More Criminals for Icee to Defend

I saw that. These are young ass kids too, just like the ones doing carjackings in Chicago. They don't even fence the cars, they drop them off a few blocks away, they just want the thrill of the crime.

But of course, like AOC says, they do this because they don't have economic opportunities. Dumb twat. Lulz.

Fox News always has a political and racial slant.

SJG

^ Except there is none in this report beyond the police description that they give out for any crime, lazy jackass.

The slant is in what they deem as newsworthy.

SJG

Nora Jones, Something
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC42CJoB…

^

STFU you moronic creep!
You deserve what those teens dealt out more than that innocent guy did!

^ Asshole sewn shut!

SJG

^

Takes goat dicks up his ass, then sucks his shit off said goat dicks!

This is just a microcosm of not only where this country is, but where it's headed - the Dem party decided to align itself with the woke-progressive-crowd and have thus empowered all this shit we are seeing - a lot of this would not be happening if the Dem party did not support it and actually encourage it as part of their power-grab and as part of their attempt to not only seize-power but maintain it in perpetuity - they gotta destroy America so they can take over and control America.

And FYI - this power-grab is what's behind the anti-gun shit the Dems are pushing - it's criminals and not permit-holders that are committing most murders; but they wanna make you think it’s guns that are killing people vs criminals and thus use that excuse to disarm the citizens – the current Dem party wants to seize and maintain power; and they know they can’t have a pissed-off armed-citizenry that rather fight than just give-up their country – and why you have the current administration virtually confiscating guns via unconstitutional laws like the ones in NYC and other progressive-areas; as well as the federal gov buying up as much ammo as possible so the citizens can’t access to it and thus disarming them that way:

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/06…

Yeah Philly is outta control. How about the young girl that recently got shot who had nothing to do with nothing. https://nypost.com/2022/07/08/man-arrest…

Then two cops got shot on 4th of July.

DA Larry Krasner is cunt.

SJG

Don’t make excuses. I could have chosen to post the video from any number of links including every MSM liberal news site. This is a major news story not some obscure story Fox News dug up to spin there way.

Sorry I made a poor choice in choosing the Fox link.

Look this is going on all over the country, along with mass shootings, if you really believe that it has much to do with political leanings, you're deluding yourselves. There is too much violence, and it is a sickness that we need to cure, scapegoating anyone isn't going to solve this problem.
My own belief is it's more likely related to the entertainment industry, every movie, television show features this extreme behavior, very little actual attention is paid to healthy ways to interact and disagree, instead every show focuses on just kick the shit out of, or kill the other side and everything will be fine.

^ BTW Iceefag is retarded, his posts are not rooted in any reasonable belief, they're focused solely on getting as much attention as possible.and his opinions are all over the place, with zero consistency or value.

25 -

I agree about a lot of the blame lies with the entertainment industry and social isolation. For years, I resisted the notion that gaming and TV violence was the culprit, but the preponderance of mass shooters seem to be heavy gamers

@Motorhead
There's also another point to be made, here, y'all think everyone should be armed all the time, and don't want to accept any restrictions on firearms, let me say this as a licensed CCP holder, who owns three hand guns, and an owner of several shotguns, there is no legitimate reason for ARs and similar weapons to be as common on the streets of our country as they are, first of all even the military doesn't allow soldiers to be armed at home, weapons are locked on base, and even going back to the old west, fire arms were prohibited inside city limits of most cities, even our most infamous places, like in Dodge city, and the actual battle at the OK corral, was basically the Marshall prohibiting guns and the gunfight was caused by the attempt to impose law and order.
Now I'm not suggesting that we take anyone's guns away as long as they aren't acting in a dangerous or threatening manner, but goddamnit, these kids committing the multiple shootings don't need to have, nor have any legitimate reason to own such high powered multiple shot weapons.There is no reason that the age limits are not 21 years old, just like the drinking age.

Mass shootings make the headlines but as hedious as they are they're a tiny % of murders - and part of the reason they get a lot of massive airplay it's bc it often involves white-perpetrators so the left will often jump on it to further their white-supremacy and anti-2nd-amendment narrative - in many large Dem cities there are the equivalent of a mass-shooting on any given weekend but since it's often black-on-black it doesn't fit nor promote the left's narrative.

20fag looks they did tge man like your family loves to kill. Beat him to death. Does that turn you on?

The same type of desensitization to violence responsible for some of you cheering on the likes of Alba or Rittenhouse is to blame for crimes such as this. The same mindset.

When you dehumanize Rittenhousds victims or Simon or any victim of police brutality or war. You engage in the same thinking that led these criminals to murder Lambert.

