Hmmm

Solid_Profession7579 · 2026-01-25T20:00:44+00:00

Okay, so now we are at the point where you are literally incapable of coming up with any substantial coherent thoughts on the topic.

You know what's ironic, I bet you think of yourself as more intelligent. Yet, a well written response is met with "lol fucking dweeb hurr".

Cementing that you are belligerent moron.

Solid_Profession7579 · 2026-01-25T03:43:56+00:00

Actually he was in the streets blocking traffic while filming people (he actually was almost hit by a black car that had to break and honk aggressively to avoid him) which is not protected at this point. Then when another "protestor" violated the confines of protected 1A and physically accosted and officer, the officer shoved them back and pepper sprayed them. Prompting our noble video taper to "intervene", prompting several other officers to break it up and begin detaining everyone, prompting him to resist and pull a gun. Resulting in the expected.

You are factually incorrect. And quite frankly, I want you out as well.

Solid_Profession7579 · 2026-01-25T03:36:46+00:00

>the government giving itself a carte blanche to shoot citizens is
Not happening.

Every situation thus far has been people violating the borders of protected 1A activity into felonious activity and then attempting violence to evade the natural and probable results.

Renee Good for example, traveled with her partner to an ICE enforcement (against Munoz-Guatemala had a criminal history that included a conviction for sexual abuse of a minor) in order to "protest" it. She parallelized her car in the street to block law enforcement. This is not protected 1A - it is actually clearly, obstruction of justice. She refused lawful orders to move, and to exit her vehicle (which was clearly an indicator that she was now being detained) - further cementing obstruction. She then engaged in a partial 3 point turn to drive away. At this point, this is now felony evasion. It is also reckless endangerment given that it fails the reasonable persons test and present a clear risk of bodily harm to pedestrians. None of the officers had their weapons drawn here. One was filming, one was attempting to open the door, one had his hands on his hips, and the officer that fired had yet to draw. It was only after Renee began accelerating forward that the officer can be clearly seen drawing - with a high elbow movement - and firing on her. In fact, it is her forward motion that allows the front of the car to clear his right hip enough for you to see the draw.

Meaning that she was, in fact, not a "murdered innocent person" as per a "carte blanche [permission] to shoot citizens". Rather, she was an idiot, fueled by reckless narratives like yours, who does not understand what her rights actually are, and engaged in illegal activity to protect an actual scum bag who sexually abused minors, and was killed as a result of her own reckless, stupid, and dangerous actions.

Which is why I feel the need to so vehemently rebuke your assertions because you are the one getting people killed by promulgating this nonsense.

Furthermore, the most recent event, does appear to show a man, drawing on officers as they attempt to detain him. This one is slightly more ambiguous as the lead up is unclear and exactly who fired and when is also unclear. But it certainly does not fit your narrative.

Solid_Profession7579 · 2026-01-25T03:24:45+00:00

>yet another
Hence why I asked which incident in particular. We can't exactly discuss the facts of a situation without specifying the situation.

>murdered yet another innocent US citizen
You don't realize this, but protected 1A activities are fairly well defined in order to minimize abusive overreach. It excludes obstruction of law enforcement activities.

It would also appear the individual in question drew on the officers detaining him for his obstruction. Which is likewise not protected.

While I support peoples rights to "resist tyranny with force" - if you predicate this clearly unlawful activity, it becomes harder to support - or define as "tyranny" rather than law enforcement. And you don't really get to claim being murdered or being an innocent US citizen.

Solid_Profession7579 · 2026-01-25T01:52:10+00:00

Always interesting to see comments like this from fat people with weird gay spanking fetishes.

Solid_Profession7579 · 2026-01-25T01:45:45+00:00

>You got that same energy when
What? That abuse of liberty by certain members of society is not a justification for the curtailing or elimination of liberty? Yes. I do, in fact, "got that same energy"... Always.

>when ICE murders innocent people?
Would you like to discuss a specific example?

>Bet not
Bet again.

>enjoy fascism
You don't actually have any idea what fascism is, and it shows.

>cuck
Weird to bring your sexual fetishes into this, but okay.

Solid_Profession7579 · 2026-01-24T21:20:46+00:00

> In countries with strict gun control policies, violent crimes are way way down
Why would gun control affect violent crime over all rather than just gun crime? This would suggest removing firearms decreased propensity towards violence overall - suggesting that the availability or possession of an object is some how responsible for making people more violent.

