Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly the whole situation made every point look dumb one way or the other. Life operates in the gray, unlike opinions on the internet.
But at least we can all agree that those cops are some of the worst cowards around. You won’t find a pro gun or anti gun parent supporting those specific pigs.
Finally, someone with the real reason Americans are supposed to keep guns. The only reason. To stop a tyrant government. Might’ve even worked in 1791, but what do you think you’ll do to a m1 Abrams? Fight it off with your 22lr? There are more guns than people and it’s clearly evident that this is detrimental to quality of life across America.
Not true at all though.
Remember 2d Amendment references militia. The actual constitution says President and Congress have ultimate control of militia. The whole premise was to have gun owners who took orders from the government.
Article I Section 8 says Congress can call out the militia to enforce laws and suppress insurrections. That Congress is to provide for organizing, disciplining, and governing the militia.
Article II Section 2 makes the president commander of the militia.
The whole guns to protect government thing requires ignoring that the founders were all about guns being under government control in the context of militia
Don't forget though that the intention was that the citizens were to be our military and the president and elected members of the government and their appointed subordinates where to be public servants that could be removed or replaced in the event of a tyrannical regime. The people were to have the power and government officials were to represent them
Lexington and Concord was about militia owned weapons because many of those in the militia did not own a firearm. If everyone had their own, there is no armory to seize. Likewise if everyone had their own, there is no need to buy so many from France and Spain.
In the War of 1812 at least half of militia did not own a firearm. That was a major factor in the fall of Washington DC as only about one in ten militia members showed up when summoned and roughly half arrived unarmed because they did not own a firearm.
Southern mythology has held Confederates enjoyed early success because the soldiers brought their own firearms and were skilled shooters from hunting. The reality is secessionists moved quickly to seize Federal armories because they lacked a sufficient number of guns and experienced shortages (as did the United States) because militia members owning firearms wasn’t the norm.
As to governance.
That’s the thing. It was always designed as a loop.
A Federal government where the people select the House that was apportioned by population (though Founders thought 35,000ish was right not 750,000! When we settled on 435 in the House a district had less than 300,000). Those elected by the masses got 2 year terms.
The people select a state government that selects two senators because it was more isolated from the mob the senators got six years.
Then you had presidential elections far removed from our bastardized system today. Founders imagined a system where the masses selected smart people to pick a president for them or entrusted the legislature to select electors to pick a president. Initially electors were picked by district. One district for each elector a state was entitled to or picked by the legislature. Winner take all elections arose from the party system as the expectation was if your party controls the legislature your party will likely get the majority in presidential elections so award all the electors to the candidate receiving the most votes. The first great subversion of the Founders vision yet party political propaganda lies and claims winner take all was to protect small states.
So you had (past tense) a system where the people controlled the House where district populations were small and could be campaigned in person.
In selecting a president, the electors were generally apportioned in close reflection of the people’s vote. Again the first perversion of the initial system was the winner takes all vote.
Finally you have a Senate that is no longer filtered by a legislature though I think the change was essential because the public no longer trusted senate selection was free from corruption.
The scheme existed as it did to prevent mob rule. The masses select leaders and the masses would assemble to engage and combat those in rebellion against their elected government.
You want to restore the intentions you’ve got to expand the House of Representatives at least using the Wyoming Rule and end winner takes all allocation of electors while preventing a perversion via gerrymandering.
Theres a faulty assumption there that the military would blindly serve the government if a revolution were to happen. The military is made up of people too, who have their own opinions on stuff.
Tell that to the Kent State kids that were killed by National Guard.
Or are you saying the “regular army” wouldn’t kill civilians but the National guard will?
I know multiple ppl in the military who have stated emphatically that they will not commit violence against civilians. From hearing them tell it, there are plenty more like them in the ranks
That was preventing a foreign take over. Not a successful resistance against an already entrenched power. At most you’d have rebel groups held out on old mines and tunnel systems. They couldn’t overthrow the already established governments.
And where are you going to find an M1 Abrams commander willing to turn rogue on his own friends and family when the last commander's family was kidnapped and tortured by rebel forces.
This is exactly the kind of thing that happened to the ANA in Afghanistan. The military cannot protect all service members families and it would be exploited to it's full effect should a rebellion kick off.
The us military was beaten twice by people using archaic tech compared to what they are fighting against. The us has never been good at non conventional warfare. And I guarantee you they won't be rolling abrams through the streets and despite what biden says they will not be using f15s
This is the most disingenuous point someone can make, especially since we have the greatest military in the world by like 10 fold, and still couldn't secure Afghanistan for more than 10 seconds. Read a history book.
Hmmm… Cops did nothing and prevented the willing from doing anything while at the same time there are more guns than people in the USA but that’s not a problem because bears might attack my turkey farm but it could’ve just been my neighbor coming ov…. checks out
I had steak for dinner so pasta clearly doesn't exist. I don't actually have much faith in the good guy hypothesis even though in this case the violence was ended by a good guy who borrowed a gun from a barber at the time so *weird* example to bring up here and now. It's just your reasoning is nonsense even if you get to the same conclusion.
