All of a sudden leftists want to arm up.
-
-
Yermom_Is_God — 2 months ago(January 30, 2026 02:33 AM)
Lol, that doesn't mean anything, Trump is more moderate than right, and he says stupid **** all the time, the right will never want to ban guns and Trump will back off of this every time he says something dumb and the right calls him out. You're just being fat. That said, Trump stupidly saying you can't have a gun at a protest is not the same as "the right wants to ban guns." But you know this, ****** man.
"I am Kamala Harris, my pronouns are she and her, and I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit." -A fucking idiot -
-
Yermom_Is_God — 2 months ago(January 30, 2026 02:44 AM)
So nobody on the right said they want to ban guns? Ok, so we can agree you were fat and lying. Very good.
"I am Kamala Harris, my pronouns are she and her, and I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit." -A fucking idiot -
-
Yermom_Is_God — 2 months ago(January 30, 2026 05:04 AM)
It's exactly what they said.
Ok, maybe I'm wrong. If you can provide for me the video or quote where they said they want to ban guns I will concede. Go on, fatty, show me.
"I am Kamala Harris, my pronouns are she and her, and I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit." -A fucking idiot -
Yermom_Is_God — 2 months ago(January 30, 2026 06:34 AM)
Your side has spent the past week arguing that possessing a gun means you're a dangerous person and justifies being killed by the government.
Lol, that's obviously another lie, and none of your screenshots support that fake claim.
"I am Kamala Harris, my pronouns are she and her, and I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit." -A fucking idiot -
Yermom_Is_God — 2 months ago(January 30, 2026 06:56 AM)
I'm not, nobody on the right called for guns to be banned. Not one.
What you dishonest leftists are trying to cling to is that this idiot was shot while carrying. He had every right to carry, however, if you go out there intentionally to obstruct law enforcement and commit felonies, it will result in law enforcement confrontation, and if you're armed it creates a higher risk overall. He had a right to carry, this is true, but he decided to be a retard. Legal carry people are some of the most law abiding people in the country, deciding to carry and go and commit felonies is a retarded move. This dude chose to go out there and antagonize law enforcement and resist arrest. He had a right to carry, but he chose to be a retard in the process. This is very clear.
"I am Kamala Harris, my pronouns are she and her, and I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit." -A fucking idiot -
/.ㅤ — 2 months ago(January 30, 2026 07:34 AM)
Legal carry people are some of the most law abiding people in the country
He was a legal carrying person. The gun he had was legally owned and he had a permit to carry it, but none of that is even relevant. He wasn't even in possession of the gun when he was shot. It had already been removed. So they shot an unarmed person who committed the unforgivable act of trying to help up a woman who was being pepper sprayed.
Which iis the bigger crime: Helping the woman up, or the government executing an unarmed man who posed no threat? And which one are you more upset about? We'll call this the bootlicker test. I don't have high hopes you'll pass. Saying "it was stupid of him to get involved" is true and he'd probably agree with you at this point, but that's not a valid argument. This whole "Fuck around and find out" mantra that your side has been parroting relentlessly is the complete opposite of what conservatives have always professed to stand for. The party that said "Don't tread on me!" is now saying "The government treading on you is just what happens. You shouldn't have been so stupid. Sorry.". It's excusing government abuse in the worst possible way.
And it's gone way beyond just "FAFO" from your side. As those screenshots clearly show, the argument is now "If you possess a gun then that means you are dangerous/intend to kill people and so you should be shot". That's what conservatives on this website have been saying. That's what they have been saying all across the internet. That's what Kristi Noem, Kash Patel, Greg Bovino said. That's what your president Donald Trump said. Banning guns would be the right of where your party now stands. They defend shooting someone just for owning them.
My password is password. -
Yermom_Is_God — 2 months ago(January 30, 2026 08:56 AM)
/.ㅤ said...
Legal carry people are some of the most law abiding people in the country
He was a legal carrying person. The gun he had was legally owned and he had a permit to carry it, but none of that is even relevant. He wasn't even in possession of the gun when he was shot. It had already been removed. So they shot an unarmed person who committed the unforgivable act of trying to help up a woman who was being pepper sprayed.
