Trump Enslavement Syndrome - Orange man good. /r/The_Donald and any public demonstration of rabid pro-Trump enthusiasm in spite of all reason.

Destacado
Queesechake dijo:
They're just straight up pretending that the second amendment to our constitution doesn't exist now.
Ver archivo adjunto 8473780
Presiona para expandir...
bp5~2.jpg
 
Queesechake dijo:
They're just straight up pretending that the second amendment to our constitution doesn't exist now.
Ver archivo adjunto 8473780
Presiona para expandir...
you have to remember; for most of these people (on either side), all those laws and amendments protecting them only exist to protect THEM. They're not supposed to protect their "enemies" (i.e. anyone who doesn't agree with them). Those people support the "wrong thing", thus these protections do not apply to them.
Man, the realest black pill is seeing just how many people agree with Vaush's mindset; that it's not a question of principle, but more about whether or not their side is "winning".
 
LORD IMPERATOR dijo:
If this is how MAGA thinks, then when the Left comes back to power, they can take MAGA's guns.
Presiona para expandir...
Maybe not that exactly, but MAGA is underestimating the effect Trump has had on expanding authority of the executive.

Like his choosing to do rescissions constantly, so a future president could just defund ICE completely without needing approval from congress.
 
SBG dijo:
Maybe not that exactly, but MAGA is underestimating the effect Trump has had on expanding authority of the executive.

Like his choosing to do rescissions constantly, so a future president could just defund ICE completely without needing approval from congress.
Presiona para expandir...
Trump has never at any point in his life been pro 2A. He successfully infringed the second amendment more in his first term than Obama attempted and failed to do during his entire 8 years. He forced the ATF to ban bump stocks after even the ATF said they don't have the authority to do it. Just like with fag marriage, abortion, trannies, gun control, and everything else those fucking retards pretend to care about and be against - Trump is for all of it, and always has been.

Edit:
Screenshot_20260125_140036_X.png
 
Última edición:
Lurker dijo:
i'm struggling, genuinely struggling, to unravel the cognitive dissonance, the mental gymnastics, of the miggers who claim that alex pretti shouldn't have had a gun at a protest while simultaneously justifying why kyle rittenhouse brought a gun to a protest. the same people who jizz themselves over muh second amendment seem weirdly okay with people having their rights violated, as long as they're people they don't like.
Presiona para expandir...
How is this confusing? Rittenhouse brought a gun to defensively protect himself while guarding businesses from looting, burning citizens during a violent protest. It would reasonably follow that preventing rioters from ransacking a business could bring you into life-threatening conflict with them. Pretti brought a gun for no clear reason but we can assume: 1.) To physically stop ICE agents from detaining illegals 2.) To protect himself against ICE agents (meaning he was planning shoot federal LEOs) 3.) To protect himself against counter-protestors.

I agree with a lot of migger hate but you have to be retarded to be 1:1 comparing Rittenhouse and Pretti. It's defensive versus offensive intentions with consideration to the law. Yeah, he can show up with a gun and magazines, but in no case as an anti-ICE protestor could Pretti legally use his weapon unless a counter-protestor attacked him - were any counter-protesters there that reasonably wouldve attacked him? You can't anticipate conflict with federal agents and intend to use your gun as self-defense, thats fucking insane and not legal or reasonable.
 
James Brown dijo:
How is this confusing? Rittenhouse brought a gun to defensively protect himself while guarding businesses from looting, burning citizens during a violent protest. It would reasonably follow that preventing rioters from ransacking a business could bring you into life-threatening conflict with them. Pretti brought a gun for no clear reason but we can assume: 1.) To physically stop ICE agents from detaining illegals 2.) To protect himself against ICE agents (meaning he was planning shoot federal LEOs) 3.) To protect himself against counter-protestors.