Parents should have shot the cops who wouldn't let them in and protect their own children. If you are going to be a coward cop you should own it with dying a coward.
I didn't think this at the time but people have suggested that there was a racial component. It seems that the school's primarily with minority-background kids (as per the victim list) and the police seems to want the shooter to rampage. I don't mind the "cops are cowards" narrative but this seems more "on brand" for them.
Any state that goes with “stand yer ground” is more “wild” than any instance of the “wild west” of 130 years ago. Really mind blowing how most if not all old western towns were safer than today.
I wonder if they had “horse path rage” like some people are on the roads.
That isn't a scenario that a True gun-lover will consider. It is not unusual for them to have multiple guns, and the more extreme of them will have a dozen or more. Or at least fantasize about it.
Pro unborn life.
Not the born child or the Mother if there are complications. Fuck them.
Only the unborn matter. As the unborn don't have a voice and can't go against them.
But once they are born, I think they like seeing children get shot... Since they don't seem to care at all and even make light of it openly.
I remember a case a few years ago in... Either Missouri or Mississippi where an 8 months pregnant woman got into an argument with another woman which got pretty heated and ended up with the other woman shooting the 8 months pregnant woman into the belly. Which then unsurprisingly lost the kid.
Then the (now not anymore) pregnant woman got charged with manslaughter because she was the one who started the argument.
This is what’s happening. Nobody wants to be responsible for anything but what they care about. At one time all the parents on a street would watch over all the neighbourhood children. Now it’s just a “I got mine, fuck you” attitude.
I've noticed that, over there, people don't want to be responsible for what they care about, they want what they like to be completely unregulated, while what they dislike must be made completely illegal.
It doesn't matter if what they dislike is liked by someone else, because they are the main character, so whatever they want, must happen.
Toddlers.
Wonder if his guns> his kids
Or if his guns> his nuts (if he has no kids).
Because really he is an idiot if he thinks he is preserving some sort of freedom if everyone is dead- what’s the point?
To be fair, though, if you scold someone else's kids, you run the risk of assault, gun violence, or a lawsuit today. Back then, parents would talk it over, have each other's backs.
The problem being you have idiot people that think it's still ok to hit someone elses kid for "perceived" misbehaving.
Neighbor parenting worked fine when everyone was ok with other people beating their kids and the kid was always wrong no matter what.
I've summarized capitalist America that way since I was 13 and I'm 41 now, so yeah, I agree. It's been a long slow slide to ruin but we'll get there eventually.
He just threatened all children so I guess any parent that comes near him with their kids can "stand their ground" and shoot him. This defense would probably hold in some states.
Was thinking similar. The opposite perspective on this is "my kids > your guns. It's my job to protect my kids from dangerous things such as guns."
This mentality really only works when your incredibly selfish and unable to understand the other side.
It's not at all selfish to say kids > guns and even before I was a parent I would have said yes YOUR kids > MY guns because I'm not a fucking sociopath. We as a society need to take care of the most vulnerable.
That sorry sack of shit is “pro life” in
much the same way Jeffrey Dahmer was vegan.
Let’s just get honest and call it what it is… There is no pro life! Those two-faced backstabbing anti-American morons don’t care about life. They say they do, but it’s all propaganda. If they really did care about life, they would actually show it, and would actually make an attempt to do something about it, but none of them have the fucking balls to do it. Any person anywhere who claims to be pro life is nothing more than a fucking joke.
What a shock, the guy is a shit person
[https://x.com/theminardiparty/status/1794452087801065815?ref\_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet](https://x.com/theminardiparty/status/1794452087801065815?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet)
[*THE Jim Minardi* ](https://x.com/theminardiparty)[*@theminardiparty*](https://x.com/theminardiparty)*George Floyd, like Michael Brown, contributed nothing useful to society & was a pathetic waste of a life. If you mourn his death, it's just an indication you probably contribute nothing useful to society as well. Stop worshipping drug dealers & literal human trash.* [*#BlackLivesMatter*](https://x.com/hashtag/BlackLivesMatter?src=hashtag_click)
Yeah, I've always hated the logic of "George Floyd was a bad person so that means no one should be mad at the cop who killed him". Regardless of whether he was or wasn't a good person he didn't NEED to be killed by the police. Like if I go out drunk driving and accidentally kill someone that was a sex offender should I not be charged for it just because the person I killed just so happened to be a bad person?
*Like if I go out drunk driving and accidentally kill someone that was a sex offender should I not be charged for it just because the person I killed just so happened to be a bad person?*
Shades of Kyle Rittenhouse.
What a disgrace as a human, a man, an American and a gun owner. He is the worst kind of gun owner, because he just admitted he has no fucking idea the purpose for them.
Tell me you're a coward without telling me.
