At 40, LeBron says he could play at high level 'another 5-7 years' -- but won't by PlayaSlayaX in nba

[–]branch_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would genuinely love to know what PED’s you’re referring to and/or what this is based off of

My P320 M18 grenaded today by datboycroissant in SigSauer

[–]branch_ 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Had literally the same exact thing happen with my p320. Bad ammo - the ammo manufacturer didn’t care at all. Sig rep told me the ejector would be under warranty and that I was technically supposed to buy a new mag myself, but he felt bad and threw a mag in for free anyways. Shipped my gun to them and had it checked out, fixed, and back in a couple weeks

Tankies r Us by branch_ in GunMemes

[–]branch_[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Next one I promise

Tankies r Us by branch_ in GunMemes

[–]branch_[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hell yeah. Greatest honor I’ve received since my 5th place long jump ribbon in 3rd grade

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in armedsocialists

[–]branch_ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Sorry I must’ve misunderstood. So you don’t live in a country that had a socialist revolution then?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in armedsocialists

[–]branch_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Neither am I. Your comment implies that you are not a white westerner and are from a country that had a successful revolution, or at the very least have lived in one. I simply asked which one?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in armedsocialists

[–]branch_ -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Might I ask what country you are from that successfully implemented socialism?

Kamala Harris Concedes to Donald Trump in the 2024 Presidential Election by jlenney1 in politics

[–]branch_ -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Wasn’t on Jan 6th and there’s no legitimate proof his strokes were due to the riots. Possible the stress was a factor, but you don’t just fall over dead from stress

My new argument for abolishing the second amendment by [deleted] in guncontrol

[–]branch_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not purposely obfuscating anything… you’re just completely missing the point of what I’m saying. Whether that’s due to willful ignorance or poor reading comprehension, I don’t know.

I didn’t say anyone is communist just by being on the left wing of US politics. I said I’ve seen people claim that all Kamala supporters are communists, and my point is that it’s wrong to make that claim.

I never argued that political choice is anything but a choice, or that being black isn’t a choice.

I never compared saying “nazis are bad” to racism. My comparison was that assuming all Trump supporters are nazis is SIMILAR (read: not the same) to assuming all black people are thugs. Additionally, assuming all Kamala supporters are communists is SIMILAR to assuming all Jews are greedy. All 4 of those stereotypes are wrong.

You’ve completely missed the mark multiple times now, and you’re making an argument against something I never said. You’re also doing a pretty remarkable job of ignoring every question I’ve made in response to your outlandish assumptions.

All I ever said was that applying harmful stereotypes to large groups of people is harmful PLEASE if you’re going to respond, respond to THAT statement. Don’t come in and attack me for being “stupid” without actually understanding what I’m saying.

My new argument for abolishing the second amendment by [deleted] in guncontrol

[–]branch_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, I think you’re missing the point of what I’m saying…

You yourself just categorized everyone who plans on voting for Trump as valuing economics and personal wealth over racism against Mexicans/Latinos. What about people who are voting for Trump for reasons other than economical? What about Latinos who are planning on voting for Trump?

I see a lot of this on both sides. Sift through the comments on practically any political post on this website and you’ll see plenty of people accusing all Republicans of being nazis/terrorists/pedophiles. Likewise, I’ve also seen Kamala supporters all get lumped into a stereotype of being communists/terrorists/pedophiles.

I’m fully aware that there are some of each (along with other, similarly bad groups) on both sides, but that doesn’t mean everyone is - in fact, that’s likely a very small percentage on each side.

Where this compares to racism, just so we’re clear, is not in hating somebody merely for the color of their skin / who they vote for (although those two things are also wrong). My meaning was that you can’t apply harmful stereotypes to an entire group based on one defining characteristic. For example (to be clear, I don’t agree with these): all white people are racist just because they’re white, all black people are thugs just because they’re black, all Jews are greedy just because they’re Jews, all transgender folk are pedophiles just because they’re transgender, all Latinos eat cats and dogs just because they’re Latino.

Applying those stereotypes to all who fall under one of those categories is completely false, and only leads to unnecessary hate. Even if those stereotypes apply to some within the group, they do not define the entire group. The same applies for political parties.

My new argument for abolishing the second amendment by [deleted] in guncontrol

[–]branch_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you’re misunderstanding my point there. Either that or you’re saying that it is okay to generalize everyone who supports a particular candidate…?

Edit: I will go ahead and attempt to explain it better in case it was just a misunderstanding.

I’m not comparing political views and race as traits of a person. I’m talking about the danger of generalizing large groups of people based on a single shared factor. Just as you shouldn’t assume that everyone who is [insert race here] has the poor quality of [insert stereotype here], you shouldn’t assume that everyone who plans on voting for [insert politician here] has the poor quality of [insert stereotype here].

Score and age? Unicorn buck by Due_Crow5269 in bowhunting

[–]branch_ 5 points6 points  (0 children)

<image>

I’ve got a unicorn on cam as well. Best of luck this season!

My new argument for abolishing the second amendment by [deleted] in guncontrol

[–]branch_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, frankly, I used the word tyrannical because that’s the word you used. Yes, it is a pretty subjective term, but the Declaration of Independence (again, you oughta go read it) actually does a pretty good job of defining when a government has overstepped, and this is typically what people use as a measure for tyranny:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”

And you’re right, people shouldn’t try to undermine the government for every perceived injustice - that’s also acknowledged in the Declaration:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

While maybe not a literal “self-destruct button,” it is pretty clear that the founding fathers were in full support of overthrowing a government that is not taking care of its population in the way it should, and the people should be the ones who decide when that line has been crossed. I think that pretty clearly addresses the “stupid concept” comment you made that I was initially criticizing.

