2466
Comments (290)
sorted by:
301
cyberrigger 301 points ago +301 / -0

It's like someone splashed holy water on them.

103
Ebbie8708 103 points ago +103 / -0

I saw Lost Boys. There’s a joke there to be made about their blood being glitter lol

72
ShyRipley 72 points ago +72 / -0

You're a vampire, Michael. My own brother, a goddam shit-sucking vampire. You wait 'til Mom finds out!

45
Titanium5 45 points ago +45 / -0

The real winner was "crazy ol conspiracy" grandpa. He was right in the end! :)

30
AlohaSnackbar 30 points ago +31 / -1

One thing about living in Santa Carla I never could stomach; all the damn vampires.

19
I_Love_45-70_Gov 19 points ago +19 / -0

Don't ever invite a vampire into your house, you silly boy.

15
ShyRipley 15 points ago +15 / -0

hahaa yes he was. Such a fun film

17
Stanwyk74 17 points ago +17 / -0

TRUMP and COVID nonsense.exposed so many gd vampires.

11
ShyRipley 11 points ago +11 / -0

you can say that again

14
BallsackPaneer 14 points ago +14 / -0

The Frog Brothers offer you their services.

R.I.P. Corey Haim. Fucking Hollywood pedos destroyed him.

10
ShyRipley 10 points ago +10 / -0

The Frog Brothers were the best. Yes, RIP, so sad. :(

5
emancipation77 5 points ago +5 / -0

Maggots, Michael. You’re eating maggots. How do they taste?

10
deleted 10 points ago +11 / -1
13
Ebbie8708 13 points ago +13 / -0

I mean:

  • the frog brothers tried to warn the oblivious kid
  • the dog sensed evil
  • they have to fight back even though everyone thinks they are freaking crazy
  • the real villain was the guy they least expected
  • and the real hero was an old dude who lived long enough to see through all the bullsh—.
6
Badfinz_FL 6 points ago +6 / -0

sounds like us

I liked the movie BTW

it had some cheese, but it was written by a based dude

4
Ebbie8708 4 points ago +4 / -0

Alex Winter (the first vampire killed, Bill and or Ted) is also based.

5
SPEDMan64 5 points ago +5 / -0

Because they are. My girls liked all the dumb angsty teen vampire shit like Twilight and Vampire Diaries, but I always told them that if that shit was real and they told me they had vamp or werewolf friends that the correct phrase was 'used to have vamp and werewolf friends who tragically died all of a sudden'.

3
cyberrigger 3 points ago +3 / -0

I was thinking The Exorcist

43
SEMOPatriot 43 points ago +44 / -1

We now have legal justification to shoot them. The Militia can enforce the Supreme Court decision.

15
deleted 15 points ago +22 / -7
21
SEMOPatriot 21 points ago +21 / -0

I have neighbors that were pushing for Bloomberg during the primaries. I tell all the homeless around here that they have no security cameras and they dont believe in or own firearms.

29
MarcusAurelius 29 points ago +29 / -0

I mean, if I had a raging heroin addiction that could only be satiated by home invasion, I know I'm going for the "Love is Love" house, and giving a hard pass to the "Don't tread on me" house.

13
SEMOPatriot 13 points ago +13 / -0

We are a Tread on those who Tread on you house. Kill Dozier style!

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
4
Trump2024 4 points ago +4 / -0

I mean, me to. I mean, it.

26
Dictator_Bob 26 points ago +26 / -0

Their attempt to disarm us is being dismantled by the SCOTUS as they rammed through legislation. This exposes the democrats who ran as republicans as well. Fingers crossed and am enjoying the extra tanks of hopium today.

3
Junionthepipeline 3 points ago +3 / -0

Only kind of

1
Polander 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm even more pissed off at the RINOs now because this was the perfect out for them. No way this red flag law nonsense can be found to be constitutional after the SCOTUS ruling

3
TaQo 3 points ago +4 / -1

Hope y'all stocked up on Windex 😁

2
Badfinz_FL 2 points ago +2 / -0

4-oh-9

2
pepperonishoes 2 points ago +2 / -0

She's so fine...

175
NullifyAndSecede 175 points ago +178 / -3

They are trying to make #IgnoreTheCourt trend.

Yes please. Ignore the feds entirely.

106
Ebbie8708 106 points ago +106 / -0

Yes. The federal government has way to much freaking power.

64
DixMcCoy 64 points ago +64 / -0

Yes. The federal government has way to much freaking power.

