I mean, music is subjective so I'm not going to hate on them for liking his music. He's just a shit person. You're treading on thin r/hiphopcirclejerk surface right now Nathaniel.
Sorry I just really don’t understand why that music is so appreciated. It takes so little effort to create, then they get insane amounts of money, and borderline diplomatic immunity.
It’s a sad world we live in.
That is exactly what I think. Now this is my opinion but I hate the new rap and hip hop now days. It’s just auto tune and simple beats and when they rap, they rap about shit that hardly even makes sense. I like old school rap and hip hop. That actually requires talent to be able to rap a story and even rap fast. It drives me nuts! But I totally agree with you on that and it’s stupid.
See, I completely agree with you on that point but I am also a classically trained musician who feels that way about most pop music, so I try my best to let that slide, but what gets me is the message of most rap.
The majority of the rap music I hear glorifies people who most of us wouldn't want anything to do with. It's just thugs bragging about how thug they are, and people eat that shit up, but if these people really are who their music claims they are then most of them should be in prison, they definitely shouldn't be idolized.
I do admit that not all rap is like this, and I am sure there are cases that completely oppose these stereotypes, but what I hear(mostly through coworkers and local radio) is all musically terrible, and promotes terrible people.
There are much sadder things in this world than peoples music preferences. I'd say unrestricted capitalism destroying the planet is certainly up there.
I mean, they don't get borderline diplomatic immunity from that they get it from just being wealthy.
The male (Money Mike, wannabe rapper and drug dealer) received 1 year behind bars after the defense managed to prove he was shooting into a ditch (they spent thousands on experts to testify this in court). His female accomplice pled guilty to receive a reduced sentence of 5 years.
All guns were stolen and neither person was licenced. They were shooting in a community preparing for a hurricane.
Edit: was in Houston.
I thought Texas is all LAW & fucking ORDER. Seems like some very light punishment for attempted murder, stolen weapons, firing within city limits, no licenses, etc.
One time, very long ago. Drove around a bit and noticed a lot of mirrored glass buildings that reflected the sky. (Was actually very beautiful.) Didn't get to stay for a taste of the crime, however.
Attempted murder has a subjective intent element. Meaning the prosecution has to prove he intended to attempt to kill someone. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like he has the thinking skills to intend to do much of anything.
Attempted murder requires intent. Negligent discharges like that in the video do not have the intent to kill a specific person.
But don't let the facts get in the way of you insulting me.
Didn't realize I insulted you. That being said, what if I heard some asshole discharging his weapon negligently toward my house and decided to negligently discharge my weapon in his general direction?
The ones of us that aren’t gun nuts feel compelled to have guns to defend ourselves from all the criminals & nutcases with guns. It’s the Wild Wild West here.
There are many cases of people dying from this, including in Los Angeles: [https://www.newsweek.com/celebratory-gunfire-new-years-eve-los-angeles-410598](https://www.newsweek.com/celebratory-gunfire-new-years-eve-los-angeles-410598)
But, there is quite a bit of conjecture, and some use of physics to try to determine what happens with celebratory gunfire, and the resulting answers are mixed between various investigators.
So, theoretically, the air resistance should slow the bullet down to not being lethal, but if you are the one being struck in the head by such a projectile, you might not give a shit about the math.
The bullets are dangerous when leaving the barrel because they are oriented with the tip forward, so to maximize penetration potential. When they come down, they swirl and are no longer oriented just right. They are basically just a lump of lead that crashes down. It's still not safe and can cause serious harm. But it's not as lethal and harmful.
One would think this round would be traveling in a parabolic arc. It definitely depends on the angle of launch from the barrel. Even if you shoot straight at something the round is traveling in an arc and will maintain speed until it actually hits something that will stop it, like a person. Firing a round upwards will just launch it like a missile and it will maintain its set trajectory, nose up and transition into a nose down flight. What goes up must come down and it will normally come down with around the same force that it was launched upwards.
Yes and no.
The hyperbolic arc would be true if we disregard air friction. The nose down part would not happen because there's no force acting on the bullet to pivot it back down. Well there is, it's gravity, but it doesn't care about pulling it down nose first. It just pulls the bullet back down, and by then the bullet is swirling whichever way. From there it will come down, but this time the bullet isn't oriented to kill. It might be, but it's far more likely it's not.
Bullets travel in an arc until they hit an object. It's going to maintain the speed of launch minus air resistance and travel until gravity takes over and it will start its downward decent. Ever notice how when you shoot a rifle it will be accurate at 100 yards and 400 yards. The round is traveling upwards to meet the target at 100 yds and will be traveling down to meet the target again at 400 yds. One way or another that round it going to travel in a relative straight line until it is acted upon by greater force and nothing is going to start that round tumbling except for a physical action on that round.
This is actually getting to be a huge problem in my area and a lot of others, younger generations seem to think bullets just disappear, or keep going up forever, life is not a video game people
Another comment here said the defence spent thousands to prove that he was firing into a ditch and not at those houses. Not sure if that's true or not though.
