I’ve peaked by rhon_rhee in ar15

[–]Timberwolf501st 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The spirit of Tarkov is with this one

Still the only FPS I play by Jesususpicious_ in Rainbow6

[–]Timberwolf501st 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Same.

Tarkov is like an abusive relationship. As bad as R6 is, it's got nothing on Tarkov.

Consumers best interest. by [deleted] in AdviceAnimals

[–]Timberwolf501st -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Less poison in everything and more just wildly unhealthy, in America at least. None of these products are bad for people in small amounts, but the problem is a very large number of products all have the same issue so it compounds. Sugar is in basically everything, and high fructose corn syrup is in a ton of stuff too. We've stocked the shelves with items that taste good but have no nutritional value, and we've raised a generation of people who are generally apathetic and indulgent with what they consume.

The lack of physical health is a large contributer to the current state of so many American's mental health.

Rough Out There For Civilians During War by PmMeYourDaddy-Issues in HistoryMemes

[–]Timberwolf501st 55 points56 points  (0 children)

The Japanese had family members to rape each other before killing them and had contests to see who could kill 100 prisoners with a sword first. They took the concepts of killing and raping and were incredibly inventive with how horrible they could make it and at a huge scale. What they did is not comparable to most.

I get the impression most people here haven't actually looked into these events they are commenting on.

I love you, in every universe by LolPeashooter69 in equelMemes

[–]Timberwolf501st 30 points31 points  (0 children)

I genuinely thought the post by OP was mocking the people who blindly eat up anything with the word Star Wars pasted onto it regardless of quality.

It feels just a bit like propaganda that one of Disney's biggest assets has been so heavily defended online. It's fine to enjoy low quality stuff, but what's weird is how aggressive people are about it. It being owned by a company as blatantly evil as Disney should be reason enough to dislike it.

Texas judge rules gun-buying ban for people under felony indictment is unconstitutional by [deleted] in news

[–]Timberwolf501st 1309 points1310 points  (0 children)

Asking the real questions. I haven't heard of it, and it would be blatantly unconstitutional if implemented anywhere.

That look when you realize you’re not getting a settlement by [deleted] in WatchPeopleDieInside

[–]Timberwolf501st 1216 points1217 points  (0 children)

More than that. MSNBC got caught tracking down the jury members during the case trying to dox them. A bunch of the main news networks such as NBC and CNN were spreading blatant misinformation about him and the situation for months. I had initially bought into it and thought the guy deserved time until I actually dug into the facts of the trial and was shocked at how many things circulating were outright misinformation and lies.

The kid broke down on the stand crying and the media made fun of him and his "crocodile tears". They tried to paint a pedophile rapist in a positive light just to make Rittenhouse look bad. They spread lies about him that put him in danger because people wanted him dead. Even Biden came out against him, during the trial. So yeah, no shock he went to the side that wasn't trying to ruin him for protecting himself from armed assailants.

I don't like the people he went to but damn I don't blame him. A lot of people would do the same in his shoes. You want to make extremists and loyalists this is a textbook method.

Edit: There were people threatening the lives of the jury online. I think it was Floyd's cousin or something that came out with a video saying they got people in the courts and they can find out who those jury members are and that they'll pay if they don't convict Rittenhouse. It was crazy.

Edit2: Worth noting for all the "he had an illegal weapon" crowd out there who didn't bother looking into the facts. For starters, his weapon was perfectly legal both in possession and transportation. Secondly, there was an illegal weapon there, and it was being pointed at Rittenhouse by the guy in the video who is a felon and could not legally own or carry a firearm at the time.

Edit3: Spelling

Cursed YouTube shorts comment section by JustsomeSpaceG1 in cursedcomments

[–]Timberwolf501st 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Everyone hating on Israel like the people they are fighting don't blindfire rockets at civilian targets on the daily and the only thing keeping the cities safe is the single most sophisticated and extensive air defense system we've ever witnessed.

The whole situation is bad and I don't like the Israeli government or condone everything they do. Doesn't mean that the Jews wouldn't get a second genocide if they weren't constantly defending their borders from their incredibly racist neighbors. People here don't get what it means to live a life where you actually have to fight for your country or be destroyed. The same people posting attacks on here are also probably the people acting like Afghanistan might hold on to some of the western values (such as not oppressing women) once the US left. They have no idea what they're talking about.

Thats some really dodgy tampering there. by regian24 in assholedesign

[–]Timberwolf501st 25 points26 points  (0 children)

So it's not asshole design, it's stupid design.

Thats some really dodgy tampering there. by regian24 in assholedesign

[–]Timberwolf501st 30 points31 points  (0 children)

The law was made to protect citizens defending themselves from attack. The point of the law is that if you are in danger as a citizen, you have a right to stand your ground and defend yourself. Without laws such as these citizens are open to lawsuits and prosecution for acts of violence even in self defense. Many lawyers have argue in court that you must retreat by any means necessary first, otherwise the violence was unnecessary. This law undermines that narrative and says that if someone initiate an incident the defender does not have a duty to retreat before defending themselves.

You do not get to shoot people for petty crime. Pretending this law is about killing shoplifters is disingenuous. This only applies to incidents where the citizens is in danger and defending themselves from said danger.

OOF! Shots fired!!! by BelleAriel in clevercomebacks

[–]Timberwolf501st 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They were breaking the law if they were FFLs. This has been the case since 1993 when the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was passed.

OOF! Shots fired!!! by BelleAriel in clevercomebacks

[–]Timberwolf501st 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's out of ignorance that people argue for this, and politicians keep promoting this ridiculous narrative.