And we live in a country in a state of perpetual war the whole century. The government response to other nations is war and invasions. Police brutality is the norm. Militarized police. Paranoid gun culture. Growing up and seeing violence as the way to resolve anything. While media sensors images of said violence desensitized people. Add the right wing victim culture ie thinking you need a gun and potential violence coz they're all out to get you. And some capitalist selfishness. And you have today's amerikkka

@Papi
there's a shit load of these mass shootings, you know as well as anyone that they shouldn't be happening the way they are, and at such a frequency, there is no legitimate reason, for kids to be armed in such a way that they can spray 70 bullets in a school, come on man that's just common sense

There were more shootings and more died in Chicago’s south and west sides over the July 4th weekend than in Highland Park

But a bunch of black gangbangers getting killed on the southside doesn’t fit the same liberal narrative as a mass shooting in a white Jewish community. There’s no political capital to be gained

I don’t see that as a liberal narrative I see it as a tragedy, and fuck yes I’m pretty sure there’s plenty of room to be outraged about the gang bangers as well, neither one of those violent scenes speak well for our country, and neither are limited to one political party’s neighborhoods either.

It's 3AM. Do you know where your kids are?

"let me say this as a licensed CCP holder, who owns three hand guns, and an owner of several shotguns, there is no legitimate reason for ARs and similar weapons to be as common on the streets of our country as they are"

No one gets to decide what someone else "needs to have." Enumerated rights are not up for negotiation or debate.

The HP shooter should have never gotten any kind of a weapon, but Illinois has (according to Bloomberg's gun control outfit) the sixth-strictest gun laws in the country. His own father signed for his gun permit, after the kid threatened to kill his entire family, among other things.

The number of mass shootings is overhyped by the media so the left can pretend that 7 people being shot and killed all at once is horrific because they were killed with an AR-15 and 72 shot with 9 dead isn't newsworthy because they were killed with pistols. Simple fact is that 90% of all killed by guns are killed by pistols and the idea of gun control is the left's root to dominance. The Second Amendment allows us to keep guns to protect us from the Government. What the fuck is wrong with you people. Learn your fucking history. This fucking country started because Government tried to disarm citizens. It's in the DNA of every real American not matter how much the fucking foreign scum flooding here may dilute it. Yeah, you're right I am pissed, $2,000.00 is a good poker night, $1,900.00 sucks, just like those of you who don't understand that the second Amendment exists to protect us from the Government. I forgot - shout out to Kyle Rittenhouse for killing that left-wing garbage.

@Tetradon
I'm not iceefag, so don't take my statement and post it out of context, or cherry pick the part that supports your position, you left out this part

>>>>"Now I'm not suggesting that we take anyone's guns away as long as they aren't acting in a dangerous or threatening manner, but goddamnit, these kids committing the multiple shootings don't need to have, nor have any legitimate reason to own such high powered multiple shot weapons.There is no reason that the age limits are not 21 years old, just like the drinking age."<<<<

Then you have a complete look at my position, vey key to my entire point is the age limits, without that you are just totally misrepresenting my position and acting just like Iceefag.

I’m not a gun owner so I’ve always been neutral on gun control. If I had to make a choice, I side with the rights if the individual.

I read an interesting analogy yesterday. Let’s take driving a car. It’s legal, but you need to licensed and having a car doesn’t mean you can drive an Indy car on I-95

@25 thanks for the clarification. The "you don't need a whatever" is too far apart from that to draw that conclusion on my own, and is a common argument to ban the sales of semiautomatic rifles. Enumerated rights need no reason.

^ There are limits even on enumerated rights of which I give several examples, the problem is here, a right such as your right to swing your arm ends an inch before my nose, and if I perceive your arm as a threat then I have a right, to retaliate, at which point, as per the biblical quote, of an eye for an eye will eventually leave the entire world blind, unless a limit is set and enforced like in Dodge city in the 1870s.

There's a difference between outlawing a weapon type entirely, and preventing a credible threat.

I think there's good cause to restrict age if purchasing semi automatic centerfire rifles but it's not a "they don't need it" (we don't get to make that determination), it's a brain development issue. Far as I'm concerned social media should be examined to make sure they aren't making credible threats

I am a gun owner.

The ENTIRE 2nd amendment is one sentence:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



It was written so states could keep and maintain their "well regulated Militia" Today we call it the National Guard. Back then, the state militia did not have a central armory. The militiamen would KEEP arms at their homes and BEAR them in service to the militia.