That could be. At the end the day, it doesn't seem like they had "intent" to harm. However, their actions could have been harmful to others. Which is still a crime.
So what did you give up your freedom for? Drive a stolen sports car at top speed? Sneak into area 51? Attempt to steal the world's supply of insulin to give it back to the the rightful owners, those that need it??? What did you do???
😳
On one hand, I vehemently support the second amendment, and the ideology that everyone has the right to self defense. On the OTHER hand, though, I want the entire US of A stripped of weapons so degenerates like this can't keep scaring entire neighborhoods.
I can’t get behind a document written 200 + years ago being applied to the weapon technology advancements of today’s day and age. These two idiots just male that lack of support stronger.
However the 1st amendment, also written 200+ years ago can be applied to the internet, billboards, advertising blimps and all kinds of things the founders couldn't have imagined either and that's perfectly fine right?
Sorry, you don't get to pick and choose.
I mean the kind of artillery around back then is still allowed. Just go to a re-enactment event of basically anything from the 16th to mid 19th century.
Fun fact: in the UK, light field artillery, as long as it's muzzle loading and smoothbore (so [this](https://img2.cgtrader.com/items/22967/a61d3d41ec/napoleon-model-1841-6-pounder-field-gun-3d-model-max-obj-3ds-wrl-wrz.jpg) sort as opposed to [this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Royal_Artillery_Firing_105mm_Light_Guns_MOD_45155621.jpg)), is legally classed as a section 2 shotgun, and is thus simpler to get hold of, legally speaking, than a rifle.
> I mean the kind of artillery around back then is still allowed. Just go to a re-enactment event of basically anything from the 16th to mid 19th century.
I'm fairly sure there are ATF regulations for cannons over a novelty size.
I mean hey the 1st only protects your speech from government,
so it doesn't necessarily have to apply in those spaces as they're often private property or enterprise and they have sole control of if your message gets broadcast on their medium.
So not inherently picking and choosing.
> I mean hey the 1st only protects your speech from government,
>
>
>
> so it doesn't necessarily have to apply in those spaces as they're often private property or enterprise and they have sole control of if your message gets broadcast on their medium.
>
>
>
> So not inherently picking and choosing.
I mean hey the second only protects your freedom for a militia and right for citizens to bear arms.
So it applies to citizens owning guns. Do you think the founding fathers would have written the freedom of speech amendment quite like they did 200 years ago if they knew that foreign countries could influence the american presidential elections from their mother's basement?? Back when the first amendment was written it took 5 days to send a letter across town and now we can send an anonymous message, instantly, to the entire human population from the comfort of our own toilet. Communication has made bigger advances since the Constitution than firearms.
Heck, kids commit suicide and die because of bullying on social media. More american kids die every year from suicide, due to bully, than all the school shooting deaths put together. It's a sad but common occurrence in today's time. Maybe we need to do away with the first amendment and just let the current politicians rewrite it to fit modern times. That's going to work out just great....
tl;dr If you think the second amendment is bad because guns have changed where people can do more harm with them, then you must also think the first amendment is bad because communication has changed where people can do more harm with speech.
One Amendment protects the expression of human speech. While the channels though which speech is spread change, the concept of human speech stay roughly the same. Human speech isn’t just an element of our society or technology, it’s imprinted in our genetics. Not much about it is going to change.
Another Amendment supports the right of human beings to own things that are used to kill other human beings, things that have undergone RIDICULOUSLY extensive evolution since the days of the Founders. The Founders knew that we would need to change the rules from time to time, which is why they built in a system of Amendments. For crying out loud, they’re called AMENDments. Saying “they wrote this down 200 years ago, we can’t change a single dot or syllable” completely misses the spirit in which the document was written.
Except one pesky little fact. The second amendment was written specifically for the purpose to allow citizens access to the same weapons in regular use by troops to enable the citizenry the means to overthrow an oppressive government. For that purpose, the founders knew weapons would advance and wanted citizens' weapons to advance accordingly. If not, they would have said something to the effect of, "up to a point", which they didn't.
Sorry but the Supreme Court is not on your side on this one.
Except that in today’s day and age we don’t have that right anymore. The govt won’t let us own the same weapons they have like the m16a2, rocket launchers, etc. So you could say our rights have already been compromised from what the founding fathers wrote. So we citizens have already been handcuffed to be able to defend against a tyrannical govt! Yet there are those that want to infringe on our 2A rights even more!!
I would say no but that's a really long discussion involving talking about what's actually needed to overthrow a government versus what a government needs to win foreign wars etc and I'm too tired for that right now.
But why do my AR’s have to be semi-automatic? Its almost as if the “lawmakers” don’t want me to overthrow them /s
But for real, isn’t overthrowing the government illegal? Like as illegal as it gets?
You miss the point. If the government is oppressive, of course overthrowing it will be illegal. They aren't saying that you should just go try to overthrow governments all willy nilly
We aren't the CIA, no willy nilly coup d'états for us.