Thanks, Lincoln!

36
Ebbie8708 36 points ago +47 / -11

Oh don’t get me started on that.

Unpopular truth: blacks were better under slavery here in America. If nothing else, they werent shooting each other, killing their babies and having legions of bastards.

55
VoidWanderer 55 points ago +55 / -0

Counter suggestion, they should have just all been sent back to africa. That would have saved a lot of time, trouble, and costs that every other plan fails to consider.

29
Ebbie8708 29 points ago +29 / -0

Lincoln wanted to do that but didn’t.

20
HerbertBailBondsh 20 points ago +20 / -0

Got shot by a guy paid by and sent by the small hat club. If he had lived they would've been gone and all their grand schemes would have been stopped.

7
Christ_Our_King 7 points ago +8 / -1

Oooo I'd like to see some proof on that to for my redpill collection

14
IncredibleMrE1 14 points ago +15 / -1

Concur. We can still send them back. Just saying.

14
Ebbie8708 14 points ago +19 / -5

All these people crying about momma Africa can go.

I will stay here with my white boyfriend lol

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
1
corntortilla 1 point ago +3 / -2

“It was da joos!”

8
14
VoidWanderer 14 points ago +14 / -0

I believe I said "all", not "a small group of volunteers."

9
Palazzolo1 9 points ago +9 / -0

Not to refute. Only to share and enlighten.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
6
DixMcCoy 6 points ago +6 / -0

They might not be doing those things if they were able to discern that 'rap music' isn't real and full of studio wanksters.

There were at least two efforts (that I am aware of) to get blacks to Africa.

Thanks, LBJ, Margret Sanger, Dr. Dre, et al?

5
Ebbie8708 5 points ago +5 / -0

Don’t forget Obama.

And anytime I will say “Fuck you LBJ” I will do it. Pardon my French. Lol

3
Gaudrius 3 points ago +5 / -2

Yeah I’m gonna have to challenge that one.

19
Ebbie8708 19 points ago +20 / -1

Yeah because blacks have really done well in the last 60 years of getting free sh— instead of working for it. Our laws are being crafted to think of the poor defenseless negros who are constantly being told and this believing their lives are sh— and it’s all the white man’s fault. Not your momma who had you before she was legally allowed to drive. Not your daddy who is doing time because he too was raised by a single mother. Not your grandma who sold your family out because the government were paying women who boot the men out of the house.

Heck, even in affluent black areas, joggers can’t help but shoot each other. Why do you think when a black person has enough money to move to a majority white area, they do it?

And I’m a black/Muskogee woman.

11
PM_ME_UR_VIVOZ 11 points ago +11 / -0

Black people were orders of magnitude better before the introduction of the Great Society (welfare) and Roe v Wade. They were together in family units, had true community, and even in segregated spaces they owned property and populated middle class spaces at rates you don’t see anywhere today. The idea that black people are objectively savage denies both their human dignity and observed, historical reality. “White people” (see: Democrats) actually are at fault for the collapse of black people as a group in America.

9
Ebbie8708 9 points ago +9 / -0

It doesn’t take anything to NOT shoot someone. Meanwhile, literally babies are being shot and killed as gang retaliation.

https://gunmemorial.org/age/0-12

The fact that blacks are the ONLY demographic that you can’t even have a darn family BBQ without someone getting shot doesn’t disprove they aren’t savage.

Hell, my own family can’t even have two of siblings in the same darn room without them coming to blows. Maybe I’m just an outlier because I’ve never believed in that black blackity black power bullsh—. But you cannot pretend like blacks as a whole aren’t savages and add NOTHING to this country outside of laws that make the rest of the country feel unsafe.

2
Gaudrius 2 points ago +2 / -0

Just to be clear, you think you'd be better off in chains right now?

4
Ebbie8708 4 points ago +4 / -0

In chains now.. just working all day to barely make ends met.

I’ve had boring HR “we are so inclusive!”training all day so I’m thankful for this place to distract me from the bullsh—. Lol

1
johnrambo 1 point ago +2 / -1

Such a small minded point to make. If you counted on your livelyhood from someone you paid over a million dollars to have, would you put them in chains and treat them like shit? Slaves were taken care of, and even had Sundays off to do what they wanted to do. Some sold things that they made to be able to save up to buy their freedom back. The pictures they showed you in school were bullshit.