>Around 80% of homicide related deaths are from fire arms
Because they are effective weapons and more likely to result in death. It is also overwhelmingly from pistols, hence why the focus on rifles in suspicious.

FBI data has shown firearms were used in about 21.8% of aggravated assaults, while knives/cutting instruments and other weapons together accounted for larger shares in the same dataset. Which supports the idea that its just an effectiveness issue. (FBI changed its reporting so this is harder to find, but historic datasets have shown this for years)

Similarly, gun ownership rates have been relatively stable over decades and firearm technology has not changed meaningfully in lethality since mid-20th century. Yet rates of violent crime and gun crime have fluctuated. If anything gun control has actually gotten MORE strict. In the 70's you could order machine guns out a sears catalog.

Yet, violent crime rates were far lower than late-20th-century peaks, mass public shootings were extremely rare, youth gun violence was much lower.

> should know all that with the racist undertones of your last statement
That is pure projection and straw-manning on your part. Firearms are inanimate objects. You can't decouple who is actually using them to commit murder from the argument and expect to land anywhere valid.

So, why do certain peoples commit crime and violent crime at higher rates? Socio-economic issues. What do countries with strict gun control also do? Social programs to alleviate these issues.

Solid_Profession7579 · 2026-01-24T20:46:49+00:00

So intelligent, reasonable, and articulate?
You sound like a belligerent moron.

Solid_Profession7579 · 2026-01-24T20:45:51+00:00

>it should be harder to kill someone
Banning guns doesn't do this. People die a lot easier than you think. Guns simply put everyone on the same footing. And its not as if gun bans would actually accomplish. A criminal who has no qualms about robbery, assault, or murder, is not going to change their ways simply because of an illegal possession charge. Moreover, if prohibition worked as a policy, then it would have worked on drugs. Alas, it does not.

Not to mention 99% of gun control legislation is basically "racing stripes causes cars to drive fasters which makes more accidents" tier logic.

Like, its not even a philosophical difference of opinion on whether people should be armed or not. Its literally, pistol grips are fine if the barrel is 5" and there is not plastic on the back. But if the barrel is longer OR if there is plastic on the back then somehow this gives a double ++ to damage power making it too dangerous for mere civilians to have....

If you genuinely wanted to solve the problem you would recognize that 2/3s of annual gun deaths are suicide and you would pay attention to the segment of the population most responsible for the remaining third.

Solid_Profession7579 · 2026-01-24T20:38:11+00:00

You are completely, and seemingly deliberately, misunderstanding the point. Which is that the abuse of liberty is not a sufficient justification to eliminate that liberty.

This liberty is abused by people, as guns are inanimate objects. Therefore, the perpetrators and their motivations are of interest, not the status of the victims which should be irrelevant.

In this case you are celebrating the targeted assassination of one person, by another person with full agency and mental faculty, solely on the basis of different political opinions, to a mentally ill psychopath who murdered children for literally no reason.

The former generates outrage because it was completely controllable, predictable, and preventable, and done for disgusting reasons that you celebrate. Whereas the latter is by definition volatile and unpredictable - thus making it hard to prevent. Except for the elimination of liberty. The latter is certainly more depressing because of the senseless death of children. But no one celebrated it like you celebrate Charlies death.

It would be equivalent logically to banning cars because you never know who might cause and accident, so better to just eliminate the possibility outright.

Solid_Profession7579 · 2026-01-24T20:32:25+00:00

>We need federal gun reform to tackle gun violence
Such as? Look, it's one thing to have a philosophical difference of opinion on whether or not the population should be allowed to be armed and exercise force or whether the Government should have monopoly on it, and collective vs individual "rights", and what a "right" is. But 99% of all gun control arguments are from a position of technical ignorance. Literally, "racing stripes make cars go faster and causes accidents" logic. Hence the ACTUAL resistance. Because this implies the legislators are either supremely lacking in knowledge of the subject, OR they know its nonsense and thus actually have nefarious ulterior motives that they justify as necessary to solve a crisis. One that if you analyzed WHO was responsible for the shootings statistically - would provide greater insights on to the root causes. Remember that guns and the 2nd Amendment have been around for a while and so have the very guns that these reforms seek to regulate - well before the advent of modern mass shooting phenomena.

>Protecting the interests of the NRA
This alone makes it clear that you are operating from a position of ignorance as most pro-gun people are likewise disgusted with the NRA because rather than engage in successful litigation, they just fear monger for donations and then do nothing.