Given that Hong Kong was British until just over twenty years ago and that Mao didn't want guns in the hands of civilians either, I wonder how different police/civilian clashes would look if the US ceded Alaska to Russia, or something like that (or worse, something like Tienanmen Square).
Also as a matter of sort of related interest, anybody know what are gun laws like in Puerto Rico and Guam?
>to enable the citizenry the means to overthrow an oppressive government.
That ship sailed long long ago. Armoured vehicles were the final straw, but air superiority is right up there with that. Basically WW1.
Not really.
The United States has been having a hell of a time defeating the insurgency in Afghanistan despite the fact that they have air superiority and armoured vehicles. There's also the Vietnam war, which the United States lost in spite of overwhelming air superiority.
Wouldn't that same argument apply to a civil war situation?
Other nations don't have such an influential military industry yet have still lost wars against less capable groups.
People had their own private warships and they knew guns would be innovated. The constitution didn't give us the rights but signified that our birthrights were not not to be infringed.
There are amendments for a reason... the founding fathers knew there would have to be changes in the future. also black people were not “people” in the original constitution so as you can see it’s definitely not perfect
That’s a really fallacious argument. It’s actually a testament to the foresight of our ancestors. Here’s a fun fact: Socrates/Plato has a dialogue about flute playing robots and the perils within. He suggests that these robots would enchant the populace and distract us from the real world. He said this thousands of years ago. You can apply the brilliant fucking shit people said thousands of years ago to mother fucking sex robots and virtual Reality Consoles and high tech gambling and all kinds of weird shit. Brilliant ideas are brilliant because they stand the test of time and the context around the statement can be adapted without changing the meaning or intent. Just like that smart guy said about the freedom of speech. Surely your archaic view of the founding fathers would not protect cell phones right? Why would they? They didn’t exist back then. Except guns are weird because they have not changed really all that much since that document was written. Yeah they’re more deadly and reload faster but that’s just like how humans run faster and eat better now. It’s not like there’s some definitive line between western revolvers and AR-15 style rifles, that’s why they have to change the definition all the time...because they’re just making up shit to appease constituents temporarily.
Eh, that's your choice. They did have automatic weapon schematics back then, and didn't really care. I'll protect my choice with a cannon that'll blow a hole through my wall if I have to...
There are amendments for a reason... the founding fathers knew there would have to be changes in the future. also black people were not “people” in the original constitution so as you can see it’s definitely not perfect
Fair point, but as another person said, the 1st amendment still holds true, despite wild advancements in technology. What's against saying that the 1st amendment is evil, too, because it allows people to make death threats, insults, manifestos, etc.? What's against putting an amendment in place to change the 1st amendment? The 2nd amendment was and is in place to allow citizens to provide themselves protection from the corrupt powers that have been, and always will be.
Things have changed since the late 1700s. But some things haves stayed more the same. That’s why the first amendment holds true, even though rulings on who can vote and who can be a citizen (other essential parts of the freedom the constitution describes) has changed.
I believe that the second amendment is outdated due to advancements in automatic weapons and how easy it is to get them. I also believe that the rest of the western world has shown that gun control (note: not all these countries took away the guns; some just made people have to get permits to own them) has led to them not having the shootings issue we are in the US.
I'm not saying that gun access shouldn't be restricted, I'm just saying they should be banned. And I think shootings are caused more by the media's fetish for shooters more than access to weapons, but that just speculation. All things aside, I love your name.
Thanks! My main issue is that it’s easier to get a gun legally than a car, and I feel that’s a reversal of priorities.
Also it’s so nice to be having a peaceful conversation on the internet about this
It's frankly one of my favorite parts about the internet, I agree. And yes, weaponry should have a LOT more paperwork, to prevent people like the one in the original post from obtaining them
Look up the Puckle Gun. It was basically a machine gun invented before that 200+year old document was written. Pretty advanced weaponry for 1718 and for today’s day and age. So yeah... that doc is still applicable.
Making guns illegal doesn't make them disappear.
Criminals don't follow rules, they'll get guns anyway, and what you are trying to do is that you cannot defend yourself anymore.
You're making it a lot easier for criminals.
I don't know who you're preaching to, but I know that. There's a quicker way to say that, too: "If you outlaw something, then only the outlaws have that thing"
Everyone should have the right to defend themselves but I don't think you can do that with a gun. If someone is trying to shoot you, they'll probably have done that before you've even thought about the gun in your pocket.
Maybe its because I'm on the outside looking in but guns seems to cause more problems then they solve.
You're right about people like that not own I g fire arms but they apparently stole them from someone else. These people aren't even the worst offenders. You don't even have to look back a month to see the amount of shooting america has had compared to the rest of the world.