There were more whites lynched than blacks. Just like there are more whites shot by police than blacks. Lynching were for people that did bad shit, and deserved it. I'm sure there were a few slip through that may not have deserved it but when you have something you paid over a million dollars for in todays money, you're not going to let it get trashed without good reason.

1
randomuser9193 1 point ago +1 / -0

One halfie became president. I think in general they are as a population showing positive signs.

2
Ebbie8708 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not if you knew how bad the “they shooting each other” is. Check out AK Nation on YouTube if you don’t believe me.

Only way the shooting stats improve is when they start running out of targets

5
Wanderlust 5 points ago +5 / -0

Then present an argument not based on feelings.

0
Gaudrius 0 points ago +1 / -1

You first.

4
Madman2020 4 points ago +4 / -0

Then do so.

0
Gaudrius 0 points ago +1 / -1

K, I did.

2
Miztivin 2 points ago +2 / -0

Reminder that the civil war started over forgien trade taxes, if I remember correctly. Not fucking slavery.

2
covok48 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is true, but that doesn’t mean it was pleasant.

1
aaafirefly123 1 point ago +1 / -0

Wrong President, the federal government shrank after reconstruction.

You should be thanking Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson.

27
ImVoting4Trump 27 points ago +27 / -0

#IgnoreTheIRS

9
deleted 9 points ago +9 / -0
3
akira2501 3 points ago +3 / -0

Or, if you're feeling a federalist vibe: #DueCareClause

18
IncredibleMrE1 18 points ago +18 / -0

And they don't even realize they're arguing our point for us!

7
Tcrlaf1 7 points ago +7 / -0

Post-Constitutional America

5
flashersenpai 5 points ago +5 / -0

No! Don't throw me in that briar patch! Please!

125
loooooof 125 points ago +125 / -0

The Bolsheviks continue to accelerate their Revolution.

59
rossiFan 59 points ago +59 / -0

Can we just get this hot war started, already?

45
Oback_Barama 45 points ago +45 / -0

They are trying to postpone it until they can red flag everyone. The GOP is helping them.

23
DixMcCoy 23 points ago +23 / -0

The Bolsheviks...

...until they can red flag everyone.

I think I've cracked the code, gentlemen!

7
localhost 7 points ago +7 / -0

Agreed. Rip this stale ol' bandaid off.

2
akira2501 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yea.. those end well. Solves a lot of problems, by putting them into graveyards.

95
deleted 95 points ago +95 / -0
31
Ponzo 31 points ago +32 / -1

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. Bharara said, “SCOTUS read neither the room nor the Constitution correctly.”

foreign born cunt needs to read the Constitution again

18
DixMcCoy 18 points ago +18 / -0

foreign born cunt needs to read the Constitution again

"plz do the needful and read US Constitution not Indian or Pakistan or whatever the fuck you are Constitution. Thank you."

15
GG_Escalator 15 points ago +15 / -0

What should the room have to do with it? They are there to read the Constitution only.

7
bg4u 7 points ago +7 / -0

I wonder what all the OnE rAcE tHe HuMaN rAcE people think is going to happen once the average person can't even read the Constitution, much less understand it.

We probably aren't that many years away from people being prosecuted and convicted of crimes by a jury of sub-80IQ mongoloids based on ludicrous interpretations of the law by people who can't even read English.

5
akira2501 5 points ago +5 / -0

"I vote to hang Preet Bharara and then throw his corpse into a volcano."

Justice isn't a "read the room" situation, Preet. You're supposed to be a lawyer with ethics training, you know this.

4
IlhanOmarsFagBrother 4 points ago +4 / -0

What do you expect from a faggot that was born in a corrupt country?

21
Shayhawk 21 points ago +21 / -0

Like Tucker said, "voting is our relief valve, if they don't let us vote, then the pressure builds until we're REVOLUTIONARIES"

Kind of paraphrased it but watch his monologue from a couple nights ago.

59
Ebbie8708 59 points ago +59 / -0

KATHY HOCHUL: "I would like to point out to the Supreme Court justices, that the only weapons at that time were muskets. I'm prepared to go back to muskets."

Biatch wants a challenge when I’m sure there’s some here who have muskets as back up lol

49
stealthboy 49 points ago +49 / -0

I would like to point out to Kathy Hochul, that the only communication methods at the time were the quill pen and the moveable type press.

So her logic applies to the 1st Amendment, too, right?

25
The_Litehaus_Abides 25 points ago +25 / -0

She's either stupid or lying -- probably both. She's using a tired, lame old argument that's always disproved as soon as it's made.