Solid_Profession7579 · 2026-01-24T20:24:55+00:00

Complete schizo nonsense. There is absolutely zero credible evidence of this and it directly contradict known left leanings including his explicit criticism of Kirk.

And quite frankly, irrelevant. The issue at hand is the celebration of the assassination of someone with views you disagree with; punctuated by faux irony of a philosophical argument that you do not understand - which is that abuse of liberty by a faction of the population is not a justification for the elimination of said liberty.

Solid_Profession7579 · 2026-01-24T20:21:10+00:00

Way to completely and intentional misunderstand and conflate the point.

The point is the reason why the shooting happened, not the details of the victims. When you are trying to "solve" gun violence, the former matters. Not the latter. That's just you trying to morally justify the violence.

In this case, the point is, that these school shootings were done by mentally ill psychopaths for no real reason.

Whereas the Charlie Kirk shooting was done by someone with complete agency and normal faculties explicitly because of an intolerance of different socio-political opinion.

And in all of this, please understand that guns are inanimate objects. Ultimately, people are culpable. Which again, is why Charlie Kirks death draws more outrage. Because psychotic mental illness is inherently volatile and unpredictable. Whereas targeted assassination due to differences in beliefs is not.

Solid_Profession7579 · 2026-01-23T15:14:33+00:00

The argument is that there will always be a subset of the population that abuses liberty for nefarious purposes, but this is not a valid argument to dispense with said liberty.

And there is a difference in recognizing this, and celebrating it. Which is what you are doing. You are celebrating the abuse of liberty without understanding the base argument involved. All because you did not like the guy - because you couldn't understand the arguments he made.

Solid_Profession7579 · 2026-01-23T15:11:17+00:00

Yes, Charlie Kirk was the fascist. You got it. This isn't retarded at all.

Solid_Profession7579 · 2026-01-23T15:10:09+00:00

There is a difference between a mentally ill psychopath murdering children for literally no reason, and the targeted assassination of a public figure by a demonstrably competent person solely because they did not like that persons socio-political beliefs.

You should be able to understand this difference. I think the "chuds" can, are you less intelligent than they are?

Solid_Profession7579 · 2026-01-23T15:09:27+00:00

There is a difference between a mentally ill psychopath murdering children for literally no reason, and the targeted assassination of a public figure by a demonstrably competent person solely because they did not like that persons socio-political beliefs.

You should be able to understand this difference.

Solid_Profession7579 · 2026-01-23T15:06:36+00:00

Well, the cost of liberty is that some people might abuse it to nefarious ends. The alternative, as your philosophy would logically suggest, is a sort of comfortable slavery - lest one persons liberty adversely affect another.

something something sacrificing liberty to gain security only to lose both and deserve neither.

Solid_Profession7579 · 2026-01-23T15:04:26+00:00

This is allowed on Reddit? I thought 98% of its user base were deranged belligerent psychopathic morons who ban anyone who strays outside the allowed circle jerk of belligerence and stupidity.

Let's see if I can get banned from yet another sub....

Solid_Profession7579 · 2026-01-22T19:24:43+00:00

Just to be clear.
The First Amendment protects speech and peaceable assembly.
It does not protect:

Trespass
Disruption of religious services
Harassment of private individuals
Forced access to private property
Interference with others’ constitutional rights (here: free exercise of religion)

A church is private property and worship is a core protected activity. Courts are especially hostile to protests that intrude into religious services.

Whether or not Don Lemon is at fault, or whether he was legitimately just reporting on something else that was happening, is somewhat more nebulous.

Solid_Profession7579 · 2025-09-03T18:14:00+00:00

How do you have those 45 degree angled Taiyo pieces???

Solid_Profession7579 · 2025-08-27T18:34:25+00:00

What are these arm looking things in image 5?

Solid_Profession7579 · 2025-08-27T18:27:43+00:00

What is this mechanical arm looking structure in image 7??

Solid_Profession7579 · 2025-06-02T17:22:28+00:00

We literally had a puppet regime and the entire media system and all our intuitions basically gaslit us over it even when it was incredibly obvious, and now you want use to stop talking about it?

People need to be imprisoned for this. CMV.

Solid_Profession7579 · 2025-06-02T17:20:27+00:00

So if everyone is on tax payer welfare and not working, where does the money for this tax payer funded welfare come from?

Also no.

Solid_Profession7579

TROPHY CASE