But the fact was that most men outside of cities already had long guns for hunting. Who was to say who was in the militia and who was not? So all people had the right to keep and bear arms in case the need came to serve in the state militia. The militia was BYOG (Bring your own gun). Militias could be manned ad hoc if the need arose. It was useless to call someone to join the militia if they did not have a gun.

^ So you don't think any weapons should be outlawed, your next door neighbor's hobby of experimenting with mustard gas, or the other guy who's working on fissionable material, in the apartment nest door, or what about the amature biologist, who likes to experiment with germs like ebola, great to know there is no limit to the weapons that you find acceptable on our streets..We absolutely need some limits and giving kids the ability to own a weapon that has a multiple round capability, is insane, not saying a farmer shouldn't be able to own the means to protect his fields or a business owner shouldn't have the means to defend his property, but really buddy there needs to be some limits that's the nature of the debate we need to have, not this open climate of anything goes, that's happening right now.

^That above was for tetradon, you ninja'd me.

This thread really veered off course from the OP. Should we be banning traffic cones for the interest of public safety? Lol

^ Only the orange ones, I hear the Trump fans find orange cones offensive,LOL

"there needs to be some limits that's the nature of the debate we need to have, not this open climate of anything goes, that's happening right now."

We are not in an open climate of anything goes, funny that you say that right after talking about nukes and mustard gas and ebola. No one is talking about those, not sure that fits into anyone's concepts of arms.

That kid's weapon is the same one as the farmer's, only one is wood and blue steel and one is tactical black. They accept the same mag. The features that the Dems bill uses to distinguish an "assault" weapon, like a bayonet mount, or place to mount a grenade launcher, are laughable. No one is killing anyone with a bayonet.

The difference between the kid and the business owner is the intent, not the weapon. If I'm wrong and it is the weapon, tell me exactly what type of weapon you'd ban. You're a veteran and own guns, so please use precise terms.

That's above my pay grade,all I am willing to admit to is I believe we need some limits, the status quo is not acceptable, but unfortunately nobody is having this discussion, and I just live with the old adage, "if you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you've always got."

Sorry, but the bullshit about a well-regulated militia being the National Guard is just that: Bullshit. When the Constitution was written, a militia was specifically not the part of any government at all. They were volunteers who elected their own leaders and could go home at any time, for any reason. That is 100% not the National Guard. No wonder the left wants to re-write history. Every fucking fact is against them.

^ I hit post too fast, the difference between the kid and the business owner isn't intent, the difference is experience, maturity, and the ability to make decisions by evaluating the facts correctly.

@25, I don't disagree that we need to do something, but the fact that we have to do _something_ doesn't mean we have to do the first something that comes to mind.

Raising age of purchase of mag fed rifles is one idea. I'm sure there are others. But the left seems not to believe in civilian firearm ownership period, so I'm not sure there much to cooperate on

^ Funny how the left is always misrepresented in your narrative, anything that runs counter to your own opinion is called left as if it were an insult,, there seems to be an inability to understand centrist positions, anything that there is disagreement on, becomes part of your narrative, if you want to discus left or right, the extremes on either side are not representative of either group, most on the left aren't antifa, nor BLM supporters, just as most on the right aren't KKKers or Proud Boys, so lets cut the bullshit, if you want to have a solid discussion it needs to be issue by issue, I'll leave you with a single thought, no person is always left nor always right, we all have opinions that fit into both camps, I'm quite centrist, and so are most, but this narrative that just paints everything in absolutes, is unAmerican, this country is center led and leans to different sides depending on what is the actual issue, so when you say stupid shit like the left is against gun ownership or wants to take away everyone's guns you become part of the problem and that's the true disappointment of our times.

^ Not saying you are, you're pretty centrist as far as I can tell. But between the likes of Feinstein, O'Rourke, Biden, Swalwell, there has been either overt disrespect for the right to bear arms as an individual right, expressed desire to confiscate certain weapons, or comments suggesting that the government would use firepower to go after armed citizens.

It's hard to negotiate with someone when you know their endgame is "you lose."

Biden hasn’t made any moves to take away anyones guns and has pretty much governed as a centrist, he hasn’t tried to remove the filibuster, problem here is he’s not been effective in doing what he set out to, you’re forgetting he was elected because he wasn’t trump, not interested in debates over whether he good or bad, and overall he just isn’t trump that’s his first priority
If he had a bit more support he might have pulled a Clinton move like going after sister dolman who were the progressives and wikiss back then, but without support he doesn’t want to alienate the progressives that are causing him much discomfort

^Soulja. Not Dolman

How many mass shootings have been prevented by citizens with assault rifles?