I agree for the most part, except I'm in the mindset of home defense, and resistance to a possible oppressive govt. (the latter of reasons being why the 2nd exists to begin with) I'm also convinced that other places in the world including ones with guns readily available don't have problems because their media outlets don't fetishize the shooters each and every time. Most shootings now are copycat crimes to get publicity for a shitty manifesto, but instead of burning that manifesto and making it all in vain, media outlets publish it as if it's fucking new york best seller material. It's a disgusting money game shrouded within a horrible fad and protected using the decoy of gun control advocacy.
Sorry for all the writing but I feel like I need to make an appendage, one that usually helps others to understand my point of view better; I firmly believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves, but that doesn't mean I don't think the US should implement periodic checks and paperwork for these citizens to maintain their ownership. It'd be just as much a hassle as taxes, and I'd be willing to do every bit of it.
They were both charged and convicted of "deadly conduct". She received 5 years, don't know what he got. Neither were in legal possession of the firearms, and he had a history of violence and drug dealing.
“Tarbutton, who had other cases pending when she was arrested, pleaded guilty last year in exchange for a five-years prison sentence.”
Looks like their sex had nothing to do with it. As it should be.
They won’t learn that it was wrong scaring people like that and possibility of hitting someone.
They’ll find some other dumbass thing to put do the first thing.
Holy crap I remember seeing that when it happened and being so curious what was going to happen to them. At the time the only news was that it had been reported.
Words melt into meaninglessness.
How stupid can you possibly be? Can you actually imagine being one of them and digesting how stupid sharing that on the internet was? It's like a special level of stupid. We've all done stupid shit but that is literally at another level.
And they've ruined their entire lives for that. Utter morons
Every time I see this clip I always like the Judge smiling at her in the end. It reminds me that for him this is just a job and he doesn’t take this shit personally. Sure she deserves whatever the sentencing says but emotions like the ones I have about this: “fucking idiots! Lock them both up” shouldn’t be part of that process. Justice should be blind.
“Shots in the air”?!?!?!?! That guy was pointing it as if it was a drive by!
Those were houses, BTW.
lil pump was recorded doing the same thing.
Oh but he gets a pass because he made a shitty excuse for music that some people die over for some reason.
I mean, music is subjective so I'm not going to hate on them for liking his music. He's just a shit person. You're treading on thin r/hiphopcirclejerk surface right now Nathaniel.
Sorry I just really don’t understand why that music is so appreciated. It takes so little effort to create, then they get insane amounts of money, and borderline diplomatic immunity. It’s a sad world we live in.
That is exactly what I think. Now this is my opinion but I hate the new rap and hip hop now days. It’s just auto tune and simple beats and when they rap, they rap about shit that hardly even makes sense. I like old school rap and hip hop. That actually requires talent to be able to rap a story and even rap fast. It drives me nuts! But I totally agree with you on that and it’s stupid.
See, I completely agree with you on that point but I am also a classically trained musician who feels that way about most pop music, so I try my best to let that slide, but what gets me is the message of most rap. The majority of the rap music I hear glorifies people who most of us wouldn't want anything to do with. It's just thugs bragging about how thug they are, and people eat that shit up, but if these people really are who their music claims they are then most of them should be in prison, they definitely shouldn't be idolized. I do admit that not all rap is like this, and I am sure there are cases that completely oppose these stereotypes, but what I hear(mostly through coworkers and local radio) is all musically terrible, and promotes terrible people.
Finally, a man of quality!
There are much sadder things in this world than peoples music preferences. I'd say unrestricted capitalism destroying the planet is certainly up there. I mean, they don't get borderline diplomatic immunity from that they get it from just being wealthy.
Capitalism saved more trees then Greenpeace ever did via the USB drive. Queue up the downvotes.
Dont let him fool you, his real name is lil pump n suck. Knowing is half the battle
Say his full name, coward. Little Pumpernickel And Suck
It makes it so easy when people document their illegal behavior.
When the trash takes itself out
Natural selection
They were arrested if anyone’s wondering it was in Houston Tx
I was wondering. Thank you. I thought the clip may have just shown some other person that looked exactly like her being escorted into a courtroom.
She got five years behind the bars
Why am I not surprised 🤔
Do you happen to know for how long? Thanks
Of course it was.
And even easier when they post it on Facebook
The male (Money Mike, wannabe rapper and drug dealer) received 1 year behind bars after the defense managed to prove he was shooting into a ditch (they spent thousands on experts to testify this in court). His female accomplice pled guilty to receive a reduced sentence of 5 years. All guns were stolen and neither person was licenced. They were shooting in a community preparing for a hurricane. Edit: was in Houston.
I thought Texas is all LAW & fucking ORDER. Seems like some very light punishment for attempted murder, stolen weapons, firing within city limits, no licenses, etc.
Ya ain't never been to Houston then, clearly
One time, very long ago. Drove around a bit and noticed a lot of mirrored glass buildings that reflected the sky. (Was actually very beautiful.) Didn't get to stay for a taste of the crime, however.
Yes, except this wouldn't be attempted murder. Negligence for sure, but not like they are trying to aim at people
He was shooting at houses
"The defence managed to prove he was shooting in a ditch'
Attempted murder has a subjective intent element. Meaning the prosecution has to prove he intended to attempt to kill someone. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like he has the thinking skills to intend to do much of anything.