She could also be reminded that private citizens' weapons were as good as the ones being used by the British Empire. Our weapons these days don't even come close to those used by the military.

21
deleted 21 points ago +21 / -0
13
Scooby721 13 points ago +13 / -0

I like your style, fren.

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
5
Moheekin 5 points ago +5 / -0

I heard Ukraine is selling US weaponry on the black market/dark web

3
YesMan 3 points ago +3 / -0

How do I have a reaper drone discreetly shipped to my house?

2
Moheekin 2 points ago +2 / -0

Wish I had that part figured out

2
chickeninoven 2 points ago +2 / -0

Choose "gift wrap my purchase" at check out

1
corntortilla 1 point ago +1 / -0

Neither do yours.

9
Ebbie8708 9 points ago +9 / -0

She’s probably old enough to remember those days.

6
Pravda 6 points ago +6 / -0

These soft tyrants would love to nullify the first amendment as well.

5
Rosarian 5 points ago +5 / -0

Plus no women voting let alone holding office, slavery was legal, no income tax or Fed

4
TraitorJoes 4 points ago +4 / -0

She should send her quill pen written letter via the U.S. postal systems weekly mail wagon, which was established in 1775 with Benjamin Franklin as its first postmaster general. And whom were armed with muskets...

31
snuggs316 31 points ago +31 / -0

now she's just showing her ignorance. at the time the constitution was written, people owned privately-held cannons and frigates. your stupidity is showing, kathy!

22
Ebbie8708 22 points ago +22 / -0

I mean I want a trebuchet more than I want children at this point and I’m a woman staring 35 years in the face in July lol

14
Idontevenknow 14 points ago +14 / -0

Based trebuwoman

5
Angry 5 points ago +5 / -0

How are you still single!?!?

8
Ebbie8708 8 points ago +8 / -0

Had to develop a personality instead of relying on my looks lol

3
unicornpoop 3 points ago +4 / -1

Better get on that child thing ASAP.

3
DiscoverAFire 3 points ago +3 / -0

Hey girl hit me in the DMs and maybe we can do both

21
ThatAnonGuyAgain 21 points ago +21 / -0

She doesn’t realize that the constitution was to restrict govt freedom, not the people.

18
FireannDireach 18 points ago +18 / -0

I own a working 1853 Springfield.

13
CarpenterRichard 13 points ago +13 / -0

Nice! 👍

13
__bryan 13 points ago +13 / -0

I agree that the government and military should go back to muskets.

53
Spawnlingman 53 points ago +55 / -2

"You can't yell fire in a theater"

Yes you can. And you can be charged.

You also can't shoot up a theater. You will also be charged, and most likely killed when the police show up.

Idiot bitch

44
Allister 44 points ago +44 / -0

"You can't yell fire in a theater" Yes you can. And you can be charged.

Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is protected free speech, any charge would be unconstitutional and unlawful...

The Supreme Court decision that 'yell fire' originates from was overturned over 53 years ago, it's time people stop parroting the nonsense...

It's 100% constitutionally legal to yell fire in a crowded theatre!

8
Amaroq64 8 points ago +8 / -0

I was just gonna say that to, haha. Yup you can yell fire in a crowded theater.

But you are not allowed to incite violence.

18
Allister 18 points ago +18 / -0

But you are not allowed to incite violence.

Wrong again, that is the same 'yell fire' case that was overturned, 'incite violence' is no longer the test...

The new test aka the Brandenburg Test for the last 53 years is

"is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"

It's a two-tier test, the "imminent" wording is a hard one to prove, your speech not only had to incite or produce lawless actions but it has to imminently produce that action for it to be unconstitutional... Your speech inciting violence alone is not illegal in itself, thus even if you incite violence, if there is no imminent lawless action that follows then the speech was protected speech...

7
Amaroq64 7 points ago +7 / -0

You're right. I remember reading that too, but I forgot what the specific wording was!

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
2
jtt888 2 points ago +2 / -0

I would imagine something like saying to gang members with knives in a park when seeing a white guy walking, "Let's go fucking kill that cracker right now and steal his BMW," would be an example of not protected.

-1
SaddleTramp -1 points ago +1 / -2

You will reap what you sow, statist

1
jtt888 1 point ago +1 / -0

I got called a statist today for trying to give an example of inciting gang violence on an innocent person. Awesome!

1
BroadSunlitUplands 1 point ago +1 / -0

It doesn’t have to produce the action.

