robtard
Oh Texas...

They're also about to make it easier for most anyone to open-carry: "Legislation to remove the requirement that anyone who carries a handgun in public must be trained and licensed by the state is just one step from becoming law." -snip That's terrifying.

Originally posted by Newjak
That's terrifying.

Bah. Why should anyone be trained and licensed to carry a gun out in public.

pHLGeV73B5w

I support some gun control like no fly, no buy.

People who are deemed to be a danger unable to own guns.

Among other things.

Originally posted by Klaw
I support some gun control like no fly, no buy.

People who are deemed to be a danger unable to own guns.

Among other things. what about underage Larpers pretending to be medics.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
what about underage Larpers pretending to be medics.

Don't assault them and they won't shoot you.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Don't assault them and they won't shoot you.

Bingo.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Don't assault them and they won't shoot you.

He was assaulted after he already shot someone in the back of the head like a little *****.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He was assaulted after he already shot someone in the back of the head like a little *****.

I really hope the murderer Kyle Rittenhouse gets over 60 years of prison time and no early parole.

Originally posted by Robtard
I really hope the murderer Kyle Rittenhouse gets over 60 years of prison time and no early parole.

The person who supplied him the gun has charges now too.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The person who supplied him the gun has charges now too.

Yeah, Whirly had posted it a few days ago, a (then) 19yo man decided it was a good idea to give a 17yo an assault rifle so they could go play as vigilantes. I hope he gets over 60 years too as an accomplice to the murders and attempted murders.

Originally posted by cdtm
From a pragmatic point of view.


A few things stand out to me:

1. The whites have a lot of guns.

2. The strictest gun laws tend to be in places with a high minority population.


So Hawaii with its 60% Asian population, diverse places like New York City, all have very strict laws.

There's a disparate impact on who gets guns easier.


Add in the fact police are not considered reliable protection, and targeted killers usually bring guns..

I just wonder why you can't lobby for stronger gun control laws, AND maybe encourage vulnerable populations to arm themselves for their own protection?


I mean, you can do both. Go after guns, while also dealing with a reality that they are out there, and they'll probably be used against you. Why make it easy by disarming yourselves and let them have all the guns?


Stronger gun control laws means taking way guns that are better designed for people protecting themselves against not only criminals and terrorists but also tyrannical governments. Being armed with only shotguns, pistols, BB/pellet guns, and squirt guns does not help when fighting against superior and well armed numbers.


F*** gun control.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Don't assault them and they won't shoot you.


Well said.

Why did G1 Megatron turn into a gun?

https://www.tfw2005.com/boards/threads/why-did-megatron-turn-into-a-gun.1194105/



Pretty ironic when he became by far one of the most popular Transformers of all time.

If you don't live in the U.S. then you should STFU about lecturing us on getting stronger gun control laws. Mind your own country's god**** business and keep your noses out of ours.

Bottom line is we have an inalienable right to make sure we can keep adequately protecting ourselves. You don't like our 2nd amendment? Too bad and tough shit because it's here to stay so piss off.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
If you don't live in the U.S. then you should STFU about lecturing us on getting stronger gun control laws. Mind your own country's god**** business and keep your noses out of ours.

Bottom line is we have an inalienable right to make sure we can keep adequately protecting ourselves. You don't like our 2nd anendment? Too bad and tough shit because it's here to stay so piss off.

dur

Umm, the 2nd Amendment isn't unassailable, it could be altered or have complete parts done away with via an amendment.

They really should strengthen the 2nd Amendment.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
If you don't live in the U.S. then you should STFU about lecturing us on getting stronger gun control laws. Mind your own country's god**** business and keep your noses out of ours.

Bottom line is we have an inalienable right to make sure we can keep adequately protecting ourselves. You don't like our 2nd amendment? Too bad and tough shit because it's here to stay so piss off.

America is famous for minding its own business and keeping its nose out of other countries, isn't it?

It's not so much gun "control" here in the US as it is gun "orgy."

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/CompetentNaturalGoa-max-1mb.gif

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
America is famous for minding its own business and keeping its nose out of other countries, isn't it?
God I wish the US was non interventionist

Mass murders agree on one thing:

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Mass murders agree on one thing:


Mass *murderers*

I do not support our interventionst policy either, for the most part. It really pissed me off when Trump fired missiles on Syria over no real evidence that Assand was the one who gassed his people.