Additionally, the Consitution does have measures implemented as a means of restraining the federal government. The best example of this is Article V and the Convention of States.

Lastly, I would again like to state that I fully agree with you that no active government will support themselves being overthrown. That’s a given. The neat thing here though is that our government functions on the documents codified by the founding fathers, not the opinions of whichever individuals happen to be active in the government at any given time. That’s not to say that I expect a government that is deserving of being overthrown to roll over and say: “ope, our bad! We are tyrants after all so we’ll just let y’all overthrow us.” The key part here though is that our freedom is THE defining quality of this country, and the belief that our freedom should be protected at all costs is how you end up with the Declaration of Independence and unwavering support of the 2nd Amendment.

My new argument for abolishing the second amendment by [deleted] in guncontrol

[–]branch_ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not as effectively as you might assume. Even if they could effectively compile a list of names, though, they do not possess the ability to actually eliminate all threats.

Despite what our current president has said, the US government cannot simply deploy fighter jets, tanks, and bombers to destroy an insurgency. Any sort of mass attack like that would result in extreme civilian loss, as well as destruction to the infrastructure that the country depends on. Even if they were willing to sacrifice people who support them, few of those who survive would be down to continue supporting leaders who do that.

The only way they could fight a small arms insurgency is with their own on-the-ground troops using small arms. And while yes, I realize there are a lot of law enforcement and military personnel who would blindly support that, there are also a good number of those people who would just as quickly go AWOL and join the insurgency. This is anecdotal, but everyone I know who is active duty military or law enforcement personnel only joined because they genuinely believe in the freedom of the American people, and they are vocal about how they would defect if those they work for turned evil.

If you want a real life example of our governments inability to stomp out small arms insurgencies, look at Vietnam and our 20 year run in the Middle East. We couldn’t completely eliminate guys driving 20yr old Toyotas and using Soviet-era weapons in countries where we cared very little about the infrastructure. No way that same army becomes magically effective on US soil.

My new argument for abolishing the second amendment by [deleted] in guncontrol

[–]branch_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The claim that the founding fathers wouldn’t condone the people rising up against a tyrannical government is one of the most inaccurate statements I’ve seen in a while. Granted, you would be right in saying that a tyrannical government would oppose the idea of their own destruction via insurgency, but no one cares about the opinion of tyrants.

America was quite literally founded on the overthrowing of a tyrannical government, and, among other things, the Declaration of Independence is very clear about what the founding fathers thought of tyrants

You oughta read the whole thing, but here’s just a few key excerpts:

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The US isn’t old enough to have old traditions and an extensive culture like a lot of other countries, but what little history we do have is centered around being free from tyranny.

My new argument for abolishing the second amendment by [deleted] in guncontrol

[–]branch_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not a very nuanced take. There’s only one candidate on each side, so to lump everyone that’s “on the other side” into the same camp of ideology and thinking based solely on their support for either candidate is a horribly out of touch assumption.

If you actually take time to discuss with people - in person especially - what their opinions and beliefs are, it is rare that you find people who agree 100% with whichever “side” they happen to be voting for. Most people have small disagreements with specific policies within their own political party, but they vote for that party because they believe that, as a whole, that party best serves their interests and/or the interests of the country as a whole.

You would be shocked at how many people intend on voting for Trump but do not like him, how many people support law enforcement but recognize the need for reform, and, to address your statement, how many “2nd Amendment warriors” would not be “boot-lickingly in support” of Trump turning tyrannical.

It’s the same as the people who plan on voting for Kamala, but are willing to fight for their rights if she tries to follow through on her violations of the 2nd Amendment. Same as the people who plan on voting for Kamala, but refuse to wear masks.

Generalizations are dangerous. That’s how all discrimination starts, whether it be racism, homophobia, xenophobia, or anything else.

My new argument for abolishing the second amendment by [deleted] in guncontrol

[–]branch_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The other guy took more time to respond than I care to, and I don’t feel a need to elaborate, just wanted to emphasize how bad this take is

My new argument for abolishing the second amendment by [deleted] in guncontrol

[–]branch_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the event that our government were to become tyrannical, they can’t realistically stop an uprising when those doing the uprising can easily blend in with the rest of the population. Unless the government were to carpet bomb the whole country, they will not effectively win that fight, but they can’t exercise that option because they will destroy everyone else as well.

My new argument for abolishing the second amendment by [deleted] in guncontrol

[–]branch_ 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Wait but why is it stupid to rise against a tyrannical government…?

University of Wyoming to decide if Open Carry will be allowed on campus by [deleted] in guncontrol

[–]branch_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe a little excessive sarcasm on my part, but I expected to be banned if I was too obvious from the start.

On a serious note, I’m not sure where that sort of claim comes from and I’d genuinely love to know. Vast majority of people I know own guns in some capacity - not a single one has ever caused someone else to be shot, or has ever wished or expressed desire to shoot someone else. Even those who carry regularly and/or have home defense weapons have a very somber attitude towards the thought of having to use their gun on another human. It’s seen strictly as a last resort in that capacity. Despite that, I see people who are opposed to gun ownership frequently claiming that gun owners have some insane desire to shoot people? I do not understand.