3
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 3 points ago +4 / -1

Congrats on entirely missing his point. Your retardation makes the rest of us look bad too. Fuck off with your pure stupidity.

8
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 8 points ago +8 / -0

You overestimate their intelligence if you think they're capable of admitting and/or recognizing this as reality - much less to grow from it.

1
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 1 point ago +1 / -0

A gematria... for letters?

What base do you suggest they'd be using? Certainly past hex.

15
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 15 points ago +17 / -2

Seriously. Posts like this make you seriously question the intelligence of the people here. This is stickied and upvoted by 67 idiots at the time of writing.

Hell, even if there was any circumstantial evidence at all to support this it'd be passable.

But no, we're just supposed to believe that Ukraine's color scheme dating back to ~1848 is a Q sign. Hell if Q had any control over things in that year, then Q is our enemy for allowing us to be put into the current world state of affairs. That's a much more reasonable conclusion from the above information than, "hurr colors mix and make green hurr must be Q. Why am I mixing the colors you ask? Uhh, it's Q don't question it."

This just makes us look bad. It's sad and detrimental to actually trying to understand the current state of affairs.

1
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 1 point ago +1 / -0

Likely not. Without taking population into account for each category, this above data is useless.

1
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's God's job. Hades, and later, The Lake of Fire, are much much worse than anything we could ever do on Earth - and the latter lasts for eternity.

2
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's Joe Biden's name, but it's not his secret service calltag. It has a different context.

5
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 5 points ago +5 / -0

I'm not saying that definitively you're wrong, but it's absolutely possible to be hit and not react - to be hit fatally and walk it off for a few minutes. It's in no way implausible in the grand scheme of things.

7
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 7 points ago +7 / -0

Show me you don't know shit about history... by explicitly showing me that you don't know shit about history.

Jefferson literally wrote a passage into the Declaration of Independence condemning slavery as evil. A very large portion of the founding fathers wanted to get rid of slavery but saw that the brand new country had many things on it's plate at the time. Washington, Jefferson, and several others gave up their slaves upon death.

1
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 1 point ago +1 / -0

Again, if your child is treating firearms like this, they aren't ready for them. It's a serious topic and they should understand that before you're even thinking about handing them a firearm. There's not a single thing confusing about, "direction of least consequence" - and I didn't pull that phrase out of my own ass, either.

1
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 1 point ago +1 / -0

Imagine teaching a kid to point it in a place with the least consequences, you leave it up to their own interpretation of what that means.

If your kid is too stupid to understand the significance of a firearm and understand what, "direction of least consequence" means, then he's not ready for firearms. That's a case by case basis, and I don't know anyone who would fall into that category at the time they were being taught how to use firearms.

These rules aren't meant to be left on their own - they're meant to be explained and understood.

1
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 1 point ago +1 / -0

In what possible way is maintaining the best possible orientation of a firearm not practical?

1
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 1 point ago +1 / -0

A really good one is to know what's behind and around the intended target to prevent damage or injury to another person or yourself.

This is entirely covered in, "direction of least consequence."

3
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 3 points ago +3 / -0

Where did they recently touch Miranda rights or voting rights?

1
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 1 point ago +1 / -0

A single unprotected shot?

Did everyone who fought before ear protection was standardized lose the ability to properly hear?

Yes, very much so. Sound is measured in decibels - which is on a logarithmic scale. Immediate hearing damage starts at around 120-130 dB of sound pressure. This varies slightly from person to person, but even a .22 is about 125-130 dB in volume.

Sound is wack so to just give a high level overview - Sound energy doubles every 3 dB, and sound pressure doubles every 6 dB. In other words, you don't want to fuck with it. Gunfire is LOUD.

The guy who invented the suppressor did so because he went completely deaf from shooting too much. Double up on all shooting environments.

3
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 3 points ago +3 / -0

There are only 5 good gun laws; Treat all firearms as if they are loaded. Always keep your firearm pointed in a safe direction. Finger off the trigger until ready to fire. Be certain of your target, line of fire, and what lies beyond it. Always wear appropriate eye and ear protection.

Your first four are better summarized in three:

  1. Always keep the firearm pointed in the direction of least consequence.
  2. Finger high and off the trigger until ready to fire
  3. Keep it unloaded until in use (carrying is in use)

The 3 rule standard is better/simpler than the 4 rule standard.

6
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 6 points ago +6 / -0

Even with those 5 you could eliminate the ear protection if you are deaf.

False. Deaf people can still get tinnitus.


Ear protection is no joke. Double up on it every time you shoot. A single unprotected shot - even from .22 - is permanent irreversible hearing loss/damage.

2
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 2 points ago +2 / -0

The most woke part happens at a bar, and involves a bell being rung because, "muh feminism." It annoyed me quite a bit but it didn't ruin the film by any means.

10
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 10 points ago +10 / -0

Of course - I meant legally there is no distinction.


For a practical aspect, there are pros and cons to open and concealed carry both. Comfort, accessibility, etc, but I would say the most important are:

  1. Open carry puts you at a greater personal risk and this has been demonstrated in real examples over the years, from physical attacks to verbal ones, and

  2. Concealed carry does not help normalize the 2nd like open carry does.

18
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 18 points ago +18 / -0

TN is a constitutional carry state. Open vs concealed makes no difference in TN.

7
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 7 points ago +7 / -0

I'd love to hear some sources for these claims.

Texas doesn't have a waiting period. There's no firearm that the shooter had that are exclusive to LEO/military. The guns don't perfectly match the LV Shooter. How would you know if the Discord members were FBI?

You have several questionable statements and absolutely zero sources provided. Your comment doesn't pass the sniff test. This needs to be addressed before anyone stupidly parrots blatantly false statements.

3
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 3 points ago +3 / -0

Remind me, what's the last thing the NRA has done for us?

The only thing they're useful from is shielding the good organizations from liberal attacks.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›