But other nations do look for us for help as we are the leader of the free world so in some cases it is necessary. In any case, in that instance, I was specifically talking about individuals lecturing us on our policies, not foreign governments interfering (though I certainly don't agree with that either).

So jaden failed at making any point though I'm sure he'll still pretend like he did.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
I do not support our interventionst policy either, for the most part. It really pissed me off when Trump fired missiles on Syria over no real evidence that Assand was the one who gassed his people.

But other nations do look for us for help as we are the leader of the free world so in some cases it is necessary. In any case, in that instance, I was specifically talking about individuals lecturing us on our policies, not foreign governments interfering (though I certainly don't agree with that either).

So jaden failed at making any point though I'm sure he'll still pretend like he did.

Would you make the argument that defending Taiwan is an example of necessary military action ?

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
I do not support our interventionst policy either, for the most part. It really pissed me off when Trump fired missiles on Syria over no real evidence that Assand was the one who gassed his people.

But other nations do look for us for help as we are the leader of the free world so in some cases it is necessary. In any case, in that instance, I was specifically talking about individuals lecturing us on our policies, not foreign governments interfering (though I certainly don't agree with that either).

So jaden failed at making any point though I'm sure he'll still pretend like he did.

Do you live in Syria?

No?!

Well shut the f**k about Syria. You don't get an opinion.

See how dumb you look?

I'll bet you you think it's dumb when there's a discussion about race and some people say "you're not black so you don't get to talk about race"

Yet here you are doing the same thing.

I know Ethneo is a parody troll, but reading the returning rightists on this board, whilst all of them are trolls I believe to a point the views they cast are real, I feel sad for them. To understand the world so little, it's just cringe. Bash's recent meme summed it up, they like to speak loudly about things they do not understand.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He was assaulted after he already shot someone in the back of the head like a little *****.

He was assaulted by three men. He didn't shoot the first guy in the back of the head, the first guy straight up ran at him and tried to assault him after he threw shit at him, kyle retreated then fired. If you have evidence otherwise post it.

Most gun deaths are in areas with massive amounts of gun laws in place and the criminals don't care, run by democrats surprisingly.

Originally posted by snowdragon
He was assaulted by three men. He didn't shoot the first guy in the back of the head, the first guy straight up ran at him and tried to assault him after he threw shit at him, kyle retreated then fired. If you have evidence otherwise post it.

Most gun deaths are in areas with massive amounts of gun laws in place and the criminals don't care, run by democrats surprisingly.

No, he shot someone in the back of the head first. Then three people tried to disarm him. The videos were posted right here on KMC, you gaslighting retard.

"...and this little piggy went "reeeee" "reeeee" "reeeee" all the way back to discord"

One good thing, per Wisconsin law Rittenhouse will be trialed as adult due to his offenses, despite being 17 at the time he murdered two people and attempted murder others. He could face life in prison.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, he shot someone in the back of the head first. Then three people tried to disarm him. The videos were posted right here on KMC, you gaslighting retard. they don't want facts, the edited shit being shared on social media from sites like the Blaze confused them and confirmed their narrative. Then daddy Donny starts supporting larper no 1 and the deal is sealed. Bigoted fee fees before facts.

I don't remember Rosenblaum being shot in the head, I think that was a grazing, he was shot multiple times and I think the bullets that killed him were to his body. I forget where Rittenhouse's second murder victim was shot.

Both were still murdered though.

I was going from memory, so I definitely could be wrong considering.

IIRC, Rittenhouse also fled the scene of the first murder.

Originally posted by Robtard
I was going from memory, so I definitely could be wrong considering.

IIRC, Rittenhouse also fled the scene of the first murder. the weird think is rosenbaum had only just come out of hospital. He really wasn't a protester. Larper number 1 killed him.

So let's be clear, three people assaulted kyle and all three were shot. All three have criminal history.....hmm so weird. Also no video or autopsy stated rosenbaum was shot in the head they way some like to claim. But one thing is for sure three men assaulted a teen that night. Meaning their actions came first.

I suppose when you larp for activism and try to destroy communities you win stupid prizes, huh?

Originally posted by snowdragon
So let's be clear, three people assaulted kyle and all three were shot. All three have criminal history.....hmm so weird. Also no video or autopsy stated rosenbaum was shot in the head they way some like to claim. But one thing is for sure three men assaulted a teen that night. Meaning their actions came first. A criminal history is not an excuse to shoot someone. I think this LARPER will go down for a long time. Trumpers can screech and scream, but they have never been the majority of Americans, the never won the peoples vote. There abhorrent views were expressed for a short time... That time is over, just like in deliverance they will continue to exist in the back woods.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
A criminal history is not an excuse to shoot someone. I think this LARPER will go down for a long time. Trumpers can screech and scream, but they have never been the majority of Americans, the never won the peoples vote. There abhorrent views were expressed for a short time... That time is over, just like in deliverance they will continue to exist in the back woods.

A criminal history is ABSOLEtly not a right to gun someone down but it does show behavior also all the larpers acting our for BLM were just that, not much different than kyle and its fair to day kyle did some f-d up things yet 3 ppl attacked him. While you are a big guy with martial arts background guys like kyle don't have that and they still came at him. weird because I would have thought you would be against bullies.

Originally posted by snowdragon
A criminal history is ABSOLEtly not a right to gun someone down but it does show behavior also all the larpers acting our for BLM were just that, not much different than kyle and its fair to day kyle did some f-d up things yet 3 ppl attacked him. While you are a big guy with martial arts background guys like kyle don't have that and they still came at him. weird because I would have thought you would be against bullies. I don't like bullies, but he went walking around a place where there was likely to be violence with a gun, he travelled to borrow a gun. The he was pointing it at people, did he think no one would react? I suspect he knew full well people would react and wanted them to so he could shoot them.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I don't like bullies, but he went walking around a place where there was likely to be violence with a gun, he travelled to borrow a gun. The he was pointing it at people, did he think no one would react? I suspect he knew full well people would react and wanted them to so he could shoot them.

Are you kidding me, first bullies pick the easiest targets like a 17 year old. Then beyond that you impart you into the situation, you would want to shoot them, that's all you said but changed the person to blame.

This was attempted already by Broly, Surt and SilientMaster not long after the murders happened. Rosenbaum is a convicted pedophile (he molested several underage boys when he was 19), he's a piece of shit, but he served his time and Kyle shooting him had absolutely nothing to do with that. It's not a justification for Rittenhouse's actions.

It's odd how Rittenhouse is pushed as the one defending himself, when he's the one with the assault rifle, illegally carrying it too boot. If I point an assault rifle at someone, they have every right to take that as an immediate threat.

Originally posted by Robtard
This was attempted already by Broly, Surt and SilientMaster not long after the murders happened. Rosenbaum is a convicted pedophile (he molested several underage boys when he was 19), he's a piece of shit, but he served his time and Kyle shooting him had absolutely nothing to do with that. It's not a justification for Rittenhouse's actions.

It's odd how Rittenhouse is pushed as the one defending himself, when he's the one with the assault rifle, illegally carrying it too boot. If I point an assault rifle at someone, they have every right to take that as an immediate threat.

His previous crime didn't mean he deserved the outcome it's simply an indicator of his past behavior. It wasn't illegal to shoot it was illegal apparently to own but seriously why do we split hairs over human life. He shot men attacking him, how is that questionable?

If I walk up to your house that gun is a threat, if I hold a gun and you approach me you are the threat.

That was some copy and paste bullshit right there.

Originally posted by snowdragon
His previous crime didn't mean he deserved the outcome it's simply an indicator of his past behavior. It wasn't illegal to shoot it was illegal apparently to own but seriously why do we split hairs over human life. He shot men attacking him, how is that questionable?

Unless Rosenblaum was trying to sexually molest Rittenhouse, there's no "indicator of past behavior". That's some serious stretch of logic.

Illegal to own but not to shoot? That sounds weird. But it's illegal to shoot and murder and/or harm people, what Rittenhouse is being charged with, among other crimes. The man who gave Rittenhouse the assault rifle is being charged as well.

As noted, if you point an assault rifle at someone, they're justified in taking that as as threat to their life and they can act accordingly.

