Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

IrrumaboMalum t1_iu2ksp6 wrote

Reply to comment by No-Professional-1884 in Shocking corruption: Federal agents capture Philadelphia Deputy Sheriff on video selling two of the guns used in deadly shooting after Roxborough High School football scrimmage by IdunnoabouttheseDems

oNlY cOpS sHoUlD hAvE gUnS!!!11

12

Joe_Jeep t1_iu44i2n wrote

oh boy the whataboutisms are here early

What part of "under no pretext" do y'all not understand? Stop going to bat for the cowards by bringing up other topics

7

No-Professional-1884 t1_iu4zs5c wrote

As a gun owning, 2A supporting progressive, wtf are you talking about? The fucking police are the #1 reason to be armed in this country.

7

Halasham t1_iu541ng wrote

Alternating capitalization is one way to indicate sarcasm. Similar to /s but more work to do.

2

IrrumaboMalum t1_iugyyz9 wrote

I'm pointing out a common duality demonstrated by some (many?) on the left wing who seem to believe at the same time that the cops are vile, filthy, racist bastards who will do anything they can to justify shooting POC (which is largely correct) and then turn around and often say that cops are the only people sufficiently trained and vetted enough to be allowed to carry (some will even go as far as to say own) guns.

I am also very left of center and own more guns than most right wingers and I cringe at the right wing who says "back the blue!" and at the left wing who says "only cops should have guns!"

Everyone needs to get a damned clue.

1

No-Professional-1884 t1_iuhbkws wrote

Gotcha. I couldn’t tell if it was that or if (and please pardon me) you were some right wing nut job taunting me for not wanting to lick a boot.

Stay strong comrade.

1

IrrumaboMalum t1_iuhc932 wrote

I'm still right of the anti-gun left while being left of center. I haven't done the whole "if you go far enough left you get your guns back" yet.

1

No-Professional-1884 t1_iuheiqc wrote

Weird thing is, I’m a lot farther left than most of those people and I still believe in 2A.

While there is a massive gun violence issue in this country, we aren’t doing enough to mitigate that in meaningful ways yet to begin to consider amending/modifying 2A.

1

IrrumaboMalum t1_iuhfo9m wrote

>Weird thing is, I’m a lot farther left than most of those people and I still believe in 2A.

That was the point of my "if you go far enough left you get your guns back" comment. Communists, for example, are historically pro-gun - and they are certainly much further left than the self-proclaimed socialists and progressives that make up the modern Democrat party.

It seems like the closer you are to the center and the further you are from the center, the more pro-gun you are. And then there is that odd range between them (us? me and you?) that is somehow staunchly anti-gun while being bracketed by unapologetically pro-gun people.

I, personally, have no intention of ever giving up my guns - since that would require putting trust in the government to keep me safe. And let's be honest - government hasn't done much...ever...to instill a sense of trust into any sane person.

2

psychcaptain t1_iu3r3t9 wrote

Unironically, yes. Well, that, and our Military.

So, let's throw the book at this guy.

−13

bikingwithscissors t1_iu3v7zd wrote

Here’s a real life example of why that’s a bad idea, and you choose to double down. Bold.

12

psychcaptain t1_iu3z0xw wrote

How's is this a real life example? The guy broke the law, and will spends years in jail?

You might as well be saying 'Murders happen, so we might as well never outlaw murders'.

I think it's a good thing this guy is going to jail for selling guns. Now let's take it a step further.

−5

chonkypot t1_iu3zpaw wrote

I think the other guy is saying that this is a prime example of why NOT to outlaw guns, because even the police will sell guns to you illegally. If you were to outlaw guns, only the non-law abiding citizens would have them.

9

psychcaptain t1_iu464y4 wrote

And if you outlaw tanks only non-law abiding citizens would have them.

And if you outlaw fighter jets, only non-law abiding citizens would have them.

And if you outlaw rocket propelled grenade launchers, only non-law abiding citizens would have them.

And if you outlaw biological weapons, only non-law abiding citizens would have them.

And if you outlaw missiles, only non-law abiding citizens would have them.

And if you outlaw giant mech robots, than only non-law abiding citizens would have them.

And if you outlaw Time Machines, than only non-law abiding citizens would have them.

And if you outlaw unicorns than only non-law abiding citizens would have them.

And if you outlaw dreams than only non-law abiding citizens would have them.

And if you outlaw comics, than only non-law abiding citizens would have them.

And if you outlaw dooms day machines, than only non-law abiding citizens would have them.