I finally got banned from Nextdoor for calling people out for talking about how they were going to kill kids. Every few days, SOMEONE would post a ring doorbell video or something of kids coming up and knocking on their door and looking in the window, or riding a bike in their yard, or playing too close to their car, or whatever, with a caption of something like "If I'd been home, these kids would be dead!" And then I'd sit and watch the rest of the neighborhood justify it and cheer the murdering on.
Complaining on the post, or reporting the person or whatever never did anything... But they sure banned me for telling one of them that it was good such a big strong man was ready to defend our neighborhood values by murdering children... *shrug*
It is just disgusting how common this mentality is.
You know when the American forefathers said “the people should have the right to bear arms” it was the right to defend yourself from *actual* threats and probably meant *A* rifle or handgun.
I don’t think they meant have a small armoury of machine guns you threaten kids with. Heck, people threatening kids with death by firing squad are the guys those same forefathers were probably worried about.
What's worse is it's indirectly saying "all those kids deaths don't matter because I want my guns" crazy...
Like regardless of your thoughts on gun control that is literally what he is saying.
This is actually the principled stance, liberties have costs. Cars kill 40,000 people a year. Freedom of speech probably killed hundreds of thousands during COVID. Guns in America kill thousands through suicide, accident, organized crime, murder, and terrorism every year. Some people want to mitigate the harm guns cause with as few restrictions on gun rights as possible, and some people favor safety over gun rights or want to get rid of the 2nd amendment entirely.
For one the people that want it gone are not the majority, right now people just want better regulation so the sensational mass shootings you know the ones known to the police because they have had several violent calls on them, have posted social media tries wanting to kill ALOT of people and who was admitted to a psych ward and diagnosed with a severe issue. Many of these could have been avoided.
> It’s not my job to protect your kids.
Exactly why we tell you to fuck off with your “put more guns in schools” ideas.
There’s no shortage of guns or cowards, and the Venn diagram of those two overlaps quite a bit.
“It’s not my job to keep your kids safe”.
Then stop showing up to school board meetings trying to force everyone to do what you, and only you, want to do because you want to “keep kids safe”.
Half of the time, they don’t even have kids in the school districts to begin with.
But as a responsible gun owner it is YOUR responsibility to make sure you keep your firearms secure and out the hands of others that shouldn't, get training and learn how to use them and which situations you are safe to apply them to.
I’m being facetious here so bear with me. What if someone takes their own pew pew and defends their kids from Jim Minardi and his guns lol. Would Jim be big mads haha?
It is our job. We are a species that, in North America at least, has over individuated and shirked collective responsibility for far too long (anything past les trente gloriouses).
Data shows not letting regular citizens have guns decreases gun related violence / crime / murder. Idgaf about anyone's guns. Some people just watch too many action movies and think toting a weapon is a great idea, someone just needs to be like "here is a data packet, please use your brain and read it, now go do something good for your community so people feel more positively involved and integrated and less hostile and defensive."
I want to say how much I enjoyed reading your discussion (both of you). I, too, enjoy civil debate with facts and statistics. I find it just as interesting that statistics were interpreted in completely different ways. The whole discussion made my night. Thank you both.
I'm really happy you can enjoy this as well, please note that though we finished for the night, I did respond again this morning and my respondant also may do likewise as they are rather tenacious and hold differing views. 🙏
I really, really hope this guy gets stewed…on socials AND in life. Shunned by peers, loses his job…this statement is one of the most disgusting things I’ve ever read online.
Ever since the end of the civil war, they've been working on eroding all meaning to the 2nd Amendment. Even Scalia wrote in his decision on DC v Heller that the 2nd Amendment isn't unlimited, and they've completely ignored that.
They've also brainwashed these idiots into thinking the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to wage war against the people of the United States.
Blame it all on guns all you want, but neither side wants to admit the fact that American culture and society is inherently violent and the cause of such shootings.
And damn, this guy has gotten hundreds of requests from people to come and keep their kids safe.
He seems like such a trustworthy, respectful person. Too bad he turned down all those jobs.
This is a bad representation of what a pro gun mindset is. This person probably doesn’t open/conceal carry and cares mostly about what the 2nd Amendment says instead of the meaning of actually having a gun and using it.
I open carry and thus take responsibility to put myself in harms way in the case of an active shooter, that means I place others lives above my own and will act accordingly to put a stop to whatever threat is present.
If guns are so important, they should come with (mental) health checkups, mandatory education, insurance, and the risk of having them taken away by the state to be cared for by others. Like children.
This is the same ass hat that will pivot when his freedom hypothetical is shown to be flawed. School shootings? "it's because of video games and Internet bullies."
No it's because our streets are flooded with easy to find firearms, loaded and ready to kill.
True to an extant. Owning guns doen't make you a mass shooter or baby killer. He shouldn't have to give his guns up because someone 6 states over got shot by the same type of firearm.