2
LawNmowermaN 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is one of those statements that's so catchy its meaning gets lost as it occupies the public mind. Drives me crazy. People use that phrase in place of using their brains.

The phrase was dicta (meaning general commentary not focused on the issue being decided by the court) in a case during WWI in which SCOTUS upheld the arrest of a man for distributing anti-war, anti-draft pamphlets. That ruling was later overturned, and the thrust of the ruling that core political speech can be censored when the government doesn't like it has since been rebuked by about a century of case law.

For actually shouting fire in a theatre, the government cannot enforce "prior restraint," meaning they can't have a law that stops you from doing it. Some laws can have that effect (disturbing the peace), and civil suits can arise from actual damages caused (tort cases by anyone injured in a panic). However, the act cannot be a priori illegal as speech, and laws that have the effect of prior restraint have to pass strict scrutiny.

2
uniformist 2 points ago +2 / -0

Especially if it’s on fire

5
gaijin_ronin 5 points ago +5 / -0

These subhumans truly believe this. Just like the meme, that's why these fuckers just sit there while everything burns around them.

4
InarosPrime 4 points ago +4 / -0

Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is completely legal and causes no harm if it is in the script.

1
Antioch 1 point ago +1 / -0

You absolutely can yell fire, if there's a fire.

31
magapotus 31 points ago +31 / -0

I don’t care what they think or say. Bring it motherfuckers.

15
rossiFan 15 points ago +15 / -0

Yeah, they didn't get the memo that name calling and antics don't affect us, any more.

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
2
WhineTasting 2 points ago +2 / -0

Isn't it punji?

23
Sea_Still 23 points ago +23 / -0

She should tell the thugs and gang bangers in NYC to switch up to flintlocks

23
airborne3502 23 points ago +23 / -0

Using a flintlock pistol, in self-defense, would be a chad move.

9
800080 9 points ago +9 / -0

It's been tried sort of.

The Feds have been doing no-knock-shoot-everyone raids long before Weaver and Waco.

This one from 1971. Was a black powder revolver (Walker Colt) replica.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ballew_raid

TLDR: No-knock raid based on bad information from an informant trying to save his butt. Ballew was shot in the head and paralyzed.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
8
BeerAndCope 8 points ago +8 / -0

I’m pretty sure those old flintlock guns aren’t subject to most firearms laws. Pretty sure felons can have them too.

14
cabelaman 14 points ago +14 / -0

Yeah they can, haha stupid libs. It would be funny to see the bloods and crips have a musket battle. Maybe a good ol fashion duel.

5
BeerAndCope 5 points ago +5 / -0

I heard about a guy in my state a few years back that was a convicted felon and would open carry a loaded flintlock pistol.

9
DixMcCoy 9 points ago +9 / -0

Firearms using percussive caps circa late 1800s are not "firearms" per the shitty legislation.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, freedom is dangerous. Except that the proliferation of carrying firearms and firearm culture is not and will not lead to these "mass shootings". If anything, it would prevent them.

Somewhere along the line, we got a social caste of people acceptable with giving up freedom for safety. As such, they deserve neither.

2
TaQo 2 points ago +3 / -1

But...a Daisy BB gun in NJ is considered a firearm. Such dbags. I need a Louis and Clark special...

3
DixMcCoy 3 points ago +3 / -0

What about buying ammunition in NJ? Is that regulated in any way? If so, what are the regulations?

2
TaQo 2 points ago +3 / -1

You have to show id and they make a record of what you bought.

1
DixMcCoy 1 point ago +1 / -0

In all the counties?

What if you went to Pennsylvania and bought ammunition there?

Can you have ammunition delivered to your doorstep?

0
TaQo 0 points ago +1 / -1

All counties. Can buy in de or pa, de you show id but not recorded as of 2015... last online order around 2015 not sure now.

0
Born_At_Night 0 points ago +1 / -1

You can order them online and have them shipped right to your door.

5
Recyclops 5 points ago +5 / -0

A New Jersey guy in 2015 was arrested for having an unloaded 250 year old flintlock in his glovebox during a traffic stop. He was an elderly antique collector. The cop let him go initially, then more showed up at his home the following morning to arrest. Charges were eventually dropped.

https://www.offthegridnews.com/self-defense/10-years-in-prison-for-owning-this-250-year-old-flintlock-gun/

4
Cantshadowbanthemall 4 points ago +4 / -0

Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers

1
airborne3502 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is the funniest thing I'll read all day. The bit about the smoothbore pistol taking out the neighbor's dog still has me chuckling.

