Dems want Laws changed after Rittenhouse shootings. Are vigilantes the answer? (Poll)

[Cellblock2429]

These right wing wank fantasies would hilarious, if they weren't so sad.

Mormom Bob and J-Mac have watched the One Percent whittle away at their middle class lifestyle for decades, but man, they are going to totally murder someone over a fucking hammer.

/-----/ Buy your own hammer and you won't end up dead. Simple solution.

 

[easyt65]

As always, that's ultimately the call for the would-be thief to make. If it truly believes that its own life is more valuable than the opportunity to steal someone else's property, then it has the choice to keep its thieving filthy hands off of stuff that doesn't belong to it.

View attachment 639725

With Democrats' all-out attempt to wipe out the police, destroy the Justice system, protect and cater to rapiststs / murderers/ thieves / etc... and choose the side of these people instead of standing up for and protecting law-abiding citizens, those citizens have little choice but to protect themselves.

Anyone remember the hierarchy of personal human needs from grade school? Safety and security are high in the list and one of the basic protections / services liberal Democrats are supposed to provide through government but have abandoned.

THEY are creating the need for 'vigilantes' through extreme failure to do their jobs.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not a Brit and vigilantes are anarchists who can't follow the rule of law.

It's legal to kill people who break into your home in most states, moron.

 

[easyt65]

I just read an article that tells how a vacationing couple returned to their home to find squatters inside who had stolen $50,000 in valuables.

If I return home and find thieves / criminals in my home I have the legal right to protect myself, my family, and property. That mens I have the right to shoot these people...dead.

While some Soros-funded DA would side with them, let them go, and probably find a way to fault me and make me pay them, I can save the taxpayers a lot of money by just shooting them.

If this couple had do e so I would have had a hard time completely faulting them for doing so.

Again, liberals are creating the need for vigilantes and law-abiding citizens having to take the law / their own protection into their own hands.

 

[bripat9643]

Lolol. You're opposed to curfews? You really are a vigilante.

No, he believes in freedom. A vigilante is someone who uses force against others.

 

[jc456]

I'm not a Brit and vigilantes are anarchists who can't follow the rule of law.

nope, you can't even look up the definition of the words you use. too fking funny. nanny nanny boo boo loser. Look up anarchy.

 

[jc456]

With Democrats' all-out attempt to wipe out the police, destroy the Justice system, protect and cater to rapiststs / murderers/ thieves / etc... and choose the side of these people instead of standing up for and protecting law-abiding citizens, those citizens have little choice but to protect themselves.

Anyone remember the hierarchy of personal human needs from grade school? Safety and security are high in the list and one of the basic protections / services liberal Democrats are supposed to provide through government but have abandoned.

THEY are creating the need for 'vigilantes' through extreme failure to do their jobs.

they want them to simply sit the fk down and comply gd damn it. fkkkkkkk. LOL

 

[jc456]

I'm not a Brit and vigilantes are anarchists who can't follow the rule of law.

Again, you should look up the definition of the words you choose to use before you post. Look up vigilante. Then look up self defense. Fk I laugh at fks like you who can't figure out your words.

 

[j-mac]

These right wing wank fantasies would hilarious, if they weren't so sad.

Mormom Bob and J-Mac have watched the One Percent whittle away at their middle class lifestyle for decades, but man, they are going to totally murder someone over a fucking hammer.

If you’re in my house, I don’t know you, or what you’ll do, so you get what you get.

 

[JoeB131]

If you’re in my house, I don’t know you, or what you’ll do, so you get what you get.

That gun in your house is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

 

[bripat9643]

That gun in your house is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

Gun control propaganda.

 

[Soupnazi630]

That gun in your house is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

Manufactured stat. Also known as a lie

 

[westwall]

That gun in your house is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

No, it's not. That is bullshit propaganda that has been proven false many times so stop lying.

 

[j-mac]

That gun in your house is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

Not with me, maybe with you….my dog would tear your ass up anyway…

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No, it's not. That is bullshit propaganda that has been proven false many times so stop lying.

You might as well ask a fly to stop eating shit, as ask Incel Joe to stop lying.

Lying is what Incel Joe does. Lying is what Incel Joe is.

 

[JoeB131]

No, it's not. That is bullshit propaganda that has been proven false many times so stop lying.

When did this happen.


You see, usually, when you have a study that you aren't sure bout, you do another study.

Instead, Kellerman did his study, repeated in several other cities and got the same result, and the Gun Lobby's response was to run to Congress and tell them to stop the CDC from doing gun studies!!!

It would be like if the CDC determined that smoking causes cancer, and Big Tobacco rushed to Congress to get the CDC to stop studying cancer!

See, smoking doesn't cause cancer, that's been proven false. No, really!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You might as well ask a fly to stop eating shit, as ask Incel Joe to stop lying.

Lying is what Incel Joe does. Lying is what Incel Joe is.

Quod erat demonstrandum…

When did this happen.


You see, usually, when you have a study that you aren't sure bout, you do another study.

Instead, Kellerman did his study, repeated in several other cities and got the same result, and the Gun Lobby's response was to run to Congress and tell them to stop the CDC from doing gun studies!!!

It would be like if the CDC determined that smoking causes cancer, and Big Tobacco rushed to Congress to get the CDC to stop studying cancer!

See, smoking doesn't cause cancer, that's been proven false. No, really!

 

[j-mac]

When did this happen.


You see, usually, when you have a study that you aren't sure bout, you do another study.

Instead, Kellerman did his study, repeated in several other cities and got the same result, and the Gun Lobby's response was to run to Congress and tell them to stop the CDC from doing gun studies!!!

It would be like if the CDC determined that smoking causes cancer, and Big Tobacco rushed to Congress to get the CDC to stop studying cancer!

See, smoking doesn't cause cancer, that's been proven false. No, really!

So, you shopped around until you found one you liked? Post it.

 

[JoeB131]

Duly noted you couldn't refute my point, Mormon Bob.

Hey, I bet Joseph Smith would have loved him some Gun Control.

 

[JoeB131]

So, you shopped around until you found one you liked? Post it.

I've linked the Kellerman study dozens of times... I don't need to do it again.