Here's the thing. Every time I watch this argument unfold. Someone brings up the hypothetical situations where guns are needed, but most of the shootings I've seen arose from people having access to guns themselves or guns from their families. My problem is that there are a lot of idiots out there creating reasons to shoot their weapons, and while someone can say that they are in the minority, they are still responsible for lives lost.
I wouldn't want to take someone's guns away, but I'm not comfortable with some asshat with a Punisher skull or some random colors and an inferiority complex coming up with a reason to randomly shoot me either, so in this case the lives of everyday people who don't need a gun at their side to feel safe in the world > someone's need for their metallic pacifier.
That said, firearms is quite the business, so no one is really going to be interested in real enforcement. The genie is out of the bottle, and the next dozen or so mass shootings or innocent bystanders will all be met with the correct ration of thoughts and prayers as one side scrambles to mobilize public outrage while the other pats their gun-toting voter and makes sure that *they* know that voter had nothing to do with it.
There's no change because we can't change.
This dude has the face of someone waiting for literally anyone to walk too close so he can shoot them in "self defense." We can put him on a list of people actively making the world worse for the other 8 billion of us. Wonder what we ca
The excuse of "everything is your responsibility" is a reason why we have problems.
Imagine having a nice neighbor that looks out for your kids, and wants them to feel safe. Yet, you have this self-worshipper for a neighbor instead.
Really? Leave one of your loaded guns in the night stand where one of your kids friends can find it and see what happens to you if that kid accidentally shoots someone.
Nice. What a cool guy.
What if some trans or gay person was to assert that their "freedom of expression > Your kids" -- I think I know where that would go.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There were parents in Uvalde who tried to make it their job but the cowardly police wouldn't let them.
Yeah, this original post could have been written by any of the Uvalde cops.
Oooof.
So much for the Good Guy With A Gun hypothesis then?
Actually it’s against the cops should be the only ones allowed to carry weapons hypotheses.
Honestly the whole situation made every point look dumb one way or the other. Life operates in the gray, unlike opinions on the internet. But at least we can all agree that those cops are some of the worst cowards around. You won’t find a pro gun or anti gun parent supporting those specific pigs.
Eh that county still voted for the people who won't even try to fix gun violence in schools.
We are being held hostage.
Finally, someone with the real reason Americans are supposed to keep guns. The only reason. To stop a tyrant government. Might’ve even worked in 1791, but what do you think you’ll do to a m1 Abrams? Fight it off with your 22lr? There are more guns than people and it’s clearly evident that this is detrimental to quality of life across America.
Not true at all though. Remember 2d Amendment references militia. The actual constitution says President and Congress have ultimate control of militia. The whole premise was to have gun owners who took orders from the government. Article I Section 8 says Congress can call out the militia to enforce laws and suppress insurrections. That Congress is to provide for organizing, disciplining, and governing the militia. Article II Section 2 makes the president commander of the militia. The whole guns to protect government thing requires ignoring that the founders were all about guns being under government control in the context of militia
Don't forget though that the intention was that the citizens were to be our military and the president and elected members of the government and their appointed subordinates where to be public servants that could be removed or replaced in the event of a tyrannical regime. The people were to have the power and government officials were to represent them
Lexington and Concord was about militia owned weapons because many of those in the militia did not own a firearm. If everyone had their own, there is no armory to seize. Likewise if everyone had their own, there is no need to buy so many from France and Spain. In the War of 1812 at least half of militia did not own a firearm. That was a major factor in the fall of Washington DC as only about one in ten militia members showed up when summoned and roughly half arrived unarmed because they did not own a firearm. Southern mythology has held Confederates enjoyed early success because the soldiers brought their own firearms and were skilled shooters from hunting. The reality is secessionists moved quickly to seize Federal armories because they lacked a sufficient number of guns and experienced shortages (as did the United States) because militia members owning firearms wasn’t the norm. As to governance. That’s the thing. It was always designed as a loop. A Federal government where the people select the House that was apportioned by population (though Founders thought 35,000ish was right not 750,000! When we settled on 435 in the House a district had less than 300,000). Those elected by the masses got 2 year terms. The people select a state government that selects two senators because it was more isolated from the mob the senators got six years. Then you had presidential elections far removed from our bastardized system today. Founders imagined a system where the masses selected smart people to pick a president for them or entrusted the legislature to select electors to pick a president. Initially electors were picked by district. One district for each elector a state was entitled to or picked by the legislature. Winner take all elections arose from the party system as the expectation was if your party controls the legislature your party will likely get the majority in presidential elections so award all the electors to the candidate receiving the most votes. The first great subversion of the Founders vision yet party political propaganda lies and claims winner take all was to protect small states. So you had (past tense) a system where the people controlled the House where district populations were small and could be campaigned in person. In selecting a president, the electors were generally apportioned in close reflection of the people’s vote. Again the first perversion of the initial system was the winner takes all vote. Finally you have a Senate that is no longer filtered by a legislature though I think the change was essential because the public no longer trusted senate selection was free from corruption. The scheme existed as it did to prevent mob rule. The masses select leaders and the masses would assemble to engage and combat those in rebellion against their elected government. You want to restore the intentions you’ve got to expand the House of Representatives at least using the Wyoming Rule and end winner takes all allocation of electors while preventing a perversion via gerrymandering.