How many non right wing extremist militias are there?

"Biden hasn’t made any moves to take away anyones guns and has pretty much governed as a centrist"

Talking about his comments about the government having fighter jets, etc.
He has talked about an "assault weapon" (quotes as this is a scare term) ban.

Taking away half a billion guns is a literal impossibility. Few law enforcement officers will do it. But that doesn't take away the left's stated desire to do so.

He hasn't governed "as a centrist," only less left than the completely utterly batshit progressive agenda that would spend us into Venezuela. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Until you stop talking about the left like it’s some kind of monolithic entity I really don’t want to bother having this conversation
All I’m going to say is you’re wrong.

^ Until you can show me a few progressive Democrats who respect the second amendment as written and adjudicated, I'm going to keep calling them like I see them.

How many mass shootings have been prevented by citizens with assault rifles?

How many non right wing extremist militias are there?

Any one who thinks all left leaning folks are against the second amendment is lying out loud, we all know many right wingers who don't own guns, and an equal amount of left wingers that do, this isn't a real argument, this is just populist crap that a few extremists politicians use to keep the electorate riled up to raise money and keep sensible debate off the screens we watch and read.
Any one buying into this agenda is being duped by folks that have a vested interest in keeping the status quo from being changed because they know better even if you don't.

@tetradon
there are numerous left leaning folks that don't buy into the progressive agenda, so quit it ,just to name two well known non progressive Democrats Joe Manchin, Krysten Sinema, Bernie Sanders is a well known progressive who is pro gun ownership, I'm not going to keep debating this issue, you are wrong period.

LOL you keep saying you're not going to keep debating the issue but you keep flogging it.

Manchin and Sinema are Democrats but hardly leftists.

Here are Sanders' positions, indistinguishable from anyone else on the hard left: https://berniesanders.com/issues/gun-saf…

That's you making inaccurate statements again, you don't distinguish between left leaning, and hard left, so you have no issue being labeled a right wing extremist because if there's no difference in one direction there can't be any difference in the other, that give the lie to your description of yourself as a centrist.
BTW you can describe Manchin and Synema any way you like, the folks that vote for them are generally Democrats, and by that very label, they are left leaning. Basically all you're trying to do is split semantic hairs.

I never described myself as a centrist. I consider myself center-right or conservative, in a Burkean rather than Trumpian sense.

I called _you_ a centrist, based on all our conversations that's the label that seems to fit.

Manchin and Sinema are fairly moderate Democrats, last of a dying breed. So are moderate Republicans but they're not being discussed here.

Sanders, I put his words out there. Those are not the words of a pro-gun Democrat. He used to be more pro-gun until he changed to get broader leftist support.

Please this is tiresome, you just want to have it both ways, Trumpism is not, nor has it ever been conservatism, and you just keep trying to keep the baby, and the bathwater, as opposed to spilling them both out, tell me is Bill Buckley a conservative, how about George Will.
My point is todays so called conservatives have long ago, lost their integrity defending the indefensible.

^ I've expressed my views at length elsewhere, including my dislike of Trump. If you choose to ignore this, that's on you.

Put whatever label on them you will; I won't lose any sleep.

Your dislike of Trump doesn't extend to standing up for the truth, you keep advancing the same arguments that the Maga crowd uses, and most of it is genuinely lacking in integrity.

^ Except that I'm citing facts and you're calling names.

That's not correct I'm not calling you names, I'm just calling it as it is, I haven't seen any facts, just seems to me that you keep trying to redefine words, left leaning is not lefty or progressive, and saying you're conservative is not an excuse for citing Maga propaganda and calling it facts.

I am not citing MAGA propaganda. Trust me, I find MAGA propaganda more obnoxious than you do--probably because it gets used to slime me.

You said Sanders was pro-gun, I posted a direct link to his platform that is indistinguishable from the rest of the American left.

Here's Beto O'Rourke saying "Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47." And it's CNN so no one can say it's from a right wing source. (https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12/politics/…)

Biden has made a million dumb quotes about guns, including saying a 9mm round can "blow the lung out of the body" that there's no rationale for it in terms of self-protection or hunting, sounds a lot like a desire to ban, to me.

Here's Eric Swalwell proposing a mandatory buyback (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congres…). Elsewhere, he mentions using force against resisters.

I've had several conversations with otherwise-reasonable friends on the left who believe the right to own a firearm does not apply to individuals as well.

We can quibble definitions of moderate, center-left, left, leftist, liberal, hard-left all day and night, but nowhere do I see a party that respects my right to keep and bear arms as stated in the plain language of the Second Amendment. If we, as a country, decide to do away with the 2A, there's a process for that. But that goes to a larger issue where I see a left that doesn't respect the separation of powers (see what they want to do to the Supreme Court after the recent decisions).