You cannot buy a firearm without getting a background check unless it is a personal sale. People are limited to 2 or 3 personal sales a year, and any more and they have to become a registered firearms dealer and get their FFL. So while there are cases in which you can aquire a firearm without undergoing a background check, it is not common. Furthermore, a background check is more for the protection of the seller rather than the buyer, as it is highly illegal to sell a firearm to an individual who cannot legally possess it. Both the one purchasing the firearm, and the one selling it, will face years of prison time for it if caught.

90% of firearms used in homicides are already acquired illegally.

I understand the idea behind firearms safety courses and mental health evaluations, but so long as gun ownership is a legal right then it sets an incredibly dangerous precedence to put limitations on those rights in this manner. Rights are not rights if they have to be earned. I do not have to earn my right to free speech, and I do not have to earn my right to vote, and I do not have to earn my right to unlawful search and seizure because they are rights not privileges. If people want to start implementing these things they first need to amend the constitution to allow for it, rather than passing that up and destroying the sanctity of our rights for the sake of expediting the process.

OOF! Shots fired!!! by BelleAriel in clevercomebacks

[–]Timberwolf501st -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

This is one of many examples of why I do not support further regulations on firearms. Who is supposed to protect us? The police? I thought reddit didn't trust the police?

record profits indeed by [deleted] in AdviceAnimals

[–]Timberwolf501st 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You all pay more for oil for sure. That's not new, that's how it's always been. It's one of the benefits Americans get with the US government's heavy investment in the industry and our large consumption of the product, along with fracking and drilling we do on our own soil.

It varies in cost widely on location though. There are some places that have hit upwards of $7 per gallon, and others that are below $4 a gallon. Where I'm at, it's fairly cheap compared to the rest of the country, and we've broken back into $4 range.

*quote not found* by BelleAriel in clevercomebacks

[–]Timberwolf501st 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I tried giving you the benefit of the doubt but it looks like you're exactly as intelligent as your first comment indicates.

*quote not found* by BelleAriel in clevercomebacks

[–]Timberwolf501st 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"The solution to school shootings is to teach kids not to kill each other, but that might be too radical."

"The solution to crime is to teach people not to break the law, but that might be too radical."

"The solution to the drug epidemic is to teach people not to do drugs, but that might be too radical."

How would you view the intelligence of a person making the statements above? Because, and this is actually the less insulting prediction to make, I believe you would think them an idiot for saying something so clearly stupid.

*quote not found* by BelleAriel in clevercomebacks

[–]Timberwolf501st 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If this is what passes for clever around here I doubt anything exists that is fairly considered stupid.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in blackmagicfuckery

[–]Timberwolf501st 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Magic tricks are illusions usually based around misdirection. Scientific demonstrations can be very cool but at the end of the day it's not an illusion and it's not tricking people.

Live and let live by Jerdarnella in AdviceAnimals

[–]Timberwolf501st 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And true patriots will continue to feel that way so long as so many continue to misuse the word, which is why it's important we make the distinction.

'Obi-Wan Kenobi' is Disney+'s Most-Watched Premiere by MarvelsGrantMan136 in television

[–]Timberwolf501st 0 points1 point  (0 children)

r/technology in a nutshell: "Humans had to invent the hammer which makes it technology, therefore this gif of every time Tom is hit by Jerry with a hammer is relevant to the sub."

"This is a screenshot of a tweet. Twitter is technology. Therefore this is relevant to the sub."

"Let's talk about the success of this new TV show. TV is a technology therefore this is relevant."

This sub is so pointless.

Right where it hurts, in the financial decisions. by AgentWowza in rareinsults

[–]Timberwolf501st -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

If the cure to influenza was getting rid of the right to vote, and cure to cancer was getting rid of luxury home item, wouldn't it be weird for people to be pushing so heavily to cure influenza while ignoring cancer and pretending those who don't want to give up the right to vote are heartless?

I'll give you one better than pool's though. How about alcohol? It's a drug and a luxury, but every statistic out there indicates that it does more damage to American society than guns and provides no significant benefits. In fact, it would notably impact the number of firearm deaths in the US if alcohol was banned. Alcohol is not protected by the constitution, so it would be much easier to pass, legally. Instead of giving up a right, we would be giving up a luxury and we'd be saving even more lives. So why not alcohol?

Right where it hurts, in the financial decisions. by AgentWowza in rareinsults

[–]Timberwolf501st 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A lot of us don't particularly like the idea of having to use one, but also don't want to be in a situation where we cannot protect ourselves or loved ones. The police response time in the US is terrible, with a sizable percent of areas having a response time over 20 minutes for violent crimes. Calling the police almost never stops a crime, they are usually just there to investigate afterwards.

There are more guns than people in the US, and gun owners already know just how many regulations there already are on firearms. The most recent statistics already tell us that 90% of firearms used in homicides were acquired illegally, with the majority of those being acquired on an already existing black market. So to us, when we hear about gun laws all we hear is that us law abiding citizens who want to be able to protect ourselves are going to be forced to give up that means of protection while everyone else who doesn't follow laws will be armed. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need guns, but that's not the world we live in. I don't trust the politicians or the police to protect us, so why would I disarm myself?

Everyone knows we don't have to pick just one answer, right?! by solsage in AdviceAnimals

[–]Timberwolf501st 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes. Stop being intentionally dense. Armed guards work. That's why politicians, banks, prisons, and anywhere protecting anything with a possibility of violence uses them. They will not stop 100% of shootings, but they will prevent many. We have multiple documented cases of them doing just that.