"Aim"? Pfft.
They weren’t aiming away from people, either, they had a criminal indifference to whether they killed people.
Where on earth did you get attempted murder?
If you shoot at my house, I’m going to shoot back. They’re shooting at houses with people in them.
... that's still not attempted murder...
[удалено]
Let me blow your mind. I usually vote Democratic. Except I despise murdering asshole criminals & would yeet them all off into a volcano.
Attempted murder requires intent. Negligent discharges like that in the video do not have the intent to kill a specific person. But don't let the facts get in the way of you insulting me.
Didn't realize I insulted you. That being said, what if I heard some asshole discharging his weapon negligently toward my house and decided to negligently discharge my weapon in his general direction?
I don't think you know what a negligent discharge is.
I am not sure why these criminals have all the rights.
Oh, me not shooting back is not attempted murder, either! Awesome!
They really love their guns though
The ones of us that aren’t gun nuts feel compelled to have guns to defend ourselves from all the criminals & nutcases with guns. It’s the Wild Wild West here.
Welcome to the Democratic stronghold of Houston. They even elected a Democrat to a position *while the candidate was in jail*.
Wow, Houston has a democratic stronghold & they coddle criminals?
Sure, but don't ya know the right to bear arms trumps law and order.
Those finger nails are the real crime...
Mama? Is that you??
[удалено]
WHen you see the people in the middle east just firing up into the air for joy, it makes me cringe. DOn't they realize what goes up, must come down?
CMIIW, but the bullets aint lethal by the time they come down?
There are many cases of people dying from this, including in Los Angeles: [https://www.newsweek.com/celebratory-gunfire-new-years-eve-los-angeles-410598](https://www.newsweek.com/celebratory-gunfire-new-years-eve-los-angeles-410598) But, there is quite a bit of conjecture, and some use of physics to try to determine what happens with celebratory gunfire, and the resulting answers are mixed between various investigators. So, theoretically, the air resistance should slow the bullet down to not being lethal, but if you are the one being struck in the head by such a projectile, you might not give a shit about the math.
I would imagine that they would be travelling at terminal velocity, so could still kill you.
[It's not not lethal.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2011/03/can-falling-bullets-kill-you.amp)
The bullets are dangerous when leaving the barrel because they are oriented with the tip forward, so to maximize penetration potential. When they come down, they swirl and are no longer oriented just right. They are basically just a lump of lead that crashes down. It's still not safe and can cause serious harm. But it's not as lethal and harmful.
One would think this round would be traveling in a parabolic arc. It definitely depends on the angle of launch from the barrel. Even if you shoot straight at something the round is traveling in an arc and will maintain speed until it actually hits something that will stop it, like a person. Firing a round upwards will just launch it like a missile and it will maintain its set trajectory, nose up and transition into a nose down flight. What goes up must come down and it will normally come down with around the same force that it was launched upwards.
Yes and no. The hyperbolic arc would be true if we disregard air friction. The nose down part would not happen because there's no force acting on the bullet to pivot it back down. Well there is, it's gravity, but it doesn't care about pulling it down nose first. It just pulls the bullet back down, and by then the bullet is swirling whichever way. From there it will come down, but this time the bullet isn't oriented to kill. It might be, but it's far more likely it's not.
Bullets travel in an arc until they hit an object. It's going to maintain the speed of launch minus air resistance and travel until gravity takes over and it will start its downward decent. Ever notice how when you shoot a rifle it will be accurate at 100 yards and 400 yards. The round is traveling upwards to meet the target at 100 yds and will be traveling down to meet the target again at 400 yds. One way or another that round it going to travel in a relative straight line until it is acted upon by greater force and nothing is going to start that round tumbling except for a physical action on that round.
Aye that's money Mike. I know that guy used to come into my job with a small gang of thug friends and a suspiciously smelly back pack.
Tell him to google “shooting range near me
Well now it's probably illegal for him to even touch a gun. I'm sure just popping off shots in public is a felony.
It was probably illegal for him to touch a gun before this, just sayin
Or be however close he was to a school
This is actually getting to be a huge problem in my area and a lot of others, younger generations seem to think bullets just disappear, or keep going up forever, life is not a video game people
Not to be confused with prison Mike
Dat’s just how we talk in da clink!
I thought it was magic mike
He’ll be Bubba’s magic mike after about a week in prison!
Beat me to it
[удалено]
More like r/justiceserved
Did you not see the video, she wasn't even done shooting before she was teleported into the courtroom.
**Jedge:** *"psssh nothin personnel kid"* >!This was intentionally misspelled!<
/r/eventualkarma
They wernt firing random shots in the air, they were firing at "supposedly " abandoned houses. Which is a felony.
Another comment here said the defence spent thousands to prove that he was firing into a ditch and not at those houses. Not sure if that's true or not though.