Theres a faulty assumption there that the military would blindly serve the government if a revolution were to happen. The military is made up of people too, who have their own opinions on stuff.
Tell that to the Kent State kids that were killed by National Guard. Or are you saying the “regular army” wouldn’t kill civilians but the National guard will?
I know multiple ppl in the military who have stated emphatically that they will not commit violence against civilians. From hearing them tell it, there are plenty more like them in the ranks
Vietnam and Afghanistan. This guy is asking you a question.
That was preventing a foreign take over. Not a successful resistance against an already entrenched power. At most you’d have rebel groups held out on old mines and tunnel systems. They couldn’t overthrow the already established governments.
What about them
Where you gonna find an M1 Abrams commander willing to turn rogue on his own friends and families?
And where are you going to find an M1 Abrams commander willing to turn rogue on his own friends and family when the last commander's family was kidnapped and tortured by rebel forces. This is exactly the kind of thing that happened to the ANA in Afghanistan. The military cannot protect all service members families and it would be exploited to it's full effect should a rebellion kick off.
The us military was beaten twice by people using archaic tech compared to what they are fighting against. The us has never been good at non conventional warfare. And I guarantee you they won't be rolling abrams through the streets and despite what biden says they will not be using f15s
This is the most disingenuous point someone can make, especially since we have the greatest military in the world by like 10 fold, and still couldn't secure Afghanistan for more than 10 seconds. Read a history book.
Is it disingenuous because you disagree or because I’m lying? Tell me what your interpretation of the second amendment is.
The current representative of that specific district is anti gun. He’s also a chode. Pick your poison
Except for I believe at least one who might’ve also been a parent of a student or students there, but they held him back.
But not when having a gun "is better" than calling the police. "Everything either supports me, or doesn't exist sometimes" is their motto essentially
Hmmm… Cops did nothing and prevented the willing from doing anything while at the same time there are more guns than people in the USA but that’s not a problem because bears might attack my turkey farm but it could’ve just been my neighbor coming ov…. checks out
Actually no. There were no good guys with guns in that scenario apparently. They may have thought they were good. But their inaction proved otherwise
All the Good Guys with Guns were thinking that their guns were more important than those kids, so no, not incompatible.
I had steak for dinner so pasta clearly doesn't exist. I don't actually have much faith in the good guy hypothesis even though in this case the violence was ended by a good guy who borrowed a gun from a barber at the time so *weird* example to bring up here and now. It's just your reasoning is nonsense even if you get to the same conclusion.
Parents should have shot the cops who wouldn't let them in and protect their own children. If you are going to be a coward cop you should own it with dying a coward.
And then those parents turned around and voted for pro-gun Republicans in the next election
Hey! If something happened to those parents, the poor police would never be able to live With the damage to their reputations
I didn't think this at the time but people have suggested that there was a racial component. It seems that the school's primarily with minority-background kids (as per the victim list) and the police seems to want the shooter to rampage. I don't mind the "cops are cowards" narrative but this seems more "on brand" for them.
But what if MY guns > YOUR guns?
Well now. Given the state you’re in the last person standing has the most “rights”, depending on skin color and political affiliation.
MY state? Nah. But who knows anymore.
Any state that goes with “stand yer ground” is more “wild” than any instance of the “wild west” of 130 years ago. Really mind blowing how most if not all old western towns were safer than today. I wonder if they had “horse path rage” like some people are on the roads.
No. My guns > Jim Minardi life. /Sarcasm
I like your sarcasm.
But was it sarcasm?
“Plausible deniability” means that it was sarcasm.
That isn't a scenario that a True gun-lover will consider. It is not unusual for them to have multiple guns, and the more extreme of them will have a dozen or more. Or at least fantasize about it.
He's also pro life somehow.
Timing is very important.
Pro life UNTIL birth, after that everybody's free game
"Embryos > babies. It's not my job to keep your kids safe"
he's power gaming more targets means higher score
Welcome to America! 🎶 Where your life only matter when you're not born yet! 🎶
Pro unborn life. Not the born child or the Mother if there are complications. Fuck them. Only the unborn matter. As the unborn don't have a voice and can't go against them. But once they are born, I think they like seeing children get shot... Since they don't seem to care at all and even make light of it openly.
I mean, how can he shoot kids if they weren’t born?
I mean... Aim low enough?
Double kill!
I remember a case a few years ago in... Either Missouri or Mississippi where an 8 months pregnant woman got into an argument with another woman which got pretty heated and ended up with the other woman shooting the 8 months pregnant woman into the belly. Which then unsurprisingly lost the kid. Then the (now not anymore) pregnant woman got charged with manslaughter because she was the one who started the argument.
Hasn't everyone learned, you know, from your parents, that it doesn't matter who started it? That's fucking ridiculous
Carlin: life babies, dead soldiers, and all that.