2
Cantshadowbanthemall 2 points ago +2 / -0

Where's that copypasta

2
SickIcarus 2 points ago +2 / -0

Tallyho!

19
JoeBidensDementia1 19 points ago +19 / -0

Hochul wants to go back to when we had muskets.

Ok, ya dumb bitch, I guess you can go back to making every meal every day of the week, and give up your right to vote.

How's that?

11
__bryan 11 points ago +11 / -0

if the government and military wants to go back to muskets that's fine with me.

2
xanaxagoras 2 points ago +3 / -1

If that's in the table I might change my position

11
ShrikeDeCil 11 points ago +11 / -0

In a sane world, openly stating "Intent to violate Oath of Office" would be worthy of investigation.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
11
ThouShallNot 11 points ago +11 / -0

Elon Musk should open a supply line of Elon Muskets. He's already sold us flamethrowers, and this would be a nice addition.

11
yurimodin 11 points ago +11 / -0

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つCLARENCE THOMAS TAKE MY ENERGY༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つCLARENCE THOMAS TAKE MY ENERGY༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つCLARENCE THOMAS TAKE MY ENERGY༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つCLARENCE THOMAS TAKE MY ENERGY༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つCLARENCE THOMAS TAKE MY ENERGY༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

10
PureBloodedSuperStr8 10 points ago +12 / -2

MuSkEtS

4
zzyzyx 4 points ago +4 / -0

with 100 grains of black powder and a .75 caliber musket ball. That'll blow a hole the size of texas in the target.

2
chickeninoven 2 points ago +2 / -0

But will it blow the lungs out of the body.

9
Spawnlingman 9 points ago +9 / -0

COME ON MARYLAND. REVISE THE LAWS NOW.

2
ShyRipley 2 points ago +2 / -0

I believe it's 7 states that have similar "proper cause" aka "may issue" laws New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey and California - as well as D.C. - currently in effect.

Today's ruling knocks New York's law off the books. Right? Does the SCOTUS ruling apply to ALL states effective today as well? Or must each state file a case and work it up through the system individually?

Any lawyerly pedes in the house?

3
Induceddrag 3 points ago +3 / -0

Sounds like people will have to challenge those laws state by state if the state governments don’t act on their own accord (they won’t).

2
ShyRipley 2 points ago +2 / -0

Really? Did you read an official discussion on it or something? Damn.

I mean, the whole "Marriage between two gay people is now legal" automatically went to all states, didn't it?

Sorry for pressing on it...

4
Induceddrag 4 points ago +4 / -0

The talk radio in DC rolled out some legal experts to talk about it. That was their opinion. The NY democrats are mostly upset because they won’t be able to take bribes for gun permits anymore.

2
Cantshadowbanthemall 2 points ago +2 / -0

Gavin newsome too. $10,000 in Santa Clara county for a CCW payable to the reelection campaign of the sheriff

1
ShyRipley 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thank you very much for the sauce. Will be interesting to see if things shake out differently over the next few days.

Ha! Probably.

2
Induceddrag 2 points ago +2 / -0

The democrats in NY are pissed because bribes for gun permits are a revenue stream.

3
lixa 3 points ago +3 / -0

I'd love to know this too. In CA some counties are effectively shall issue and some are may/pretty much won't issue, although LA sheriff has been changing it here. Bottom line is a CA resident can carry into a county which doesn't let its own residents carry, which is BS.

1
KILLARY4PRISON 1 point ago +1 / -0

Except SF county. They can't go there technically.

8
DixMcCoy 8 points ago +8 / -0

DOJ, like, where Eric Holder used to work? I suggest that they shut the fuck up.

KATHY HOCHUL: "I would like to point out to the Supreme Court justices, that the only weapons at that time were muskets. I'm prepared to go back to muskets."

Ignorant slut... I don't even know where to begin! I suggest that only landowning men can vote and we repeal the 19th. I'm prepared to repeal the 19th ammendment. What say you, Hochul (btw name sounds like that of a villian in LOTR)?

8
MakinBacon 8 points ago +8 / -0

just for anti gunners, I am willing to use a .60 caliber black powder, unjacketed, lead firing, musket with no restrictions on length, min age, stock configuration, magazine size or firing rate for my anti tyranny needs, if their body guards and our police are willing to do the same.

since criminals aren't regulated at all, I assume a shotgun shell with safety glass crumbles would be acceptable for defense in that situation?

