I bet he played a video games once too
@Blandrice, fvcking animal crossing
@Blandrice, once is all it takes.
@Blandrice, I heard he had been drinking a weed when they found him.
@Ewok612, and injecting the marijuanas
@Blandrice, Can confirm - I played Doom as a kid, and instead of growing my condom I grew an AR-15.
@Child Slapper, I like your style. Isabelle is so hot
@Blandrice, she’s not my type, but Cookie... oh yeah.... my childhood gf right there!
This app can be cancerous sometimes too though.
@sgtpepper47, it's really just the political posts. Outside of that, this community really is great and a lot of the funny comes from the comments themselves
@SkizleDNizleS, political posts and comments here are a dumpster fire
@SkizleDNizleS, yeah definitely. I mean pretty far left but the majority on this app seem to lean more to the right. however, I still thoroughly enjoy the community and the content. I think if anything this app just goes to show how a sense of humor and the right memes can bridge the gap between different demographics. I think Vines did a similar thing.
@Shmay Fish, The app isn't nearly as far left as it used to be when I was a regular poster here, but I definitely wouldn't say it leans right
I wish there was a program where I could buy the guns that get confiscated from these kinds of people for way cheap
@Richard Cypher, sounds like a new business venture
You can always go to your local police station. I hear if they are corrupt enough you can just buy em in bulk.
@Richard Cypher, can't, they destroy them. No matter how intrinsically valuable they are. Saw a genuine WW1 rifle in pristine condition, worth over 5000 in the right place, literally should be in a museum, and they cut it in half.
@punsnipermark6, some things like that might accidentally be “misplaced” during all the commotion of an arrest
@Richard Cypher, sadly most get destroyed. The officers that did it were crushed.
@timofborg, they'll at least give you a few free bullets
@punsnipermark6, I'm sorry, what in the bicycle riding jesus on a scooter on his way to church flippity floppity cheeseball eating banana monkeys did you just say.
@LilPuppyOfDOOM , they destroyed a priceless relic, and the act completely destroyed them.
@Richard Cypher, Here in Minnesota most of them get auctioned off. Just as long as they are legal to own anyway. No scratched off serial numbers, filed down seers ect.
First of all, Justin has cancer. Then, he makes another bad decision and does that? Was it his Make-a-wish? Finally, good on you, timofborg
So they illegally siezed this mans private property because of his political persuasion. Sounds like a case he could win if he took it to the supreme court.
@BlazingBowman, bummer man, you can’t even create a private chatting server to talk shît in anymore
@BlazingBowman, also if I remember correctly, it was his father's guns...
@Firefighter95, so they didnt even take his property they took someone elses property because someone thought he might be a threat. This is wholly unconstitutional.
@BlazingBowman, lmao the threats against federal officials is going over all of your heads. Lol keep “Red pilling” people with shítty false right-wing memes and this is what happens
@BlazingBowman, “An 18-year-old Ohio man charged Monday with threatening a federal officer allegedly posted extensively online about mass shootings, specifically targeting Planned Parenthood. “
@BlazingBowman, it says he threatened to kill federal officers
@Yooster, conspiracy to commit a crime is always a lesser form of that crime. Threatening to kill people is bad the police can and will prevent murder when possible
@BlazingBowman, "...where he allegedly threatened to kill federal officers." That's a political persuasion now? Is this one of those persecuted conservatives I've been hearing about?
@BlazingBowman, red flag laws remove youth "due process"
@Yooster, did you not read the part right in front of that that says allegedly?
@iOS12, key word allegedly
@ReverseGiraffe, why did you put "red-pilling" in quotation marks as if you were repeatint something i said?
@iOS12, yeah? So the government has the right to take someone elses property because another individual posted edgy sh!t online?
@BlazingBowman, it’s not just edgy shít it’s threats of murder that many, many people have followed through on especially recently. If he actually went through with it and no law enforcement followed up on his threats the public would decry them as not doing their jobs. How would you feel if someone threatened to shoot up where you worked and had loads of guns and ammo stockpiled? You’re really clinging to that 2A support hard here
@ReverseGiraffe, if you compromise your principals (in this case the principal that people should only get in trouble for actually doing something wrong rather than just saying they will do something) because of fear, you are a bitch and you let the terrorists win.
@ReverseGiraffe, Can you imagine if you lost over 1000 dollars of firearms because your roomate was being an edgy boy on the internet. Can you honestly say thats an acceptable say your okay with your private property being taken from you because of the actions of someone else? I dont like the government having that kind of power to seize private property from a citizen without due process.
@ReverseGiraffe, wtf is a 2A?
@ReverseGiraffe, Many people? That's an exaggeration from fear mongering.
Do you think this makes sense though? It wasn't even his guns, it was someone else's. Why not arrest him and hold him without bail? Why is there a need to take the firearms of someone else? If someone is a credible threat to the community, they can be held without bail, why does the property that will be used to harm also be seized in a case where the accused isn't even the owner of said property?
Btw stockpiling ammo is something millions do, it is a money saving practice for any situation, plus buying in bulk is much cheaper if you go to the range. Don't associate stockpiling ammo or having many guns with being a murderous lunatic, I can tell you that over 99.999 of gun owners that stockpile ammo and have more than 10 guns are not violent nor criminals.
@BlazingBowman, Did you know that the news outlets have to use the word allegedly? Its to prevent lawsuits until someone is prosecuted. So latching onto that word to defend ones self being used in a news article means a misunderstanding of its use.
As for seizing someone else’s property. While I agree thats wrong. I would hope they could get it back if they could prove it was theirs.
@Doctor Yak, threatening physical harm to another person is a crime. Does that not count as doing something wrong?
@Seohn, yeah because of a thing called innocent until proven guilty. I know my fellow liberals have abandoned it as something old and out of date but i still believe in it.
Also probably depends on the state. But from what ive heard its a giant pain in the ass.
@ Seductive Cheeto, https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/21/us/mass-shooting-threats-tuesday/index.html
@ReverseGiraffe, classic, no rebuttal or engagement in dialectics, just a link to CNN of all websites. 👌
@ Seductive Cheeto, yeah because you’re trying to say that shooting threats aren’t increasing even though they obviously are. Here’s a link proving it, you’re wrong
@ReverseGiraffe, No I didn't say that, glad to see your failure to engage and response with a strawman
@Fac3pa1m, I would say a verbal threat should not be a crime. Obviously, the law is the law and all that, but I believe a law that is purely concerned with words would be unjust.
@BlazingBowman, look into asset forfeiture. The police/govt can take anything you merely because they think (unreasonably or reasonably) that you may use it to commit a future crime. Literally billions a year.
@BlazingBowman, Last time I checked. Arresting someone came before a court trial. I suspect that would cause a problem arresting someone after they held their trial in the case of someone planning on committing mass murder. Especially for the people he’s allegedly intending to murder.
@Implicit88, I agree that asset forfeiture is wrong. I read about where police were using it to keep people from being able to sell their stuff to pay for a lawyer.
However on the topic of threats. It should not be treated lightly. If someone is dumb enough threaten to another’s life. They get what they deserve. Stupid of that level is no excuse.
@Seohn, true, but that law is being miss used a lot. In this case, depending on the threat level it may be reasonable but again asset forfeiture doesnt have a court process so once they take your sh!t you are sol.
@Seohn, and who are the people his fathers intending to murder?
@iOS12, yeah...this kid didn't live far from where I am....
@BlazingBowman, if you have a roommate living in your house and they have drugs. Do you think they’ll only search his room when they come back with a warrant?
Not saying its right. Just saying if the kid has access to weapons. The police may not have known who owned those weapons. Hopefully the father can get them back if they are his.
Of course if the Family had taught the kids better that wouldnt have been a problem.
@Seohn, ..... yes. If you do not allow them in your home they then need a warrant to get into the house. They cant even search your car without a warrant if you dont give them permission.
Also thats not really fair on the family. They may have had no idea he was doing this (if he in fact was) or maybe they did but you cant really discipline crazy out of a dude sometimes.
@BlazingBowman, Also you’ll notice I said the word “warrant” in my last comment because I’m well aware they need one.
And yeah its not fair. But for the sake of safety thats in party why the weapons were seized. But hopefully they be able to get them back if they were his fathers. It sucks. Never said it was right. But in this “situation” I understand why they did it.
Everything is situational. I dont think the “asset forfeiture” that cops have used really applies to this as its a specific circumstance. And as long as all they took was the weapons then thats understandable.
It’s when I start seizing things that have no relevance to the case that it becomes a big problem and I strongly believe is more akin to theft.
@Seohn, okay fair enough but the equivalent would be they come back with a warrant and search your room for weed (lets go with weed because fvck it why not) and they search your room and find weed even though you have a medicinal marijuana card and seize it as evidence.
@BlazingBowman, Not sure how that would be handled. Its an annoying situation. Odds are likely the person wouldn’t get it back just because of what it is. Also depends on if the persons willing to spend the money on a lawyer to prove it.
Without a doubt the entire justice system is a joke. For example I believe when a judge “makes an example of someone” when sentencing them. Should be highly illegal. Because it goes against a idea of a fair trial. Also because it does nothing to deter other people. Only further their political goals.
@Seohn, as far as ive heard its a giant pain in the a$$. My dad has a story about a friend of his that had his legl pistol siezed by a officer over a speeding ticket and it took litterally years of fighting in court to get it back. It probably varies from county to county and state to state though.
As for the "making an example of someone" thing i could care less. Generally the person being made an example of is just getting the most time the judge can give a person for that crime as he mustve considered it particularly egregious offence. I prefer to have judges being able to determine things like that for the most part.
Murder for instance if a guy walks in on a dude balls deep in his cheating wife and kills him in a jealous rage. Should he recieve the same penalty as a man who killed 90 people raped the corpses then ate them. I dont really think so.
@BlazingBowman, no. Ive had a friend that got the most time possible all because the judge was up for reelection. There were people who did far worse things for the same crime who got a third or less of that. Even with all the evidence that should’ve helped lighten it.
If judges did that because it fit the crime then yes. But in his case the judge had other motives than fair justice.
@BlazingBowman, On top of which I’ve seem judges be harsh toward people they mistook for being someone else. Known someone else that drove to traffic court. And the judge was claiming this person was extremely rude to the DMV. Even though I was there and they weren’t. Apparently it was the lady up next the judge had confused them with.
@Seohn, well that sucks. But im also not to thrilled about the idea of taking nuances out of courts.
Those are rookie numbers, kid.
He may very well have been a potential mass shooter, but until his conviction in court as such, he shouldn’t have had his firearms confiscated. If they were concerned about public safety, the prosecutor could have asked the judge to deny bail while he awaits trial, that way he would be in jail up until ether he is convicted or acquitted. But seizing fire arms prior to lawful conviction of a crime, when fire arms are not in themselves unlawful, sounds like a pretty absurd violation of the second, fourth, and fourteenth amendments. It reminds me of Benjamin Franklin’s famous quote: “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve nether liberty nor safety.”
@Block1187, well ben didn’t have to deal with mass shootings every other month so he can shut the hell up better to be safe than sorry and think about this what else was he going to do with that much firepower no one just buys that much ammo to have even gun enthusiasts who own more don’t have enough ammo on hand to supply a small base
@eleven, That’s something to be argued at trial. It’s circumstantial evidence at best though. And that sort of thinking is problematic to begin with, “no one just buys that much ammo to have,” it is behavior that is suspicious but not unlawful, that alone cannot be grounds for seizure. Like I said, if the prosecutor can use it to convict on conspiracy and/or making terroristic threats, power to them, but the amount of ammo in itself is nether unlawful nor evidence in its own right. As for Ben Franklin, it’s pretty foolish to assume that he wouldn’t have had any idea about trading liberty for security, just because his context was different doesn’t mean he is out of touch with the present era, he lived through a full blown war in his own country and saw first hand how tyranny can destroy liberty in the name of security. He certainly knew the importance of protecting liberty better than anyone alive today.
@Block1187, if he’s released the police will certainly be keeping a close eye on him and I’m sorry but stricter gun laws need to be implemented no civilian needs an assault rifle or 25 guns the second amendment is outdated not only is the us military is far to well trained for any civilian militia to be of any true effect not to mention drones
@eleven, The Second Amendment is as relevant today as it has ever been. The Supreme Court, now over a decade ago, concluded in Heller (2008) that the portion describing a militia is a preamble and has no bearing on the actual meaning of the text itself, that argument about militias is a tired experiment in failed logic. The Second Amendment was enacted for far more than just safeguarding the right to be armed against a hostile military, it allows for the right to be armed as a defense against the police, and yet more importantly against your fellow citizens (or non-citizens) who seek to do you harm. It is a right to be able to defend yourself. And, as is the case with all rights safeguarded in the constitution, a right is not predicated on what one NEEDS, but rather on what is beyond the ability of the government to take away. Rosa Parks didn’t NEED to sit in the the front of the bus, no person has ever NEEDED to speak in such a way as to warrant the First Amendment’s protections, and
@eleven, yet the government dare not trespass against those rights. The second amendment is not about needs, and it surely isn’t about any one person deciding what any other person needs to own (assault riffles, 25 guns, etc). It is interesting, however, that it is most often those who nether understand nor utilize their Second Amendment rights who wish to strip their fellow citizens of their rights.
@Block1187, there still needs to be limits and an amendment or law limiting the power of the second needs to be implemented among better monitoring of assault rifles with stronger background checks on not only you but also anyone you live with and allow into the house like say your son those who have assault rifles on a register and stop the sale of military grade hardware to civilians is it a flawless system maybe have some bots analyze the social media posts of past mass shooters to try and spot potential new ones is it a perfect system of course not there’s no such thing but I’d rather make it as difficult as possible and if that means harsher laws then go right ahead I value my life more than empty philosophy
Remember Captain America 2? I thought the punishment usually came after the crime? So Captain America is a Republican
Hopefully they lock those guns up before they kill a lot of people.
Guns are bad
I’ve seen enough Trump loving right wing wankérs on here
Cooooops, jimmy posted that he hates me and wants me dead on iFunny again!
Cops ::get red eyed:: This is an avengers level threat
I knew they were hiding something
He has a turtle suit on haha. Those things are so uncomfortable and humiliating
I'm assuming he was just actually planning to go to the area 51 event
Wtf is going on with his shirt?
@Draconite, it's a bullet resistant "cover" basically think of a long vest that's bulky and heavy. They ususally put bullet resistant armor on suspects so that they can be protected by lets say the victims family wanting revenge or someone who just wants to shoot or stab them. Even if they are convicted of a crime they are entitled to some liberty and security as long as they are in law enforcement hands.
He looks like Eleven from the first season of Stranger Things
Your on the right side of this Tim!