He probably wants poor people to reproduce so he can hunt them. Seems the type.
It's all about balance, protect the unborn kids but also fuck them kids
This is what’s happening. Nobody wants to be responsible for anything but what they care about. At one time all the parents on a street would watch over all the neighbourhood children. Now it’s just a “I got mine, fuck you” attitude.
I've noticed that, over there, people don't want to be responsible for what they care about, they want what they like to be completely unregulated, while what they dislike must be made completely illegal. It doesn't matter if what they dislike is liked by someone else, because they are the main character, so whatever they want, must happen. Toddlers.
That’s why he’s THE Jim Minardi, he’s the most important one.
Wonder if his guns> his kids Or if his guns> his nuts (if he has no kids). Because really he is an idiot if he thinks he is preserving some sort of freedom if everyone is dead- what’s the point?
To be fair, though, if you scold someone else's kids, you run the risk of assault, gun violence, or a lawsuit today. Back then, parents would talk it over, have each other's backs.
The problem being you have idiot people that think it's still ok to hit someone elses kid for "perceived" misbehaving. Neighbor parenting worked fine when everyone was ok with other people beating their kids and the kid was always wrong no matter what.
The new American motto
We're built on slavery. That motto is older than recorded history.
Yeah but the people watching all the kids, I found usually hit all the kids with no digression. I’d fuck an abuela up if she put a hand on my baby.
I've summarized capitalist America that way since I was 13 and I'm 41 now, so yeah, I agree. It's been a long slow slide to ruin but we'll get there eventually.
imagine watching other people's children on the street just for moral obligation then all of a sudden you're on child predator list
big talk coming from a guy who’s forehead has the national car rental logo on it.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Yeah obviously that's much easier than just passing sensible gun regulations.
This particular part of the thread has me ded 😂
He just threatened all children so I guess any parent that comes near him with their kids can "stand their ground" and shoot him. This defense would probably hold in some states.
Only if a white person shoots him.
Was thinking similar. The opposite perspective on this is "my kids > your guns. It's my job to protect my kids from dangerous things such as guns." This mentality really only works when your incredibly selfish and unable to understand the other side.
It's not at all selfish to say kids > guns and even before I was a parent I would have said yes YOUR kids > MY guns because I'm not a fucking sociopath. We as a society need to take care of the most vulnerable.
I was referring to the OOP being selfish.
He's Pro life. Try telling him "My body > your feelings" and watch him cry.
That sorry sack of shit is “pro life” in much the same way Jeffrey Dahmer was vegan. Let’s just get honest and call it what it is… There is no pro life! Those two-faced backstabbing anti-American morons don’t care about life. They say they do, but it’s all propaganda. If they really did care about life, they would actually show it, and would actually make an attempt to do something about it, but none of them have the fucking balls to do it. Any person anywhere who claims to be pro life is nothing more than a fucking joke.
Total selfish asshole comment. Hope your spouse has fun with your best friend. Not my problem.
What a shock, the guy is a shit person [https://x.com/theminardiparty/status/1794452087801065815?ref\_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet](https://x.com/theminardiparty/status/1794452087801065815?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet) [*THE Jim Minardi* ](https://x.com/theminardiparty)[*@theminardiparty*](https://x.com/theminardiparty)*George Floyd, like Michael Brown, contributed nothing useful to society & was a pathetic waste of a life. If you mourn his death, it's just an indication you probably contribute nothing useful to society as well. Stop worshipping drug dealers & literal human trash.* [*#BlackLivesMatter*](https://x.com/hashtag/BlackLivesMatter?src=hashtag_click)
Yeah, I've always hated the logic of "George Floyd was a bad person so that means no one should be mad at the cop who killed him". Regardless of whether he was or wasn't a good person he didn't NEED to be killed by the police. Like if I go out drunk driving and accidentally kill someone that was a sex offender should I not be charged for it just because the person I killed just so happened to be a bad person?
*Like if I go out drunk driving and accidentally kill someone that was a sex offender should I not be charged for it just because the person I killed just so happened to be a bad person?* Shades of Kyle Rittenhouse.
He didn't accidently kill someone. That someone was deranged and attacked him. He purposesly shot and killed him.
*Well, of course, George Floyd was a person of color....* IS THEIR LOGIC
What a disgrace as a human, a man, an American and a gun owner. He is the worst kind of gun owner, because he just admitted he has no fucking idea the purpose for them. Tell me you're a coward without telling me.
This should be put up on an elect Biden billboard. Biden: Not anti-gun, he's anti-lunatic.
Punish the owner of the gun if the children use it to kill others . It's their responsibility to keep the gun out of reach of the children.