I may also employ a cannon, or two or three.

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
6
HotDogWithMustard 6 points ago +6 / -0

Congrats! Everyone now hates the feds. acceleration intensifies

6
FireannDireach 6 points ago +6 / -0

When they REEEE this hard, you know the right thing happened.

6
NonbinaryPotatohead 6 points ago +6 / -0

They are openly declaring kinetic war on innocent American citizens who are only interested in preventing their stores from being burned and looted and their children allowed to be massacred while the police wait for the criminals to finish their job.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
5
IbleedOrange 5 points ago +5 / -0

"You can't yell fire in a theater " You also can't shoot guns in a theater.

2
The_Expert 2 points ago +3 / -1

You can yell fire in a theater. You can also shoot guns in a theater. Only one is illegal.

5
DZP1 5 points ago +5 / -0

It should be of concern that the Democrat People's Communist Republic Party doesn't accept both the Constitution and the Supreme Court, wants to take guns away because they can defend one against being killed, and yet they want unrestricted rights to abortion-kill. This is going to end up in a physical war between the Commies in the US and the Americans who believe in law to prevent chaos but also freedom from repressive government that oversteps its bounds.

2
rcstl 2 points ago +2 / -0

Can we just start this and get it over before my grand kids are adults? Sounds like a good time killing commies.

2
DZP1 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think we probably have to start doing it on a local level and quietly since all communications are monitored by the deep state.

Funny how all the important Dems have serious bodyguards. Er, nothing like third world dictators, no sir.

1
rcstl 1 point ago +1 / -0

I am in a really red state so I have to wait until the feds attack us locally. Most of our commies are in a couple of cities and our locals are sorta based. Look up Wilson's Creek.

5
turdinthepunch 5 points ago +5 / -0

Garlands bitter tears are something to behold.

5
xkgb 5 points ago +5 / -0

KATHY HOCHUL: "I would like to point out to the Supreme Court justices, that the only weapons at that time were muskets. I'm prepared to go back to muskets."

It says KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, not muskets, or small arms.

5
Dave___Smith 5 points ago +5 / -0

KATHY HOCHUL: "Shocking. Absolutely shocking that they have taken away our right to have reasonable restrictions. We can have restrictions on speech. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, but somehow there's no restrictions allowed on the Second Amendment?"

Yeah, you can’t shoot off rounds in a theater either without a reason. You can’t yell fire, but nobody is taking away your voice box (yet). Stupid bitch

4
mateus 4 points ago +4 / -0

The biggest joke about Hochul, given the state's out of control crime and bail reform which puts perps back on the street, is her ridiculous assertion that she's "protecting" New Yorkers.

5
Idontevenknow 5 points ago +5 / -0

Wow are they threatening our "Democracy?"

5
Goldsteinbergsky 5 points ago +5 / -0

Their "democracy." Aka "communist oligarchy."

4
DixMcCoy 4 points ago +4 / -0

Communist dictatorship. Whoops, tautology!

5
Restore_Sanity_alt 5 points ago +5 / -0

Someone should remind her that they didn’t have television in the 1700’s either.

4
HeroCatMarkPurrman 4 points ago +14 / -10

Four minute old post? Check.

Two comments? Check.

Twenty two updoots? Check.

Shitty article? Check.

Stickied? Of course.

9
rossiFan 9 points ago +11 / -2

Controlled opposition? We are.

6
JuanTitor 6 points ago +9 / -3

I try to give the mods slack, because I would never ever volunteer for that job; I wouldn't really want to do it for money either.

5
HeroCatMarkPurrman 5 points ago +6 / -1

What you’re failing to remember is that most mods love to mod. It’s their whole life.

I’ve been here long enough to remember the period when they were drunk with power banning people for the smallest of infractions like having a slightly different opinion.

0
WhineTasting 0 points ago +1 / -1

Huh? I've been a member of t_d since 2015. I don't recall such a phase.

Maybe a time in which the community had to ratchet down on "calls to violence" type of posts... But that was around the time t_d started getting fucked by reddit admins.

1
HeroCatMarkPurrman 1 point ago +1 / -0

Not sure where you were but there are plenty of us who remember.

5
yurimodin 5 points ago +7 / -2

its a mod's alt account GURANTEED

2
censorthisss 2 points ago +3 / -1

What makes it a shitty article?