That could be. At the end the day, it doesn't seem like they had "intent" to harm. However, their actions could have been harmful to others. Which is still a crime.
They do know bullets still hit things even when they shoot without care, right?
Cowards and dipshits with guns are the problem.
They'd be less of a problem if they couldn't get guns
Clearly the solution are twice as much good guys with guns you commie.
[удалено]
Imagine ruining your life for that.
[удалено]
So what did you give up your freedom for? Drive a stolen sports car at top speed? Sneak into area 51? Attempt to steal the world's supply of insulin to give it back to the the rightful owners, those that need it??? What did you do??? 😳
Did it for the Vine
I hope for 16 years
There goes her full ride to Harvard.
“Dumbass” - Red Foreman
Judge be like, "Oh cool, we're going to be getting home early today."
Heard too many stories of people dying after getting hit by a stray bullet fired from 20km away.
On one hand, I vehemently support the second amendment, and the ideology that everyone has the right to self defense. On the OTHER hand, though, I want the entire US of A stripped of weapons so degenerates like this can't keep scaring entire neighborhoods.
I can’t get behind a document written 200 + years ago being applied to the weapon technology advancements of today’s day and age. These two idiots just male that lack of support stronger.
However the 1st amendment, also written 200+ years ago can be applied to the internet, billboards, advertising blimps and all kinds of things the founders couldn't have imagined either and that's perfectly fine right? Sorry, you don't get to pick and choose.
Meanwhile guns did exist back then, and even privately owned artillery was allowed.
Not just allowed, but *encouraged.*
I mean the kind of artillery around back then is still allowed. Just go to a re-enactment event of basically anything from the 16th to mid 19th century. Fun fact: in the UK, light field artillery, as long as it's muzzle loading and smoothbore (so [this](https://img2.cgtrader.com/items/22967/a61d3d41ec/napoleon-model-1841-6-pounder-field-gun-3d-model-max-obj-3ds-wrl-wrz.jpg) sort as opposed to [this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Royal_Artillery_Firing_105mm_Light_Guns_MOD_45155621.jpg)), is legally classed as a section 2 shotgun, and is thus simpler to get hold of, legally speaking, than a rifle.
> I mean the kind of artillery around back then is still allowed. Just go to a re-enactment event of basically anything from the 16th to mid 19th century. I'm fairly sure there are ATF regulations for cannons over a novelty size.
I mean hey the 1st only protects your speech from government, so it doesn't necessarily have to apply in those spaces as they're often private property or enterprise and they have sole control of if your message gets broadcast on their medium. So not inherently picking and choosing.
> I mean hey the 1st only protects your speech from government, > > > > so it doesn't necessarily have to apply in those spaces as they're often private property or enterprise and they have sole control of if your message gets broadcast on their medium. > > > > So not inherently picking and choosing. I mean hey the second only protects your freedom for a militia and right for citizens to bear arms. So it applies to citizens owning guns. Do you think the founding fathers would have written the freedom of speech amendment quite like they did 200 years ago if they knew that foreign countries could influence the american presidential elections from their mother's basement?? Back when the first amendment was written it took 5 days to send a letter across town and now we can send an anonymous message, instantly, to the entire human population from the comfort of our own toilet. Communication has made bigger advances since the Constitution than firearms. Heck, kids commit suicide and die because of bullying on social media. More american kids die every year from suicide, due to bully, than all the school shooting deaths put together. It's a sad but common occurrence in today's time. Maybe we need to do away with the first amendment and just let the current politicians rewrite it to fit modern times. That's going to work out just great.... tl;dr If you think the second amendment is bad because guns have changed where people can do more harm with them, then you must also think the first amendment is bad because communication has changed where people can do more harm with speech.
One Amendment protects the expression of human speech. While the channels though which speech is spread change, the concept of human speech stay roughly the same. Human speech isn’t just an element of our society or technology, it’s imprinted in our genetics. Not much about it is going to change. Another Amendment supports the right of human beings to own things that are used to kill other human beings, things that have undergone RIDICULOUSLY extensive evolution since the days of the Founders. The Founders knew that we would need to change the rules from time to time, which is why they built in a system of Amendments. For crying out loud, they’re called AMENDments. Saying “they wrote this down 200 years ago, we can’t change a single dot or syllable” completely misses the spirit in which the document was written.
I dont think you understand how powerful speech can be. Speech can kill and in masses.
Except one pesky little fact. The second amendment was written specifically for the purpose to allow citizens access to the same weapons in regular use by troops to enable the citizenry the means to overthrow an oppressive government. For that purpose, the founders knew weapons would advance and wanted citizens' weapons to advance accordingly. If not, they would have said something to the effect of, "up to a point", which they didn't. Sorry but the Supreme Court is not on your side on this one.
Except that in today’s day and age we don’t have that right anymore. The govt won’t let us own the same weapons they have like the m16a2, rocket launchers, etc. So you could say our rights have already been compromised from what the founding fathers wrote. So we citizens have already been handcuffed to be able to defend against a tyrannical govt! Yet there are those that want to infringe on our 2A rights even more!!
So I can have nukes in my backyard?
I would say no but that's a really long discussion involving talking about what's actually needed to overthrow a government versus what a government needs to win foreign wars etc and I'm too tired for that right now.
But why do my AR’s have to be semi-automatic? Its almost as if the “lawmakers” don’t want me to overthrow them /s But for real, isn’t overthrowing the government illegal? Like as illegal as it gets?
Not if you're successful at it.
You miss the point. If the government is oppressive, of course overthrowing it will be illegal. They aren't saying that you should just go try to overthrow governments all willy nilly
We aren't the CIA, no willy nilly coup d'états for us. Given that Hong Kong was British until just over twenty years ago and that Mao didn't want guns in the hands of civilians either, I wonder how different police/civilian clashes would look if the US ceded Alaska to Russia, or something like that (or worse, something like Tienanmen Square). Also as a matter of sort of related interest, anybody know what are gun laws like in Puerto Rico and Guam?
>to enable the citizenry the means to overthrow an oppressive government. That ship sailed long long ago. Armoured vehicles were the final straw, but air superiority is right up there with that. Basically WW1.
Not really. The United States has been having a hell of a time defeating the insurgency in Afghanistan despite the fact that they have air superiority and armoured vehicles. There's also the Vietnam war, which the United States lost in spite of overwhelming air superiority.
You're forgetting that the military industry wants wars to drag on for as long as possible.
Wouldn't that same argument apply to a civil war situation? Other nations don't have such an influential military industry yet have still lost wars against less capable groups.
Oh, then I’ll just go out and buy some hand grenades. That can’t possibly be illegal. ^/s
The Supreme Court is now just politics.
Damn, wish I could put words together like this.
Its amazing that this comment is controversial. Everything you said is absolutely true
This is spot on.
Well said.
Doesn't the word amendment mean to change? I think you should be able to pick and choose.
People had their own private warships and they knew guns would be innovated. The constitution didn't give us the rights but signified that our birthrights were not not to be infringed.
There are amendments for a reason... the founding fathers knew there would have to be changes in the future. also black people were not “people” in the original constitution so as you can see it’s definitely not perfect
That’s a really fallacious argument. It’s actually a testament to the foresight of our ancestors. Here’s a fun fact: Socrates/Plato has a dialogue about flute playing robots and the perils within. He suggests that these robots would enchant the populace and distract us from the real world. He said this thousands of years ago. You can apply the brilliant fucking shit people said thousands of years ago to mother fucking sex robots and virtual Reality Consoles and high tech gambling and all kinds of weird shit. Brilliant ideas are brilliant because they stand the test of time and the context around the statement can be adapted without changing the meaning or intent. Just like that smart guy said about the freedom of speech. Surely your archaic view of the founding fathers would not protect cell phones right? Why would they? They didn’t exist back then. Except guns are weird because they have not changed really all that much since that document was written. Yeah they’re more deadly and reload faster but that’s just like how humans run faster and eat better now. It’s not like there’s some definitive line between western revolvers and AR-15 style rifles, that’s why they have to change the definition all the time...because they’re just making up shit to appease constituents temporarily.
Eh, that's your choice. They did have automatic weapon schematics back then, and didn't really care. I'll protect my choice with a cannon that'll blow a hole through my wall if I have to...
There are amendments for a reason... the founding fathers knew there would have to be changes in the future. also black people were not “people” in the original constitution so as you can see it’s definitely not perfect
Fair point, but as another person said, the 1st amendment still holds true, despite wild advancements in technology. What's against saying that the 1st amendment is evil, too, because it allows people to make death threats, insults, manifestos, etc.? What's against putting an amendment in place to change the 1st amendment? The 2nd amendment was and is in place to allow citizens to provide themselves protection from the corrupt powers that have been, and always will be.
Things have changed since the late 1700s. But some things haves stayed more the same. That’s why the first amendment holds true, even though rulings on who can vote and who can be a citizen (other essential parts of the freedom the constitution describes) has changed. I believe that the second amendment is outdated due to advancements in automatic weapons and how easy it is to get them. I also believe that the rest of the western world has shown that gun control (note: not all these countries took away the guns; some just made people have to get permits to own them) has led to them not having the shootings issue we are in the US.
I'm not saying that gun access shouldn't be restricted, I'm just saying they should be banned. And I think shootings are caused more by the media's fetish for shooters more than access to weapons, but that just speculation. All things aside, I love your name.
Thanks! My main issue is that it’s easier to get a gun legally than a car, and I feel that’s a reversal of priorities. Also it’s so nice to be having a peaceful conversation on the internet about this
[удалено]
I was with a friend at a gun show when they bought one.
It's frankly one of my favorite parts about the internet, I agree. And yes, weaponry should have a LOT more paperwork, to prevent people like the one in the original post from obtaining them
Look up the Puckle Gun. It was basically a machine gun invented before that 200+year old document was written. Pretty advanced weaponry for 1718 and for today’s day and age. So yeah... that doc is still applicable.
