or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by BR

A Bernie Sanders presidency and the rise of the millennials as a true force for change if all goes well.  
Despite all the mass shootings that make the news, more people are killed by guns in their own homes (19,000+ suicides with guns alone in 2010).  We (if we are the right color and not confronted by police) are safer now than we ever were, but at the same time, the 24 hour news cycle makes us feel like it's more dangerous than ever.     I like how Crowley put it.  Statistical irrelevancies.  We don't need to be armed to the teeth to deal with those.  And seriously, no...
Don't openly carry firearms to make political statements. Just fucking go hunting with them or go to your firing ranges and leave everyone else the **** alone. Open carry political statements unnecessarily scare people--makes them literally fear for their lives. On what planet is that okay?
Seriously, is the concept of no gun stunts so hard? I'm glad SDW at least gets that part.
Is it not reasonable to fear for one's life when someone openly carries a gun in an inappropriate location?
Open carry of an assault rifle at a restaurant to prove some bullshit political point should very much be treated as assault.  There is a reasonable expectation now that an assault weapon in a crowded, public place could instantly turn into Aurora or Lafayette.  How am I supposed to know what your motivations are?  You have the deadly weapon in a place that has no fucking need for it.     Zero fucking reason to have an assault weapon at a Wendy's other than political...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault Open carry of a gun at a restaurant fits definition #1 of assault, especially given the mass shootings in public places in the last several years.  It is quite reasonable to have apprehension of imminent harmful contact when you see a guy holding a gun in public.  I hope those gun nut loons who insist on proving some dickish point start getting arrested for aggravated assault.
It's actually up to you.  This feels similar to the reasoning that homosexual marriage will destroy heterosexual marriage, when in fact two women or two men pairing up do absolutely nothing to any existing heterosexual married couples.  The agency of one's marriage belongs to those parties involved--placing it anywhere else is absurd. Look, SDW, there's just a lot wrong with what you posted.  I don't mean wrong in the moral sense, but rather in the factually incorrect...
Stoking racial division my ass.  Confederate flag waving southern jackasses are doing that just fine all by themselves:  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/black-churches-targeted-arsonists/
New Posts  All Forums: