Or knives, or clubs, or fists, or feet, or katanas, or vehicles, or nunchucks…
Cut off your penis to help prevent rape.
As if anyone in the states is bringing a knife to a gunfight
Katana
Why didn’t you throw nunchucks in there?? Go all out!
I…I did include nunchucks. Forgot hammers. You may assume everyone in America packs a gun, but it’s a small minority. Some do it legally and others don’t.
There are countless examples of people bringing not-a-gun to a gun fight. Further reading: Anthony Huber, Joseph Rosenbaum
Dev wrote:You're whole platform is about normalizing idiocy.
McParadigm wrote:Posing for a gun-themed Christmas photo is just the conservative version of identity politics. Everybody likes their own brand. Shrug.
Yeah it's just tribal signaling. Like hanging up a BLM flag outside your house.
More like staging a family Christmas photo where everyone is wearing a mask and has a knitted “I believe in science” sweater.
Liberal tribal signals are a lot less likely to center around religious holidays or the concept of family, admittedly.
We’re finally saying “Merry Christmas” to genetic dead-ends again, folks.
blueviper wrote:School shooting or not, why would you even pose for a picture like that? They love their guns so much?
Such weird fascination with guns; especially ones that shouldn’t even be used for hunting or target practice…really the only two ways citizens would be using a gun
I agree that the picture is cringe-inducing, but he’s a politician trying to show his constituents what a patriot he is. “I stand for your rights!” I get it.
What’s your background with firearms that allows you to make a determination on which guns are suitable for hunting or target practice? Those icky looking black guns are likely chambered in cartridges with myriad hunting applications. As for saying they shouldn’t be used for recreational shooting (i.e. target practice), that’s just bizarre. Perhaps what you meant to say was, “Those guns look scary to me, and I want them outlawed.”
You also missed self-defense as a way citizens use guns. Probably an honest oversight.
Because we’re in the 21st century and should have gotten “the Wild West “ out of our system by now.
I own several guns and inherited more when my dad passed away. They are locked up and only come out for going to the gun range (which hasn’t been since 2019). I don’t need to take selfies with them. I don’t need to keep them on the mantle to stare at. I don’t need to carry them in public to show I have 2nd amendment rights.
I left out self defense on purpose because that’s the usual “go to” to own a gun. You don’t need any of those xmas pic guns for self defense.
I like shooting targets at the gun range. I hate the idea of using it on a human.
It’s just a weird implement to be in love with. It’s not a kitchen aid mixer or guitar or golf club. It’s a gun.
blueviper wrote:School shooting or not, why would you even pose for a picture like that? They love their guns so much?
Such weird fascination with guns; especially ones that shouldn’t even be used for hunting or target practice…really the only two ways citizens would be using a gun
I agree that the picture is cringe-inducing, but he’s a politician trying to show his constituents what a patriot he is. “I stand for your rights!” I get it.
What’s your background with firearms that allows you to make a determination on which guns are suitable for hunting or target practice? Those icky looking black guns are likely chambered in cartridges with myriad hunting applications. As for saying they shouldn’t be used for recreational shooting (i.e. target practice), that’s just bizarre. Perhaps what you meant to say was, “Those guns look scary to me, and I want them outlawed.”
You also missed self-defense as a way citizens use guns. Probably an honest oversight.
Because we’re in the 21st century and should have gotten “the Wild West “ out of our system by now.
I own several guns and inherited more when my dad passed away. They are locked up and only come out for going to the gun range (which hasn’t been since 2019). I don’t need to take selfies with them. I don’t need to keep them on the mantle to stare at. I don’t need to carry them in public to show I have 2nd amendment rights.
I left out self defense on purpose because that’s the usual “go to” to own a gun. You don’t need any of those xmas pic guns for self defense.
I like shooting targets at the gun range. I hate the idea of using it on a human.
It’s just a weird implement to be in love with. It’s not a kitchen aid mixer or guitar or golf club. It’s a gun.
You just have an average to above average sized penis.
McParadigm wrote:Posing for a gun-themed Christmas photo is just the conservative version of identity politics. Everybody likes their own brand. Shrug.
Yeah it's just tribal signaling. Like hanging up a BLM flag outside your house.
More like staging a family Christmas photo where everyone is wearing a mask and has a knitted “I believe in science” sweater.
Liberal tribal signals are a lot less likely to center around religious holidays or the concept of family, admittedly.
We’re finally saying “Merry Christmas” to genetic dead-ends again, folks.
What does that even mean?
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
blueviper wrote:School shooting or not, why would you even pose for a picture like that? They love their guns so much?
Such weird fascination with guns; especially ones that shouldn’t even be used for hunting or target practice…really the only two ways citizens would be using a gun
I agree that the picture is cringe-inducing, but he’s a politician trying to show his constituents what a patriot he is. “I stand for your rights!” I get it.
What’s your background with firearms that allows you to make a determination on which guns are suitable for hunting or target practice? Those icky looking black guns are likely chambered in cartridges with myriad hunting applications. As for saying they shouldn’t be used for recreational shooting (i.e. target practice), that’s just bizarre. Perhaps what you meant to say was, “Those guns look scary to me, and I want them outlawed.”
You also missed self-defense as a way citizens use guns. Probably an honest oversight.
Because we’re in the 21st century and should have gotten “the Wild West “ out of our system by now.
I own several guns and inherited more when my dad passed away. They are locked up and only come out for going to the gun range (which hasn’t been since 2019). I don’t need to take selfies with them. I don’t need to keep them on the mantle to stare at. I don’t need to carry them in public to show I have 2nd amendment rights.
I left out self defense on purpose because that’s the usual “go to” to own a gun. You don’t need any of those xmas pic guns for self defense.
I like shooting targets at the gun range. I hate the idea of using it on a human.
It’s just a weird implement to be in love with. It’s not a kitchen aid mixer or guitar or golf club. It’s a gun.
You just have an average to above average sized penis.
Evanston buyback event nets 53 guns, ammunition a week after fatal shooting
Less than a week after a 17-year-old was killed and five others were wounded in Evanston, IL, a gun buyback event netted police one of the largest caches of weapons ever turned in during such an effort.
A total of 53 guns and ammunition were turned into police during the Dec. 4 buyback at Evanston’s Mount Zion Baptist Church. Included in the collection of weapons were rifles, shotguns and various handguns.
“The goal is to get guns off the street,” said Evanston police Officer Enjoli Daley. “This is about safety. This is about stopping violence. This is about getting guns off the street and out of homes where they may be potentially stolen if they’re not kept or stored properly.”
The event was open to residents of Evanston, Skokie and the North Side of Chicago, according to a news release. Residents were invited to turn in unwanted guns and were paid $100 cash for each gun and $25 for ammunition.
It was an opportunity for at-risk community members to turn in guns and “turn away from criminal activity,” according to a news release promoting the event.
“We don’t want people to feel that if they bring something in they’re going to get in trouble for it,” she said. “This isn’t focused on arrests.”
Police partnered with the Evanston Community Foundation, Mount Zion Baptist Church and Carolyn Murray to host the event.
Murray has worked to end gun violence after the murder of her son, Justin Murray, who was shot and killed in Evanston in 2012. No one has ever been prosecuted in that crime.
“People who heard about my son, corporate sponsors, donated the money,” said Murray, who was at the Dec. 4 event. “We’ve been able to do this for over nine years with money that came out of the community.”
“It’s so important to have a partnership with the police,” she added. “The Evanston Police Department has been very instrumental in the success of this. It was an outstanding overwhelming response from the churches throughout Evanston that have been very supportive of this program.”
The collection was held less than a week after Carl Dennison, 17, was shot and killed and four other teens were wounded in a single Nov. 28 shooting in the 1900 block of Green Bay Road.
A 29-year-old man was also shot and wounded on Howard Street in an unrelated incident the same night. As of Tuesday, police have not announced any arrests in the shootings.
Murray said she was encouraged that the buyback event resulted in 53 guns and ammunition being turned into police, but she also said there’s still a lot of work to do concerning gun violence.
“Not even a week ago there was another fatal shooting not too far from this church,” she said of the recent shootings. “We have to start strategically looking at how we handle gun violence. It’s not so much that it’s in your neighborhood. It’s in the nation and it’s in my town.”
McParadigm wrote:More or less what Roberts was warning the Court’s Texas decision could lead to, by providing precedential run-arounds on protected rights.
Didn't they punt on it on ripeness grounds or whatnot? They didn't decide on the merits of the case, unless I'm mistaken.
McParadigm wrote:More or less what Roberts was warning the Court’s Texas decision could lead to, by providing precedential run-arounds on protected rights.
Didn't they punt on it on ripeness grounds or whatnot? They didn't decide on the merits of the case, unless I'm mistaken.
You’d have to ask Justice Roberts why he felt the Court was in effect opening that door. I’m merely observing what he wrote.