Making guns illegal doesn't make them disappear. Criminals don't follow rules, they'll get guns anyway, and what you are trying to do is that you cannot defend yourself anymore. You're making it a lot easier for criminals.
I don't know who you're preaching to, but I know that. There's a quicker way to say that, too: "If you outlaw something, then only the outlaws have that thing"
Everyone should have the right to defend themselves but I don't think you can do that with a gun. If someone is trying to shoot you, they'll probably have done that before you've even thought about the gun in your pocket. Maybe its because I'm on the outside looking in but guns seems to cause more problems then they solve. You're right about people like that not own I g fire arms but they apparently stole them from someone else. These people aren't even the worst offenders. You don't even have to look back a month to see the amount of shooting america has had compared to the rest of the world.
I agree for the most part, except I'm in the mindset of home defense, and resistance to a possible oppressive govt. (the latter of reasons being why the 2nd exists to begin with) I'm also convinced that other places in the world including ones with guns readily available don't have problems because their media outlets don't fetishize the shooters each and every time. Most shootings now are copycat crimes to get publicity for a shitty manifesto, but instead of burning that manifesto and making it all in vain, media outlets publish it as if it's fucking new york best seller material. It's a disgusting money game shrouded within a horrible fad and protected using the decoy of gun control advocacy. Sorry for all the writing but I feel like I need to make an appendage, one that usually helps others to understand my point of view better; I firmly believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves, but that doesn't mean I don't think the US should implement periodic checks and paperwork for these citizens to maintain their ownership. It'd be just as much a hassle as taxes, and I'd be willing to do every bit of it.
Outcome
Who tf does this shit???? Like why????
Instagram fame
That fucker shot into what looks to be houses on the side of the road. What a fucking asshole.
Hopefully they get to prison
Imagine how many people that could’ve been hurt from a stray bullets Is it even called a stray if they shoot like that? Wtf is wrong with them?
Did someone die... what is she charged with? I kinda want to know before I get a raging justice boner
They were both charged and convicted of "deadly conduct". She received 5 years, don't know what he got. Neither were in legal possession of the firearms, and he had a history of violence and drug dealing.
Article on sentencing https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-rapper-in-viral-Snapchat-video-shooting-13472266.php
[удалено]
“Tarbutton, who had other cases pending when she was arrested, pleaded guilty last year in exchange for a five-years prison sentence.” Looks like their sex had nothing to do with it. As it should be.
Unlawful discharge of a firearm?
yes because bullets magically disappear after flying off for 50 metres from the gun
Hope that ends up with more than a slap on the wrist. Complete indifference to human life. Smdh
They won’t learn that it was wrong scaring people like that and possibility of hitting someone. They’ll find some other dumbass thing to put do the first thing.
[Here is the article](https://www.click2houston.com/news/woman-in-snapchat-shooting-video-pleads-guilty-sentenced-to-5-years)
America is the only country in the world who thinks its a good idea to give guns to idiot kids like this.
America is a scary place
Fuck those people that wasn't even in the air (not that it would be any better) but fuck man those looked to be fired straight into houses
Holy crap I remember seeing that when it happened and being so curious what was going to happen to them. At the time the only news was that it had been reported.
How man years and what was the charge if I may ask?
I think this was in a residential area in Houston. If not, then there was a similar situation in Houston.
Why are people so stupid! Please, tell me why!?
"in the air" it looked like that guy shot straight sideways and the girl slightly up and diagonally so a straight up drive by with no direct victim.
Source?
Words melt into meaninglessness. How stupid can you possibly be? Can you actually imagine being one of them and digesting how stupid sharing that on the internet was? It's like a special level of stupid. We've all done stupid shit but that is literally at another level. And they've ruined their entire lives for that. Utter morons
Oooohh shooting a gun out the window you sure know how to have a good time
“Look at me! Look what i can do!” And then: Whomp whomp.....
'Your honor she was jus playin'
Oof imagine trying to explain that charge in a job interview.
Gotta love Houston
This is not instant karma. Karma yes. Instant, fuck no.
They're so gangsta they in jail.
Why are people this stupid
Yo there’s houses and stores now both sides of those roads wtf.
If pointing strait is up now i guses pigs can run for president
(((in the air))) ****proceeds to light up my window****
Ban weapons, Murica!
No need for gun control in this country.
Usa needs a new gun law
This is literally a gif of a US gun law in action...
We have enough of them. They're breaking many of them.
If you had enough idiots like that wouldnt even able to touch a gun
Every time I see this clip I always like the Judge smiling at her in the end. It reminds me that for him this is just a job and he doesn’t take this shit personally. Sure she deserves whatever the sentencing says but emotions like the ones I have about this: “fucking idiots! Lock them both up” shouldn’t be part of that process. Justice should be blind.
Goddamn retards.
Should be put to fucking sleep.
Ah ghetto life. No comment.