-2
HeroCatMarkPurrman -2 points ago +2 / -4

How about the editorializing and lack of real information?

5
censorthisss 5 points ago +6 / -1

They're showing what others are saying about the SCOTUS ruling. That's the information.

-1
HeroCatMarkPurrman -1 points ago +1 / -2

It’s presented in a gossipy clucking hens of The View sort of way.

1
Badfinz_FL 1 point ago +3 / -2

preach brother pede!!

lot of that shit going down here lately

4
Chemicaltackle23 4 points ago +4 / -0

If someone shoots a tyrant with a musket does that make it ok?

4
SnowflakeJuice 4 points ago +4 / -0

More evidence that DOJ needs to be disbanded

4
DiscoStu 4 points ago +4 / -0

Looking forward to many many salt threads. This has been a good day.

4
7
LeftiesAreTheRacists 7 points ago +7 / -0

Sickening that there are 3 commies on the court

4
RetainedByLucifer 4 points ago +4 / -0

Justice Thomas is based AF. That is all.

3
Krat 3 points ago +3 / -0

Biden statement is a call for insurrection

3
Forty_Five 3 points ago +3 / -0

"Shocking. Absolutely shocking that they have taken away our right to have reasonable restrictions" - Kathy Hochul

Your right to restrict our freedoms? Burn in hell you stupid fucking cunt.

3
Steady3 3 points ago +3 / -0

These fuckers think that "checks and balances" mean checks written to Ukraine.

3
Vlad_The_Impaler 3 points ago +3 / -0

NY Gov. Kathy Hochul didn’t take the decision well. Indeed, she said they would fight for even more restrictions, despite the Supreme Court’s decision. Hochul said that if the Court wanted to consider the original meaning of the Constitution, she was willing to go back to “muskets.” She revealed not only how extreme she is, but how ignorant she is of the law.

Does this dumb bitch Kathy Hochul get guarded by security holding muskets? Or do they have modern firearms? Why does she get heavily armed security with modern arms but the people she thinks she rules over don't get the same protection?

People like her should not be allowed to have any armed security. Neither she nor any security team. She should completely disarm. Otherwise I don't give a sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit about your calls for gun control. YOU DISARM FIRST!!!

3
The_Expert 3 points ago +4 / -1

My 9mm Kimber identifies as a musket.

3
skywalk 3 points ago +3 / -0

Trump's picks finally making a dent.

3
MythArcana 3 points ago +3 / -0

Shouldn't they just be quiet and worry about illegals, drugs, democrat crime, Soros, FBI psyops and all of the DNC and Congress?

3
jarvis 3 points ago +3 / -0

"Shocking. Absolutely shocking that they have taken away our right to have reasonable restrictions. We can have restrictions on speech. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, but somehow there's no restrictions allowed on the Second Amendment?"

Yes, it's against the law to yell fire in a crowded theater...unless there's actually a fire.

Just like how it's against the law shoot someone with a gun, unless they put yourself or another person in danger.

Dumb twat.

3
dagoat4l 3 points ago +3 / -0

Our rights piss off the commie overlords

3
Induceddrag 3 points ago +3 / -0

There is no better proof of the democrats’ real intentions for gun control than their reaction to this decision.
Everybody in NY that applies for a gun permit will have to pass a background check, and whatever other flaming hoops the commies add to the process. These are the same things that the RINOs just voted for in the Senate.
Instead of being happy, the democrats are losing their minds. They want gun permits limited to only their friends, an elite few, and those rich enough to bribe officials. Joe on the street, who is stuck battling against a wave of criminals unleashed by these same democrats, gets neither police protection nor the tools for self protection.

2
SaveUsSCOTUS 2 points ago +2 / -0

you cant appeal a SCOTUS ruling right? this was the final final final ruling?

2
dldeuce 2 points ago +2 / -0

I love how all these dem politicians bemoan the loss of these reasonable restrictions that require citizens to show a need for self defense. That's obviously a flat out lie by omission, and they know it. The law requires an extraordinary showing of a need that virtually nullifies public carry altogether except for the elite, the connected, or the celebrity.

2
malooch 2 points ago +2 / -0

them and their gay ass "musket" argument

2
NoComment 2 points ago +2 / -0

At what point do we start treating the Democrat Party as an active hostile threat to the United States?

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
Thedude2283 1 point ago +1 / -0

I’m ok going back to muskets if she is ok going back to leaches, mercury pills and bleeding for healthcare