Gun control

The parents gave the semi automatic gun to their 15y old as a gift, and didn't do anything about the severe mental health problems of their son.

At least this is what was proven in court and the reason why both parents were found guilty

Do you think the protests you participated in resulted in anything positive for your cause?

I think protests overall have only a tiny chance in resulting in anything favored by the protesters, and a larger chance of setting those against their cause more firmly against it.

Yes I think they pushed the center right gvmnt elected in 2022 to quickly remove all COVID related bullshit including the heinous, vomit inducing, suffocating masks, and they even managed to cancel fines for the unvaxxed and unmasked people enforced by the previous government. People who hold out paying the immoral fines were rewarded.

Similar to what Virginia governor Youngkin did when he was elected after the COVID related atrocities of democrats, campaigning against them.

Farmers just staged huge protests across the EU because the Marxists wanted to ban many pesticides and other stuff for the usual bullshit "science" reasons, they won and the pesticide ban has been cancelled.

I think you understimate the power of protests close to elections, and most countries have frequent elections

so you're on board with a "shoot to kill" when a protest gets out of hand? you realize that even the worst of nations on this earth generally don't behave this way.

fwiw, i am on board with the rittenhouses of the world, or the koreans who camped out on their businesses with AK47's during the LA riot. i am also on board with the police ESCALATING to deadly force during situations like this. i am not on board with an open fire order.

I understand your position and I believe you to be in good faith.

But you have to think about future consequences as well as present ones, like when you fully refuse to negotiate with terrorists, no exceptions.

You shoot to kill and even if people we would have preferred to be alive get killed in the process, you have fewer such occurrences in the future.

If you believably threaten to shoot to kill they stop.

And given the massive , horrendous crimes they are committing, reducing them in the future is a huge gain for society.

No one should even think to take arms against us (the state) and get out of it alive.

agree to disagree on this one. it's not like we are at polar opposites on opinions, i just think lethal force should almost always be the last option by the state.

You don't think police should shoot to kill, but you think teenage vigilantes looking for trouble should?? Bizarre.

I think warning should certainly be given in most cases before any shooting, but if someone is clearly committing a violent crime, I have no problem with them being shot. I certainly think the January 6 Capitol invaders should have been shot before they broke into the building.

he was defending himself. if he weren't, he'd be a murderer. he had every right to be out there. i have zero issue with a cop shooting someone who doesn't comply in a violent situation. being in the vicinity of a burning car doesn't qualify for execution.

also, in agreement that in a violent crime someone should be shot. property crime doesn't count unless lives are at risk.

both situations should have been handled differently. there is a big jump from differently to target practice.

Rittenhouse (a hero that I hope will inspire a whole generation or more) went there on purpose to find a reason to kill Marxists, and he found a legal one, which is one of the most moral things a person can do with his life, legally killing Marxists.

But police can kill them as well when they riot so, why not both?

Setting buildings on fire isn't only property crime (not that i agree with you property crime doesn't justify lethal force, because I think it does), the arsonists can't know of someone is inside or not

He was defending himself in the process of being a vigilante with the goal of protecting property which was not his own, and to which he drove from another state with a deadly weapon he illegally had. He was looking to get into a position where he could shoot someone, and antagonizing people who were doing things that had nothing to do with him. This is one of the incredibly stupid and violent people I feel no sympathy for; the world would be better off if he had been killed that night.

because the state needs to be held to a higher standard than the individual.

as for shooting an arsonist. sure, i can get behind that. again, a big jump from "open fire and kill them all," which is how this debate started.

I think the humanitarians meeting must be next door but wtf does this conversation have to do with this thread?

You are right jj

The essence of Luciom. Every thread is about Marxism and how we should strive to literally kill Marxists. You need help. Why is this allowed?

There is a thread where some people are pro Putin, another where some people are pro Hamas, but you have problems with me claiming that legally intervening in self defense against violent rioters is heroic, because I define them Marxists (after having explained at length why I think that's the case for BLM) and you disagree with that definition.

But you missed the part previously where I said that Jan 6 rioters should have met the same fate.

I mean perhaps my stated stance isn't allowed either but I can't see why I shouldn't be allowed to say what I said if it's allowed to literally be pro hamas, which is considered a terrorist organization by the country this forum servers reside in (afaik)

This thread is about trans visibility. You've attempted to justify calls for murdering innocent people by saying some people are Pro Putin and some Pro Hamas.

I have a problem with anyone being murdered. I have a problem with people who advocate for murder.

I didn't miss anything. Murder isn't politics, this isn't about transgendered humans or their politics. It's about you trying to coerce people to kill one another.

No I am not asking anyone to murder any innocent in any setting.

Murder is defined as unlawful killing, I am advocating for legal lethal action when the law allows for it, while heinous crimes are being committed in flagrancy.

But yes you are right that's OT right now, so why did you dig it up? Let's move to the general thread if you want to keep discussing it but please abstain to invent absurd accusations like that I call for murder when I literally write "legally killing".

The people advocating murder are the pro Putin and pro Hamas ones in this forum not me.

There is no such thing as lawful killing. The context is citing Rittenhouse who is a blatant murderer. He did exactly what you are advocating for which is murder people who would be alive if he decided not to take a drive with an AR.

Just because courts are captured with gun nuts, doesn't mean murder is okay. You're advocating for people to find technicalities to murder "Marxists". The "Marxists" in this this scenario just happened to be people outside trying defend themselves from a nut with an AR.

My claim is you're a disinformation agent (or working on behalf of them) to sow discord in the US. Your literally trying to normalize Americans killing each other.

He's not a murderer. He's an irresponsible reckless idiot who had no damn business being there, but not a murderer. Murder is a legal term and the video footage clearly shows he acted in self defence, within the context of crazy American gun laws, which is why he was acquitted. Self defence is a lawful killing as are some police shootings.

Imagine defending Kyle ****ing Rittenhouse, unreal.

I agree to an extent. But it's off topic. My point is the court can't be right -- at least if they are it's not a world I want to occupy. Teenage vigilantes prowling around looking for threats. I'm good on that. They can't even drive safely.

If you follow what the Luci dude has said, he claims trans are Marxists, all Marxists should be killed, and people should strive to find legal ways to kill people like Rittenhouse.

Good question. Why don't you report the posts instead of continuing the discussion?

Yes pretty much what u said. But he had no reason to be there?
He broke the laws by being there with a an assault rifle, machine gun. So he should have been punished. Hero? LOL

More like an idiot who killed innocent people. What was he afraid of again? A skateboard?