I agree with a lot of migger hate but you have to be retarded to be 1:1 comparing Rittenhouse and Pretti. It's defensive versus offensive intentions with consideration to the law. Yeah, he can show up with a gun and magazines, but in no case as an anti-ICE protestor could Pretti legally use his weapon unless a counter-protestor attacked him - were any counter-protesters there that reasonably wouldve attacked him? You can't anticipate conflict with federal agents and intend to use your gun as self-defense, thats fucking insane and not legal or reasonable.
Presiona para expandir...
Rittenhouse crossed state borders while underage with a gun that is “not a handgun” to rabble rouse at a random protest. He should be happy that he shot at a pedo. This guy was at least in his state with a gun he is allowed to carry…

Carrying a gun is not and should not be considered as probable cause in the US. This is something the NRA usually agrees on.
 
James Brown dijo:
you can't anticipate conflict with federal agents and intend to use your gun as self-defense, that's fucking insane and not legal or reasonable.
Presiona para expandir...
Lmao, where were people like this back in '14 when dozens of militia members were in an armed standoff with the federal government over grazing rights, because that's exactly what happened. People 100% were armed in case Feds/ATF/BLM agents tried something, and after the fact, none of the people that were charged were hit with firearms charges, it was mainly all conspiracy to commit XYZ for other things.
 
James Brown dijo:
How is this confusing? Rittenhouse brought a gun to defensively protect himself while guarding businesses from looting, burning citizens during a violent protest. It would reasonably follow that preventing rioters from ransacking a business could bring you into life-threatening conflict with them. Pretti brought a gun for no clear reason but we can assume: 1.) To physically stop ICE agents from detaining illegals 2.) To protect himself against ICE agents (meaning he was planning shoot federal LEOs) 3.) To protect himself against counter-protestors.

I agree with a lot of migger hate but you have to be retarded to be 1:1 comparing Rittenhouse and Pretti. It's defensive versus offensive intentions with consideration to the law. Yeah, he can show up with a gun and magazines, but in no case as an anti-ICE protestor could Pretti legally use his weapon unless a counter-protestor attacked him - were any counter-protesters there that reasonably wouldve attacked him? You can't anticipate conflict with federal agents and intend to use your gun as self-defense, thats fucking insane and not legal or reasonable.
Presiona para expandir...
Another 2024 account. Every single time.
 
NakiNoRyu dijo:
Lmao, where were people like this back in '14 when dozens of militia members were in an armed standoff with the federal government over grazing rights, because that's exactly what happened. People 100% were armed in case Feds/ATF/BLM agents tried something, and after the fact, none of the people that were charged were hit with firearms charges, it was mainly all conspiracy to commit XYZ for other things.
Presiona para expandir...
"When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles."

At least they're being honest now. I would take away their freedom as well.
 
James Brown dijo:
How is this confusing? Rittenhouse brought a gun to defensively protect himself while guarding businesses from looting, burning citizens during a violent protest. It would reasonably follow that preventing rioters from ransacking a business could bring you into life-threatening conflict with them. Pretti brought a gun for no clear reason but we can assume: 1.) To physically stop ICE agents from detaining illegals 2.) To protect himself against ICE agents (meaning he was planning shoot federal LEOs) 3.) To protect himself against counter-protestors.

I agree with a lot of migger hate but you have to be retarded to be 1:1 comparing Rittenhouse and Pretti. It's defensive versus offensive intentions with consideration to the law. Yeah, he can show up with a gun and magazines, but in no case as an anti-ICE protestor could Pretti legally use his weapon unless a counter-protestor attacked him - were any counter-protesters there that reasonably wouldve attacked him? You can't anticipate conflict with federal agents and intend to use your gun as self-defense, thats fucking insane and not legal or reasonable.
Presiona para expandir...
Or, this guy brought a gun to defensively protect himself from counterprotesters

Besides, he was shot in the head AFTER ICE disarmed him. You're a piece of shit for defending this shit and are probably a MAGAloid who is ashamed to admit that he worships the ground that a pants-shitting, mush-brained pedophile walks on
 
James Brown dijo:
Pretti brought a gun for no clear reason but we can assume: 1.) To physically stop ICE agents from detaining illegals 2.) To protect himself against ICE agents (meaning he was planning shoot federal LEOs) 3.) To protect himself against counter-protestors.
Presiona para expandir...
I actually agree that this is COMPLETELY different than Rittenhouse, and that comparing the two is pretty lame. But the quoted text is pants on head retarded. Americans do not need a "good reason" or ANY REASON AT ALL to carry a gun on their hip.