This is the argument, you keep telling me which politicians speak for me and come up with all the progressive standard bearers, I haven't lit into yo for Lindsey Graham or Ted Cruz, nor any of the other hypocrites that constitute the new right wing,you keep harping on constitutional rights, as if it's still 1825 or 1776, trust me on this, things need to change because this country is nothing like the place I grew up in and I don't really care to keep on back and forth about stuff that all of this isn't going to make one iota of difference, and whether you agree or not, telling people that there is a process for changes to be made then trying to tilt that process away from those that need the relief, is disingenuous at best, so I am more aware than anyone, that nothing I say is going to change a single mind anyway, do me the respect of telling me what you stand for, not what the mythical left stands for, they can define them selfs very well, no matter what anyone here thinks, there will be a reckoning, and that is not going to be a settlement, the way anyone wants I guarantee that the longer this goes on the worse the settlement will prove to be.

On another note, I never thought I'd see the day that New Jersey would have concealed carry. Of course they're making the process overly complicated, not to mention expensive. I'm not rushing too fast to apply because every day the requirements seem to change, and as little nuanced questions are answered, others ones spring up.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to getting licensed mostly for the principle of it. I'll probably spend one day walking around strapped just for fun and that'll be it. I wouldn't mind having some protection in my car, say in the pocket behind the passenger seat or the compartment on the driver door, but that's one of those questions I haven't seen addressed yet, to what extent that sort of accessibility may be regulated.

@25, nowhere did I say or imply that any of this is what you believed. I hate when others put words in my mouth, so I don’t do that to anyone else. In our conversations, public and private, you have never identified yourself as a leftist or a Democrat, so I’m not imputing anything to you. I posted what the left defines itself as in their own words, not Tetradon’s.

I’m a registered Republican, but not a fan of either. I believe I’m called Lindsay Graham a “sycophant” and a “worm” here, and I don’t think much better of Cruz.

I believe in an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, because if it doesn’t mean what the authors say—and they’ve given a lot of commentary on it via the Federalist Papers and others—it means whatever the most powerful person in the country at the time thinks it says. We get a rule of men, rather than a rule of laws. And I believe that once we can disregard the second amendment once it becomes expeditious to, it becomes a precedent to disregard the rest of the Bill of Rights when convenient.

Justice Felix Frankfurter said “the history of liberty has largely been the history of the observance of procedural safeguards.” There’s an amendment process, and even a process to write a new constitution. That’s also why I’m wary of any call to shut down thought or debate on an issue, like with a thought-terminating cliché like “the Constitution is not a suicide pact” or “desperate times call for desperate measures.”

That’s also why the scariest discussion in DC, to me, is when one side doesn’t get their way, they want to rewrite the rules. Right now this is ending the filibuster and packing the Supreme Court, though the GOP has been guilty of this as well (not giving Garland a hearing in 16).

Right. Nothing scarier than giving women rights and not letting right wing militias arm themselves.
No one will answer....

How many mass shootings have been prevented by citizens with assault rifles?

How many non right wing extremist militias are there?

^ Concealed carry prevents mass shootings. That's why they happen in gun-free zones.

Ask Antifa and the John Brown gun clubs about left wing militias, though most are pretty fucking incompetent. In the Second Amendment, the militia refers to all able-bodied males.

Glad I could educate you ;)

You're saying mass shootings only occur in places with stricter gun laws. That's a lie.

When did someone with a concealed weapon take out a mass shooter?

The 2nd amendment referred to a system where each town had volunteers that were called up to form sn army if needed ie the national guard is more like colonial Era militias than a paranoid fuck with retarded commandos or an ak47.

^ 2A came long before the national guard. Either pass and amendment repealing it, or cope harder.

Here are a few examples of concealed carriers stopping mass shootings. https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-exam…

Besides, women need guns to protect themselves from abusive pimps and wannabe rape cult leaders...

An off duty cip shot a man with a knife. How about all those people shooting mass shooters with a concealed hand gun? 🤡

How about the human excrement future democratic party voters who beat the old man to death boy? What's up with that Icee boy? Go fuck yourself bitch. The national guard is something you cannot leave once you sign up Icee. Are you really that fucking stupid you little boy molesting piece of shit?

There is no reason to give up Constitutional rights because of a relatively few horrible incidents. Every year more people are killed by knives, blunt instruments, or beaten to death than are killed by rifles (of which so-called assault rifles are a subset).