Which iis the bigger crime: Helping the woman up, or the government executing an unarmed man who posed no threat? And which one are you more upset about? We'll call this the bootlicker test. I don't have high hopes you'll pass. Saying "it was stupid of him to get involved" is true and he'd probably agree with you at this point, but that's not a valid argument. This whole "Fuck around and find out" mantra that your side has been parroting relentlessly is the complete opposite of what conservatives have always professed to stand for. The party that said "Don't tread on me!" is now saying "The government treading on you is just what happens. You shouldn't have been so stupid. Sorry.". It's excusing government abuse in the worst possible way.
And it's gone way beyond just "FAFO" from your side. As those screenshots clearly show, the argument is now "If you possess a gun then that means you are dangerous/intend to kill people and so you should be shot". That's what conservatives on this website have been saying. That's what they have been saying all across the internet. That's what Kristi Noem, Kash Patel, Greg Bovino said. That's what your president Donald Trump said. Banning guns would be the right of where your party now stands. They defend shooting someone just for owning them.
expand
See you're missing the point, and you're doing it intentionally, obviously. He was there obstructing federal law enforcement, which is a felony, which he had a habit of doing. He had a right to be armed, I'm not denying that, but he went there armed with the intention of obstructing law enforcement and committing felonies, which he was doing. He was grabbed, resisted arrest and during the scuffle one agent grabbed his gun and other agents who didn't know his gun was grabbed heard the word gun, felt a threat and shot, all of this happened within 2 seconds. Now you can argue the officers were in the wrong, fine, maybe they were, my point is if you're going out there to commit felonies, yeah you put yourself in danger, but if you decide it to do it while armed, that increases your risk. This isn't a matter of if he had a right to walk around armed, which he did, it's a matter of intentionally putting yourself in that situation.
However, you and I both know you have an IQ of a Somalian, so you're going to come back with some random bullshit argument of he had a right to carry and blah blah blah, which I already acknowledged, so we really won't get anywhere.
"I am Kamala Harris, my pronouns are she and her, and I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit." -A fucking idiot -
/.ㅤ — 2 months ago(January 30, 2026 10:37 AM)
Yermom_Is_God said...
See you're missing the point, and you're doing it intentionally, obviously. He was there obstructing federal law enforcement, which is a felony, which he had a habit of doing. He had a right to be armed, I'm not denying that, but he went there armed with the intention of obstructing law enforcement and committing felonies, which he was doing. He was grabbed, resisted arrest and during the scuffle one agent grabbed his gun and other agents who didn't know his gun was grabbed heard the word gun, felt a threat and shot, all of this happened within 2 seconds. Now you can argue the officers were in the wrong, fine, maybe they were, my point is if you're going out there to commit felonies, yeah you put yourself in danger, but if you decide it to do it while armed, that increases your risk. This isn't a matter of if he had a right to walk around armed, which he did, it's a matter of intentionally putting yourself in that situation.
However, you and I both know you have an IQ of a Somalian, so you're going to come back with some random bullshit argument of he had a right to carry and blah blah blah, which I already acknowledged, so we really won't get anywhere.
expand
I'm not sure the racism was necessary but I do find the pre-concession amusing. "Please stop because we won't get anywhere." Is getting somewhere really what you're trying to do when you're always calling people fat gay liars? Really now? If so then you'd have a better chance of getting somewhere if you addressed actual points rather than ignoring them. I know that's hard for conservatives, since the facts are almost never on their side, but if you're interested in winning argument, take it from an expert like me, that's how you do it.
Now your argument is much more nuanced than the argument that has been adopted by most of the right. You seem to be expressing the belief that it was probably wrong to shoot Alex Pretti, but due to the chaotic situation the shooting may have been unavoidable. That's a respectable stance and there's a high probability that is exactly what occurred. But that's not the argument that is being made by most conservatives. They aren't saying it was a freak accident. They are saying it's exactly what should have happened, that Pretti possessing a gun was a sign that he was dangerous and why he should have been shot. If you're pro-Second Amendment then that should outrage you. It's not just the left pointing this out either. The NRA has also objected to how people like Trump have treated this shooting.
My password is password.