Anon breaks up
-
Isn't this just a vicious cycle? You own a gun, because other people also have access to guns. The burglar might bring a gun, because the home owner possibly has a gun, etc
wrote last edited by [email protected]Kinda. It’s also a remnant of the old west. Guns were freedom, protection, power, etc.
It would be much more effective to curb crime by meeting everyone’s basic needs than giving everyone a gun.
But dumb Americans don’t know any other way. They are just too self-centered and absorbed to think about anyone else.
-
I mean if someone makes death threats to someone else they should absolutely have their guns taken away.
The thing is, this isn't shown in the original post. Also, making death threats on its own is illegal, red flag laws aren't required if the person making the report has proof.
Said victim could even get a restraining order if they were worried about violence, which won't completely assure safety but will go down a process that actually uses due process and doesn't violate anyone's rights.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I never said that Anon made any death threat and the concern you are raising is covered in the rest of my comment.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
This is the horror story for red flag laws existing.
Now imagine the horror stories of red flag laws not existing.
You don't even have to imagine, just listen to one of the million true crime podcasts. Then multiply all those cases by 5 for all the minority women who they don't talk about.
-
Where you got that from? Looks like your imagining a whole other discussion there
I'm probably just incredibly disillusioned and mad at the state of the world and the lack of nuance on the internet these days and taking it out on you. My apologies.
-
Isn't this just a vicious cycle? You own a gun, because other people also have access to guns. The burglar might bring a gun, because the home owner possibly has a gun, etc
I don't own a gun, I am 100x more likely to use it on myself than need it for self defense where I'm at. But the scenario I'm describing, whether or not the home invader has a gun or not doesn't matter, the simple fact that they are invading your home in the first place justifies lethal force. You could be injured/killed by them even without them having a gun so the safest option for the resident is shoot them immediately. The resident should not have to accept any level of risk whatsoever in dealing with this situation. You're not getting a gun because someone might attack you with a gun. You're getting a gun because someone might attack you.
-
Lot of US leftists and liberals hate guns, as a reaction to the right’s obsession with them.
It is a stupid and dangerous reaction, because they give up their means of self-defense against far right militias and a fascist government.
I don't hate guns, I hate the "gun rights" movements and there fetishization of a skewed interpretation of the second amendment where any individual has the unalieanable right to own a gun.
Even if a violent revolution were to happen, which odds are 99 to 1 it wont happen in the US in our lifetimes, then people like op hoarding guns aren't going to help. A well regulated militia might but that requires social organization and discipline, which most people in the gun rights movement don't have the time or willingness for.
They aren't serious about using guns to defend liberty, they just like the aesthetic of it and make it part of there personality. So much so that they get offended by dumb and probably made up stories like this but not the countless other similar stories where there were no red flag laws and the gf gets killed.
-
You don't need to be in line of sight, your family needs to be. Are you still going to risk it if you know that the government will throw your family into a concentration camp in response?
Assume that the fascists in this fight have zero respect for human rights or human lives. Because they've already proven that they don't.
The government will throw your family into a concentration camp either way. Will you acquiese and die like a dog, or will you stand and fight?
-
Then Tim is probably going to get himself killed in a standoff with the police.
wrote last edited by [email protected]The police in the U.S. are on Tim's side. Hell, Tim might be a police officer.
-
I think we just don't like guns.
I like guns.
-
This post did not contain any content.
if you have multiple guns and can't afford a lawyer you have kinda fucked your priorities
-
The government is allowed to suppress your constitutional rights in cases where it's narrowly tailored to a legitimate government interest (the strict scrutiny standard). This may seem suspect, but it allows the government to do things like prevent people from bringing guns into schools or planes, or spreading private information or harmful lies about others, or being overtly loud when their neighbors are trying to sleep. It does require a high burden of proof from the potential violating body, so it's not done casually.
For red flag laws, I imagine temporarily seizing the guns of someone who a judge is convinced is a significant danger to themselves or others would meet this standard. From what the other commenter said, it sounds like it isn't done casually in practice. We are missing parts of the story that may make it seem prudent.
Red flag laws, as written, don't come anywhere near a strict scrutiny standard and rarely involve a judge. Usually police are empowered to make the decision, or worse, instructed to always seize weapons immediately until a judge says give them back, even if the police think it sounds like bullshit (as in the scenario of the greentext).
-
Dunno, someone having guns to shoot normal people is a big red flag to me.
Someone having guns to shoot the boot soldiers of an unjust regime? All for it. Big green flag to me.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Without context, this could be easily dismissed.
However, OP is posting on 4chan, so it's likely he did pose a threat.
That said, it's fake and gay.
-
if you have multiple guns and can't afford a lawyer you have kinda fucked your priorities
You either overestimate how much guns cost or underestimate how much lawyers cost.
-
It's not most Americans. It's about a third (which is still huge) and less than half of the population living in a gun owning household.
Then there's a spectrum of how "important" guns are culturally. There are in my experience 3 categories of gun owners.
- People who own a gun or two. They may take it to the range or hunt, but mostly it's tucked securely away and they don't think about it or use it.
2)Then there are collectors and enthusiasts. They enjoy firearms as a hobby. They have multiple. They watch firearms videos on social media. They go to gun shows and might join a club related to the hobby.
3)Then there are the paranoid psychopaths for whom gun ownership and the insistence that they could have to defend themselves at any time is constantly at the forefront of their mind. They wish they had a reason to shoot someone and may end up shooting someone anyway.
I'm a #2 except I dislike gun shows. Everything's overpriced and there's right-wing merch everywhere. Bought a canteen from a Proud Boy at one. Didn't know it until I overheard him talking to another guy. Tried to investigate him later, couldn't get a name.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Anon can easily get a lawyer pro-bono, with contingency fee, who would nail a case like this to a cross.
In civil court, because she defamed him causing real and considerable loss of property, and psychological harm.
As for defending, Anon hasn't really outlined any laws he might have broken...? Court for what? Just go to the trial and explain your side clearly and concisely: never a threat to anybody, cheating girlfriend made a false report.
-
With that mindset everyone will have guns, so violence then actually increases.
The only answer is to dearm everyone.
Yeah, I think we're all in agreement about that here. But everyone isn't disarmed. I won't give up my gun until I know with 99% certainty that your average burglar won't get a hold of an illegal firearm.
-
This post did not contain any content.
WTF is a Red Flag law? No way this is the US ... dude would win so much rights violation $$$.
-
With that mindset everyone will have guns, so violence then actually increases.
The only answer is to dearm everyone.
In most of the UK, even the average police officer isn't armed. (In Northern Ireland, the average police officer is armed, but the amount of times the firearms are ever actually fired is incredibly rare. Most of the time they go off is actually negligent. When they do go off, they are always investigated.)
The problem is, how do you disarm the bad guys when you've been giving them guns without tracking them for decades
-
Resorting to calling me a Nazi now? Thanks for telling me that you have no actual counterargument.
The Pro-Choice argument is one of bodily autonomy. If people have the right to refuse the use of their organs to save others after they are dead, then everyone should also have the right to refuse the same while they are alive.
Not only that, bans on abortion adds red tape to many procedures necessary to keep the mother alive, incpuding in situations where the fetus isn't viable. If the fetus dies in the womb and the mother doesn't naturally expel it, she needs an abortion ot it'll rot and kill here. If the zygote never fully makes it to the uterus and starts developing inside the ovarian tubes, it needs to be aborted or it will kill both the mother and the fetus.
Making it harder for pregnant women to gain access to these procedures is needlessly and ridiculously cruel.
And let's also discuss your Nazi claims: I'm pro-workers right, pro-consumer rights, pro-privacy. I think we need to increase social welfare services to help the most vulnerable of us, including some form of universal healthcare. But I'm a Nazi simply because I support the 2nd ammendment? Yeah, that bullshit. You aren't worth wasting more of my time on.
The Pro-Choice argument is one of bodily autonomy. If people have the right to refuse the use of their organs to save others after they are dead, then everyone should also have the right to refuse the same while they are alive.
The choice is made when she gets pregnant. A slim minority of abortions are in cases of rape. Because I know pro-aborts like to bring up rare scenarios every time
Not only that, bans on abortion adds red tape to many procedures necessary to keep the mother alive, incpuding in situations where the fetus isn't viable. If the fetus dies in the womb and the mother doesn't naturally expel it, she needs an abortion ot it'll rot and kill here. If the zygote never fully makes it to the uterus and starts developing inside the ovarian tubes, it needs to be aborted or it will kill both the mother and the fetus.
Removing a dead foetus isn't murder. Of course I'm not advocating for a ban on that
You're a nazi because you're using dogwhistles
by referring to humans as "lumps of cancer". That's a classic dehumanisation tactic.