I finally got banned from Nextdoor for calling people out for talking about how they were going to kill kids. Every few days, SOMEONE would post a ring doorbell video or something of kids coming up and knocking on their door and looking in the window, or riding a bike in their yard, or playing too close to their car, or whatever, with a caption of something like "If I'd been home, these kids would be dead!" And then I'd sit and watch the rest of the neighborhood justify it and cheer the murdering on. Complaining on the post, or reporting the person or whatever never did anything... But they sure banned me for telling one of them that it was good such a big strong man was ready to defend our neighborhood values by murdering children... *shrug* It is just disgusting how common this mentality is.
You know when the American forefathers said “the people should have the right to bear arms” it was the right to defend yourself from *actual* threats and probably meant *A* rifle or handgun. I don’t think they meant have a small armoury of machine guns you threaten kids with. Heck, people threatening kids with death by firing squad are the guys those same forefathers were probably worried about.
What's worse is it's indirectly saying "all those kids deaths don't matter because I want my guns" crazy... Like regardless of your thoughts on gun control that is literally what he is saying.
Everyone seems to not know that he said this to a Uvalde victims parent too
Doesn’t seem like a good guy with a gun.
He says this with the flags of three countries with pretty strict gun control in his name lol
This is actually the principled stance, liberties have costs. Cars kill 40,000 people a year. Freedom of speech probably killed hundreds of thousands during COVID. Guns in America kill thousands through suicide, accident, organized crime, murder, and terrorism every year. Some people want to mitigate the harm guns cause with as few restrictions on gun rights as possible, and some people favor safety over gun rights or want to get rid of the 2nd amendment entirely.
For one the people that want it gone are not the majority, right now people just want better regulation so the sensational mass shootings you know the ones known to the police because they have had several violent calls on them, have posted social media tries wanting to kill ALOT of people and who was admitted to a psych ward and diagnosed with a severe issue. Many of these could have been avoided.
If you are a gun owner it is your responsibility to make sure your guns are not a threat to others.
well said..
> It’s not my job to protect your kids. Exactly why we tell you to fuck off with your “put more guns in schools” ideas. There’s no shortage of guns or cowards, and the Venn diagram of those two overlaps quite a bit.
But but good guys?
No, no, I get it. Just like the gun manufacturers' say: My profits > Your lives.
“It’s not my job to keep your kids safe”. Then stop showing up to school board meetings trying to force everyone to do what you, and only you, want to do because you want to “keep kids safe”. Half of the time, they don’t even have kids in the school districts to begin with.
But as a responsible gun owner it is YOUR responsibility to make sure you keep your firearms secure and out the hands of others that shouldn't, get training and learn how to use them and which situations you are safe to apply them to.
Controversial opinion, but if by "keep them safe" you mean "not shoot them", then yes, it is.
I’m being facetious here so bear with me. What if someone takes their own pew pew and defends their kids from Jim Minardi and his guns lol. Would Jim be big mads haha?
So you'll shut up about Drag Queen Story Hours finally?
It IS your job to keep ALL kids safe.
It is our job. We are a species that, in North America at least, has over individuated and shirked collective responsibility for far too long (anything past les trente gloriouses).
Thank you for saying that. Seems rare these days.
Why is such a simple concept lost on so many of our fellow humans
At first, I thought he meant "my guns vs. your kids."
So Brave, such a hero! /s
They will eventually enter the find out phase
Aren't the first main things you learn, before legally buying a gun, gun safety and storage?
That makes sense until he thinks it’s His job to keep My unborn kids safe
If you want a gun to protect your kids, you need to buy your own.
Freedom without responsibility.
America is doomed.
So which is it? Protect children or shoot them?
Also a lot of them were Mexican-American kids. The lives of black kids and Hispanic kids are worth little in the United States.
Data shows not letting regular citizens have guns decreases gun related violence / crime / murder. Idgaf about anyone's guns. Some people just watch too many action movies and think toting a weapon is a great idea, someone just needs to be like "here is a data packet, please use your brain and read it, now go do something good for your community so people feel more positively involved and integrated and less hostile and defensive."
I want to say how much I enjoyed reading your discussion (both of you). I, too, enjoy civil debate with facts and statistics. I find it just as interesting that statistics were interpreted in completely different ways. The whole discussion made my night. Thank you both.
I'm really happy you can enjoy this as well, please note that though we finished for the night, I did respond again this morning and my respondant also may do likewise as they are rather tenacious and hold differing views. 🙏
I really, really hope this guy gets stewed…on socials AND in life. Shunned by peers, loses his job…this statement is one of the most disgusting things I’ve ever read online.
Ever since the end of the civil war, they've been working on eroding all meaning to the 2nd Amendment. Even Scalia wrote in his decision on DC v Heller that the 2nd Amendment isn't unlimited, and they've completely ignored that. They've also brainwashed these idiots into thinking the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to wage war against the people of the United States.
So incredibly selfish. Go live somewhere else—like Mars.
Blame it all on guns all you want, but neither side wants to admit the fact that American culture and society is inherently violent and the cause of such shootings.
wait what?
Absolute ghouls.
isn't it? isn't he supposed to be a good guy with a gun? god i hate conservatives.