−2

Boring-Rhubarb t1_iu4uq1d wrote

Simpleton gonna be a simpleton 😂😂☠️

2

psychcaptain t1_iu4uzrg wrote

Just trying to write to your reading and comprehension level.

Which is to say, I think you should be very angry at your teachers and family right now, because they obviously let you down.

−2

Boring-Rhubarb t1_iu4vr5g wrote

Keep being a simpleton, simpleton 😂😂☠️☠️☠️

2

psychcaptain t1_iu4w9if wrote

Nah, there comes a time when you realize that the pig enjoys the mud, and I don't.

I'm off. I hope you find whatever you are looking for in life, Random Internet Person, and hopefully, whatever is, is wonderful and great, and not base or twisted.

−1

Boring-Rhubarb t1_iu500jb wrote

Simpleton gonna keep being a simpleton 😂😂😂☠️☠️☠️

1

bikingwithscissors t1_iu3zef3 wrote

It's a real life example because it's a cop selling guns illegally, disproving the idea that cops are the only ones responsible enough to be trusted with guns. Mexico is a broader example of how corrupt states with a monopoly on violence become incestuously connected to the criminal underground.

8

Gov_Martin_OweMalley t1_iu476mq wrote

That user is unfortunately a habitual liar. They have made some pretty bogus claims throughout this post.

6

psychcaptain t1_iu46dd4 wrote

And Netherlands and Germany are examples of peaceful nations that super strict gun control, in which none of that happens.

Oh and France. United Kingdom S. Korea New Zealand Australia Belgium Luxembourg Italy Spain Japan

−1

point_breeze69 t1_iu3xyvz wrote

Why?

6

psychcaptain t1_iu3yveo wrote

Because I would like to have a murder rate of school children to be comparable to that of other Western Nations.

I figure, The Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, France, UK, Australia, Japan, S. Korea, and Spain have had near zero school Shooting since guns were banned. Why not try what other countries are doing?

0

Gov_Martin_OweMalley t1_iu42vn8 wrote

None of those countries completely ban firearms they allow ownership to one degree or another, some much more strict than the others. So that begs the question, why are you lying?

Edit: Just for more visablity in pointing out that the above user is lying

France - A breakdown of what's required to purchase and own a firearm

UK - A Breakdown of the laws that allow ownership

Australia - Has more firearms in country than even before the confiscation scheme and you are still allowed to own and purchase.

Germany - Process to acquire a firearm.

Belgium - "As of 2022, 678,592 registered firearms are held by 168,349 people in Belgium, an increase of over 8,000 new registered weapons, according to statistics obtained from the Ministry of Justice by Belgian newspaper Sud Press. "

Netherlands - Permits avialabe for hunting and sporting

Here's a further breakdown for 16 other countries put together by the NY Times.

4

psychcaptain t1_iu45fce wrote

Honestly, I don't know where you get your information from. I can say, as someone who has lived in The Netherlands, Germany and Belgium, and frequently visited France and the UK, that those countries have effectively banned gun and gun ownership.

You know what is really going to blow your mind? Those countries don't even support the Castle Doctrine! If you live in the Netherlands, and someone is robbing your house, unless you are being physically threatened, your own defendable action is to retreat and call the police. You don't have the assumed right to protect your property! And yet, most forms of crime are much rarely in the Netherlands, especial gun violence. Now, from what I could gather from my Cousin, becoming a cop in the Netherlands is tough and a lot of training, so maybe you just get what you pay for.

I am sure there are limited situations in which someone might be able to get a shotgun or rifle (there is some sharpshooting traditions, as well as some old country laws) but to get those weapons is to go through so much legal effort, that it's beyond the majority of the population.

In any case, it is you that is the liar, but what is worse, you are ignorant of the world!

−1

Gov_Martin_OweMalley t1_iu46vs2 wrote

>Honestly, I don't know where you get your information from.

Legitimate sources, unlike you I don't make things up out of thin air to push an agenda.

France - A breakdown of what's required to purchase and own a firearm

UK - A Breakdown of the laws that allow ownership

Australia - Has more firearms in country than even before the confiscation scheme and you are still allowed to own and purchase.

Germany - Process for aquire a firearm.

Belgium - "As of 2022, 678,592 registered firearms are held by 168,349 people in Belgium, an increase of over 8,000 new registered weapons, according to statistics obtained from the Ministry of Justice by Belgian newspaper Sud Press. "

Netherlands - Permits avialbe for hunting and sporting

Here's a further breakdown for 16 other countries put together by the NY Times.

> I can say, as someone who has lived in The Netherlands, Germany and Belgium, and frequently visited France and the UK

Since you've already been shown to be dishonest, anything you say at this point is beyond suspect.

7