Originally posted by snowdragon
If I walk up to your house that gun is a threat, if I hold a gun and you approach me you are the threat.

If you point the gun at me, you're the threat, cos you're the one with the mass-murder weapon. There are multiple accounts that Rittenhouse was pointing the gun at people.

Originally posted by snowdragon
That was some copy and paste bullshit right there.

The long part is, but I thought if you put in quotes it messes it up.

Edit: why does it matter if it's copy and pasted ? Does that make the argument it presents invalid ?

Originally posted by Robtard
If you point the gun at me, you're the threat, cos you're the one with the mass-murder weapon. There are multiple accounts that Rittenhouse was pointing the gun at people.

yeah cuz they attacked him, don't be daft.

Originally posted by Robtard
Unless Rosenblaum was trying to sexually molest Rittenhouse, there's no "indicator of past behavior". That's some serious stretch of logic.

Illegal to own but not to shoot? That sounds weird. But it's illegal to shoot and murder and/or harm people, what Rittenhouse is being charged with, among other crimes. The man who gave Rittenhouse the assault rifle is being charged as well.

As noted, if you point an assault rifle at someone, they're justified in taking that as as threat to their life and they can act accordingly.


really, an aggressive criminal but who gives a shit about that. If I attacked you can you defend yourself?

https://mises.org/power-market/kenosha-kyle-mccloskeys-and-standing-against-barbarism

The barbarians are here and we must stand against them.

Originally posted by snowdragon
yeah cuz they attacked him, don't be daft.
Originally posted by snowdragon
really, an aggressive criminal but who gives a shit about that. If I attacked you can you defend yourself?


That's the issue, who threatened who first. It will come out during the trial. I believe the accounts that Rittenhouse was pointing and threatening people with his assault rifle. He knew it was illegal for him to carry/own, he brought it for a reason.

Rittenhouse had no idea that Rosenblaum was a convicted pedophile, who had served his time no less. So really, this angle is just silly. It's also odd how you just overlook that Rittenhouse was a criminal himself even before the shooting.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's the issue, who threatened who first. It will come out during the trial. I believe the accounts that Rittenhouse was pointing and threatening people with his assault rifle. He brought it for a reason.

Rittenhouse had no idea that Rosenblaum was a convicted pedophile, who had served his time no less. So really, this angle is just silly.

listen you can barricade up and pretend it's about his assault, he literally assaulted the kid why is this so hard

Originally posted by snowdragon
listen you can barricade up and pretend it's about his assault, he literally assaulted the kid why is this so hard

It's ideological, read the article I posted and you will no longer ask why it's hard for you and Rob to be on the same page.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Iy9epcyVM32T/

Here's a video deleted from YouTube, where the pedo is being incredibly aggressive at Rittenhouse.

Originally posted by snowdragon
listen you can barricade up and pretend it's about his assault, he literally assaulted the kid why is this so hard That's yet to be proven, the trial hasn't even started.

What we know is one guy was "armed" with a small plastic bag of something (maybe his meds?) and the other was armed with an assault rifle, of which he was illegally carrying, making him a criminal in that aspect.

Here's styxhexenhammer explaining it

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Uck1Xd2WVxU/

Originally posted by snowdragon
really, an aggressive criminal but who gives a shit about that. If I attacked you can you defend yourself? Question have you ever gone to a demonstration and peacocked around in front of people prtending to be a medic with an automatic gun pointing it at people? Do you think pointing guns at people is O.K. Do you think underage people should be carrying illegal hand guns pretending to be medics and pointing guns at people? Question what do you think a likely outcome is if you point guns at people and pea cock around?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Here's styxhexenhammer explaining it

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Uck1Xd2WVxU/

Why do Trumpers always need some Trumper youtube blabberer to give you your opinions.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Question have you ever gone to a demonstration and peacocked around in front of people prtending to be a medic with an automatic gun pointing it at people? Do you think pointing guns at people is O.K. Do you think underage people should be carrying illegal hand guns pretending to be medics and pointing guns at people? Question what do you think a likely outcome is if you point guns at people and pea cock around?

Oh you mean like the video I posted of the pedo right before he got shot where he's screaming in people's faces and saying that word hunter Biden and his daddy say ?