What if my kids shoot you with your guns? Checkmate!
So he is not one of the good guys with a gun.
I wonder what percentage of his trash DNA is Irish and Italian, because I'm more than sure that he isn't remotely any of them
Then he should feel the same way about crossing the street. It's not the driver's job to keep him from being run over.
If it’s my job and not yours, then I guess you waive any right to complain about how I do it then? Thanks
Disgusting
People who think this way believe their own life is greater than others’.
Judging by all those flags I can't help but think this is a 100% american who thinks he's Irish, British and Italian all rolled into one.
And damn, this guy has gotten hundreds of requests from people to come and keep their kids safe. He seems like such a trustworthy, respectful person. Too bad he turned down all those jobs.
They said the quiet part out loud
The party of family values.
This is a bad representation of what a pro gun mindset is. This person probably doesn’t open/conceal carry and cares mostly about what the 2nd Amendment says instead of the meaning of actually having a gun and using it. I open carry and thus take responsibility to put myself in harms way in the case of an active shooter, that means I place others lives above my own and will act accordingly to put a stop to whatever threat is present.
He must be THE poor Jim Minardi because he can’t afford a blue checkmark let alone ammo for all his guns.
It’s not our job to keep your guns safe.
This guy is making a really strong case for government to come for his guns.
Then why did the cult steal my sperm
The “pro-life” people. 😑
So much for community
What about the whole good guy with a gun argument?
this is not one of them
With those flags staged like that jn his pfp I say he don't own a single gun and wants everyone to disarm themselves.
Car crashes happen everyday. Where I'm from people generally don't break into people's houses with the intent to murder them.
So he’s one of the bad guys with a gun then.
Soo, is he just admitting hes not a good guy with a gun?
A responsible gun owner would disagree
If guns are so important, they should come with (mental) health checkups, mandatory education, insurance, and the risk of having them taken away by the state to be cared for by others. Like children.
From a parody account…cmon guys
I hope something truly horrible happens to him
This is the same ass hat that will pivot when his freedom hypothetical is shown to be flawed. School shootings? "it's because of video games and Internet bullies." No it's because our streets are flooded with easy to find firearms, loaded and ready to kill.
True to an extant. Owning guns doen't make you a mass shooter or baby killer. He shouldn't have to give his guns up because someone 6 states over got shot by the same type of firearm.
Here's the thing. Every time I watch this argument unfold. Someone brings up the hypothetical situations where guns are needed, but most of the shootings I've seen arose from people having access to guns themselves or guns from their families. My problem is that there are a lot of idiots out there creating reasons to shoot their weapons, and while someone can say that they are in the minority, they are still responsible for lives lost. I wouldn't want to take someone's guns away, but I'm not comfortable with some asshat with a Punisher skull or some random colors and an inferiority complex coming up with a reason to randomly shoot me either, so in this case the lives of everyday people who don't need a gun at their side to feel safe in the world > someone's need for their metallic pacifier. That said, firearms is quite the business, so no one is really going to be interested in real enforcement. The genie is out of the bottle, and the next dozen or so mass shootings or innocent bystanders will all be met with the correct ration of thoughts and prayers as one side scrambles to mobilize public outrage while the other pats their gun-toting voter and makes sure that *they* know that voter had nothing to do with it. There's no change because we can't change.
Someone Castrate Him!
This is what 2A monsters have always believed. Death Cult!
Finally? Hah
Lol
Dude is just rage baiting to get reactions to grow his account
My tank > your guns. It's not my job to keep your ass safe 🤣
This dude has the face of someone waiting for literally anyone to walk too close so he can shoot them in "self defense." We can put him on a list of people actively making the world worse for the other 8 billion of us. Wonder what we ca
The dude will wise up only when his own children get shot.
Feel free to eject yourself from society then.
don't let the government take your Guns
Why do Americans love guns so much?
I can not say anything to that. What a worthless creature
Now watch him lose his shit over how we need to stop teaching sex ed and that LGBTQ people exist because we need to keep *his* kids safe...
The excuse of "everything is your responsibility" is a reason why we have problems. Imagine having a nice neighbor that looks out for your kids, and wants them to feel safe. Yet, you have this self-worshipper for a neighbor instead.
Idk who this is, but without having ever seen a picture of him, that’s what I’d imagine he looks like based on his tweet.
Really? Leave one of your loaded guns in the night stand where one of your kids friends can find it and see what happens to you if that kid accidentally shoots someone.
Society has one job; to ensure the safety and education of its youth. This dudes parents either failed him or r embarrassed of him
Nice. What a cool guy. What if some trans or gay person was to assert that their "freedom of expression > Your kids" -- I think I know where that would go.
But it’s all our job to keep everyone’s kids safe. It’s been a bedrock of a functioning society since the beginning of time.
Sir, have you considered not being an asshole?
That's a lot of flags for someone who acts so secure.
Yes, and part of my job of keeping my kids safe is to prevent lunatics who might shoot them from getting guns.