I live in a fairly safe area. Very few niggers, mostly white working class people. I still never leave my house without a gun in my pocket or on my hip. Never. Not a single day. I carry where I'm not "allowed" to carry based off of signage. And I don't need a reason to.

Edit: Also the gun is a non-issue entirely. It wasn't even involved. Not involved by Pretti anyway.
 
Última edición:
James Brown dijo:
How is this confusing? Rittenhouse brought a gun to defensively protect himself while guarding businesses from looting, burning citizens during a violent protest. It would reasonably follow that preventing rioters from ransacking a business could bring you into life-threatening conflict with them. Pretti brought a gun for no clear reason but we can assume: 1.) To physically stop ICE agents from detaining illegals 2.) To protect himself against ICE agents (meaning he was planning shoot federal LEOs) 3.) To protect himself against counter-protestors.

I agree with a lot of migger hate but you have to be retarded to be 1:1 comparing Rittenhouse and Pretti. It's defensive versus offensive intentions with consideration to the law. Yeah, he can show up with a gun and magazines, but in no case as an anti-ICE protestor could Pretti legally use his weapon unless a counter-protestor attacked him - were any counter-protesters there that reasonably wouldve attacked him? You can't anticipate conflict with federal agents and intend to use your gun as self-defense, thats fucking insane and not legal or reasonable.
Presiona para expandir...
See, I agree with you that there isn't a 1:1 between Pretti and Rittenhouse. There are differences between the reasons the two were at their respective places as well as what they were doing prior to SHTF.
However, despite that, the assumption that he brought the gun to interfere with ICE appears to be baseless, given that we don't even see him trying to pull the gun when being pushed backwards by the ICE guy. From all the vids shared thus far, we don't see him reach for the gun. So him bringing it to physically stop ICE from detaining illegals doesn't seem likely.
As for buying it to protect himself from ICE agents or counterprotesters...as per 2A, Pretti had every right and then some to do so, if he felt his life were in danger. The EFFECTIVENESS of the gun is arguable; but if there was sufficient danger to self, Pretti could've used it and been in the right to do so. If he were to survive such a situation, he would have to argue his case before the court ala Rittenhouse. However, given all the shit that we have seen of govt officers (not just right now, but even before, during Biden's term) crossing their lines, arguments do exist on lethal action for protection against those crossing that line. To argue that one can't anticipate conflict with feds and intend self-defense in such a situation is so counter to both 2A and the 1776-principles of the US....I would suggest self-deportation to the original feds of England. They seem to subscribe to that sorta rule much more than the US should.
Surfherder dijo:
Rittenhouse crossed state borders while underage with a gun that is “not a handgun” to rabble rouse at a random protest. He should be happy that he shot at a pedo. This guy was at least in his state with a gun he is allowed to carry…
Presiona para expandir...
Ehhh...I'm not gonna lie, the whole "crossed state lines" is pretty BS given that he lived on the boundary of his state, and where he was was barely half an hour away; he had family and a part-time job there, IIRC. So "crossing state borders" always sounds like a cop out to me. I'm also unsure whether I'd count what Kyle was doing as "rabble-rousing", given he was trying to protect a business and put out fires started by other protestors.
 
I'm curious if anyone here knows why people of other countries decide to become miggers? I get it for third world shit holes like India pretending to be one on Twitter. A few hundred usd a month is life changing there. But why do Europeans decide to unironically worship a fat retarded pedophile? Especially one thats not their own countryman.
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo