I wonder if anon left something out? Like, threating to kill her or the person(s) she cheated with. Or some of the weapons being illegal? Nah, it would have been included if they weren’t. Some people have high drama lives.
I’m very sure he was very amicable and reasonable about it. He’s on 4chan, after all.
FYI, women are just as capable of being terrible people as men are
Yes, but this is 4chan, so the odds aren’t in OP’s favor.
Fair enough
My understanding is there is not a single state with red flag laws that allow all weapons to be seized based on one person’s word. Well other than a doctor giving a professional diagnosis.
For everyone else you have to have some evidence. Either multiple people witnessing threats/harassment video, or text based evidence.
Sure, but it isn’t their side we read.
well even if this is the whole truth it would be a testament to his character that his girlfriend would cheat on him and then lie to the police just so he gets in trouble
Some people have bad radars about how dangerous the people they get in bed with are.
Some people self-sabotage by getting with toxic partners in the same pattern over and over again because they have unaddressed psychological issues.
It’s usually people who were victims of past abuse, too.
Especially past childhood abuse.
C’mon, he probably is leaving important details out, but “if people treat him badly, he must deserve it” is hardly fair.
In the hypothetical scenario that this is the whole truth, what you’re doing is victim blaming.
I didn’t intend to do that at all. The proverb I had in mind was “birds of a feather flock together”. It doesn’t mean he deserved it but I do think people who date people who would do this to them are probably not much better either. Also he wrote this on 4chan which is again, not a complete footprint of his personality but certainly a testament to his character.
deleted by creator
Lot of US leftists and liberals hate guns, as a reaction to the right’s obsession with them.
It is a stupid and dangerous reaction, because they give up their means of self-defense against far right militias and a fascist government.
deleted by creator
Exactly. I’m fully capable of both owning a gun and advocating for gun control at the same time… People act like you’re a traitor to the cause.
😂 right! Like the fascist government that is now taking hold of the US. Not fascist enough to defend themselves yet?
I don’t hate guns, I hate the “gun rights” movements and there fetishization of a skewed interpretation of the second amendment where any individual has the unalieanable right to own a gun.
Even if a violent revolution were to happen, which odds are 99 to 1 it wont happen in the US in our lifetimes, then people like op hoarding guns aren’t going to help. A well regulated militia might but that requires social organization and discipline, which most people in the gun rights movement don’t have the time or willingness for.
They aren’t serious about using guns to defend liberty, they just like the aesthetic of it and make it part of there personality. So much so that they get offended by dumb and probably made up stories like this but not the countless other similar stories where there were no red flag laws and the gf gets killed.
Then they post about how the gun owners aren’t doing anything to stop the fascist government. Yea, you’ve been alienating them for decades. They’re not on your side.
I think we just don’t like guns.
Speak for yourself. God forbid men should have a hobby.
Are you really pretending this is about men having hobbies?
I use my rifles for hunting. Some people like collecting and sport shooting. Some have theirs for self defense in higher crime areas because they can’t afford better. So yeah?
It can be a hobby, sure. But men having a hobby isnt was was being discussed at all. Nobody cares about men having hobbies, the issue is when this hobby is a potential threat to other people. Isnt this rather obvious?
You know exactly as much as I do about this hypothetical situation. Girlfriend cheats. Guy breaks up. Girl calls cops. Guy gets guns confiscated. If your argument is nothing more than “Well maybe he deserved it” you’re an asshole.
Thats just not what im saying.
I like guns.
nice
but that’s bc you are a bad person.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
And they’re probably borderline homicidal, just looking at stats.
Dunno, someone having guns to shoot normal people is a big red flag to me.
Someone having guns to shoot the boot soldiers of an unjust regime? All for it. Big green flag to me.
Those aren’t exactly normal people.
When I said, “someone having guns to shoot normal people”, I talked about the MAGA guys having those weapons.
Due process is dead in America, homie
I’m pro gun, I’m just considering the statistics of a 4chan-er. Maybe that’s profiling, but I’m not a judge. He should certainly have his day in court, I’m just predicting the outcome.
Without context, this could be easily dismissed.
However, OP is posting on 4chan, so it’s likely he did pose a threat.
That said, it’s fake and gay.
fake: Anon didn’t have a gf.
gay: anon had a bf.
if you have multiple guns and can’t afford a lawyer you have kinda fucked your priorities
The comments here are a good example of how the gun control movement is the left-wing counterpart to the pro-life movement. It’s origin lies in emotion, not reason. It’s filled with fallacious arguements and when that fails to convince someone, the movement tends to move towards snarky comments and outright hostility.
Evem those that are trying to be reasonable by drawing conclusions based on data almost always are using cherry-picked statistics that was fed by those trying to manipulate them.
I don’t avoid guns due to a fear of crime. I avoid guns due to a fear of negligence.
Every single day, someone in my family does something negligent, but ultimately harmless. Oops. Now there’s an extra dirty dish. Oops. Broke a coaster. Oops. Dirty towel. Oops. Got sprayed with water.
Putting a gun in that situation would be pretty dangerous.
I suppose some households could keep guns responsibly. Mine could not, despite my personal practices.
I don’t understand how you justify in your head adding guns into any of those situations you listed.
If you own guns, you’re supposed to have a secure way to store them. Especially if you have kids. While some people do leave guns sitting around the house, that is strongly discouraged.
You’re supposed to keep guns inside a safe unless you’re about to use it such as going to a range or hunting. And best practice is to keep ammo secured in a separate safe as an extra measure. And when you are handling a gun, you always check if it’s loaded and follow the 4 rules of gun safety
Thank you for proving my point.
Given how nonsensical your first comment was, I don’t think you had a point
They were talking about the dangers of negligence. You countered with how guns can be relatively safe if one follows safety guidelines.
The ‘negligence’ part is referring to those that don’t follow guides. By listing all the guides and rules to make guns safe, they probably mean you prove their point by showing the burden of responsibility guns require (and thus the risk when irresponsible people don’t meet them).
I’m not sure if you got to see their comments before they were deleted, but I recall their comment being a bit weirder than that. Things like “sometimes my family forgets to pick their wet towels off the floor. What happens if you add a gun to that?”.
As the second part of your comment, yeah I see your point. That being said, the rules of gun safety aren’t as huge of a hurdle as people seem to think they are. I think it’s more that some people are repelled by any form of friction when starting a new activity.
I mean if someone makes death threats to someone else they should absolutely have their guns taken away.
The problem is that the system is open to abuse. Anyone who wants to get back at someone can make up allegations and have their guns taken away with no due process.
But on the other hand if you make this process too difficult you can allow someone who is actually dangerous to keep their guns.
I mean if someone makes death threats to someone else they should absolutely have their guns taken away.
The thing is, this isn’t shown in the original post. Also, making death threats on its own is illegal, red flag laws aren’t required if the person making the report has proof.
Said victim could even get a restraining order if they were worried about violence, which won’t completely assure safety but will go down a process that actually uses due process and doesn’t violate anyone’s rights.
I never said that Anon made any death threat and the concern you are raising is covered in the rest of my comment.
I mean if someone makes death threats
This is a clear suggestion that Anon was making death threats. Don’t be a liar
I find if interesting that you’ve read that first paragraph and interpreted it as a suggestion of one thing, then read the paragraph immediately below it that could have suggested the opposite, and not only completely ignore that second paragraph, but also fail to realize that they were hypothetical situations to explain a point. Everyone understood that but you.
Sure, force a specific interpretation of my words that you’ve specifically cherry picked to make you sound right so you can feel better about yourself. It ain’t gonna be true and we’ll both know that whether you like it or not, but judging from the fact that you just came back 4 days later for this, I don’t think this fact will bother you. This is a 4 day old thread and nobody is left here to witness the level of mental gymnastics you’re capable of anyway. Go ahead, treat yourself.
then read the paragraph immediately below it that could have suggested the opposite,
Your second paragraph did not suggest the opposite
You claim you were deliberately being vague, then get mad at someone allegedly misinterpreting what you said? The solution is to not be vague, not to gaslight people by claiming you didn’t say something you absolutely did. Grow up.
1- The second paragraph could very well be interpreted as suggesting that hypothetical threat allegations being fraudulent and therefore suggest the opposite. This is downright bad faith from your part.
2- I’m being mad at someone calling me a “liar” and trying to continue to force their own erroneous interpretation of my own words after I immediately clarified it for them and who keeps doubling down on it even after further explanation.
3- You call it “vague” and yet still claim that I “absolutely did” mean what you think I meant, once again giving yourself a completely unwarranted benefit of the doubt on the matter against the now overwhelming evidence.
4- Everyone else interpreted it correctly except you.
5- Why the fuck would I even accuse Anon of making death threats when they were never mentioned in the article to begin with? It is much telling that this is where your mind went immediately.
6- You came here looking for something to get angry about and thought you found it by diagonally reading through my comment and jumped to conclusions. Now that I called you out on it you decided that it had to be my fault instead and are going further down the rabbit hole of inventing all sorts of malicious intents from my part.
7- You don’t have to admit it to me, only yourself. Because you will be blocked as soon as I have sent this. You will be the first one I’ve ever blocked on Lemmy over a comment argument too. I thought I had left this crap behind me when I dumped Reddit years ago but some seem to have followed. Which by the way also refutes your new unsubstantiated accusation of having made my original “deliberately vague” as if I had created some sort of trap to attract people like you. You can now rest assured that I don’t want people like you in my life.
Uh, there is reason in not wanting people to be shot by a culture of fear.
Look up overall crime statistics for both countries that restrict firearm access and those who don’t. You’ll find that overall violent crime ends up being proportional to the countries’ midi coefficient (a measurement of economic inequality). Firearm availability mainly changes the proportion of violent crimes involving firearms vs overall violent crime.
Like I said, most of the statistics you see are cherry-picked to give an overly simplistic view of crime to distract from the fact that economic inequality is a huge correlating factor
Gun suicides are a huge problem, so there is a legitimate need for interventions in the appropriate circumstances. Suicidal ideation is also usually an impulsive or fleeting idea, so removing the means of suicide only temporarily can be a solution to that temporary problem.
The Swiss saw suicide rates drop with reduced access to firearms in shrinking their military, and the Israeli military has seen weekend suicide rates drop by simply having troops check in their weapons into armories over weekends, without a corresponding change in weekday suicides.
Anti-suicide nets on bridges work very well, too, because simply making a suicide more inconvenient, or require a bit more planning, is often enough to just make it so that the suicide attempt never happens.
So yeah. I’m generally against restrictions on firearm ownership or access for people who can be responsible with them, but I’m 100% on board with interventions for taking guns away for mental health crises, and restrictions on those found by a court to have engaged in domestic violence. And, like, convicted criminals, too.
but I’m 100% on board with interventions for taking guns away for mental health crises, and restrictions on those found by a court to have engaged in domestic violence.
The issue with red flag laws is that they completely bypass this. When the police recieve a report, they end up seizing the guns without any due process, and the owners has to sue to get them back.
The issue with red flag laws is that they completely bypass this.
It’s my understanding that every state with a red flag law imposes a procedure similar to involuntary commitment: a court weighing evidence presented to it under penalty of perjury, with a heavy presumption that these orders are only for extremely rare situations.
Florida’s procedure, for example, requires a petition from the police to the court, and requires the police to show the court that the person is suffering from a serious mental illness, has committed acts of violence, or has credibly threatened acts of violence (to self or others). In ordinary cases the person whose guns are being taken away has an opportunity to be heard in court before the judge decides, but in emergency cases the court can order the guns be taken away for up to 14 days, and requires an opportunity for the person to be heard in court.
So in practice, in Florida, someone would have to convince the police they’re a danger, and then provide enough evidence that the police can persuade a judge. Private citizens aren’t allowed to petition the court directly, and the process requires proof of a serious enough set of facts to justify taking guns away.
Fake: anon has gf
Gay: anon writing fanfic flirting with male cops
Had
gottem
This is so American. Just give up the damn guns!
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”
-Karl Marx
I have no weapon but nonviolence.
- Mahatma Gandhi
See, I can quote things too
You say people should just give up their weapons. I used to be strictly against private weapon ownership too. Over the years, especially the last few years i see more and more of a necessity for people to be able to fight back against an overreaching government, as we have seen more and more authoritarian developments all across the “Western” nations.
This is what Marx referred to.
There is a political case for private weapon ownership. The obvious counter-argument is that people like MAGA also have weapons then and can use them. As we have seen with previous and current dictatorships, when push comes to shove the regime will quickly supply its paramilitary wings with guns, so i don’t see the benefit of preventing normal people from owning weapons in such a situation.
None of this is a judgement on the green-text, as we lack the whole picture, on whether taking the weapons from anon was justified or not. However the default assertion that people should just give up their weapons is not as obvious as you make it out to be.
Gandhi was a piece of shit. I wouldn’t quote him for the most part.
OW SHIT! GODDAMNIT! god fucking damnit! Piece of shit!.. Fuck!
-my neighbor the other day
Gun people are suddely literate when someone agrees with them.
Because we should totally trust the US government with our protection…
Replace guns with anything else and your comment will rightly sound very stupid.
Let me try:
“Just give up the crossbows!”. Nah, sounds fine.
“Just give up the anthrax!”. Nope, totally ok with that.
“Just give up the punji stick pittraps”. Still feeling ok.
I don’t think it sounds stupid at all.
Give up hate. Give up facism. Give up excessive consumerism
All sounds fine to me!
Pipe dream but noble
Gun ownership =/= fascism
Agreed. But Americans love both right now
No
Sigh.
This is so American. Just give up the damn child pornography!
This is so American. Just give up the damn heroin!
This is so American. Just give up the damn National Socialism!
and leave the violent fascists in red states and the government to have a monopoly on violence? get fucked.
So you think your 9mm is going to defend you from a government tank when it actually comes down to violence? You’re fucked, gun or no gun.
The concept of an armed populace facing the government doesn’t usually involve a direct head on opposition. Armed resistance to a corrupt government would take a more guerrilla warfare approach. A real world example could be the anti-junta rebellion happening in Myanmar.
You’re forgetting that the US lost 3 wars to guerilla tactics, 2 of those in the last decade
Guerilla tactics in foreign countries on the other side of the planet, where they needed to overcome giant logistics problems.
Fighting on their own territory where they already have all their bases and equipment is not going to end the same way.
It may not, but then the logistics becomes an even more insidious problem- how do you determine who is loyal to the government/military and who will disclose shipping routes or guard routines or other classified info. Further, because it is within the US, and the families of the loyalists are impacted, how do you guarantee their loyalty?
Fighting on their own territory where they already have all their bases and equipment is not going to end the same way.
You’re forgetting that it’s also where most of the military’s supplies come from. That means their sources are more vulnerable as well
The US lost because of domestic pressure to end those wars. Militarily the US was never in danger of defeat. Do you think that the current US administration is going to give a singular shit about domestic pressure once the shooting starts? If the military sides with the government, the government wins. If the military sides against the government the government loses.
The war in Afghanistan went on for 20 years, with Iraq and Vietnam lasting not much less. And once the US military left all of those countries, all of the regimes that the US put into place fell apart relatively quickly.
In what universe are those conditions a win? In what universe are they even a tie?!?
I know you’re just parroting an argument you’ve seen written by someone else before. Maybe it’s because of patriotism. Maybe it’s because of pride and not wanting to admit defeat. Maybe it’s something else. Regardless, I ask that you take a step back and actually think about your comment logically.
Tanks need parts, tanks need fuel, tanks need ammo, tanks need constant maintenance. I’m not advocating for violence but the truth is an Abrams might have machine guns and ERA, but a factory doesn’t. And look how drone warfare has changed the game, small groups of people can take on tanks, supply lines or factories without even being in line of sight
You don’t need to be in line of sight, your family needs to be. Are you still going to risk it if you know that the government will throw your family into a concentration camp in response?
Assume that the fascists in this fight have zero respect for human rights or human lives. Because they’ve already proven that they don’t.
Assume that the fascists in this fight have zero respect for human rights or human lives. Because they’ve already proven that they don’t.
Even more reason to not roll over and let them win.
The government will throw your family into a concentration camp either way. Will you acquiese and die like a dog, or will you stand and fight?
I’m not worried about the tank, I’m worried about Tim, the guy from two doors down who has seventeen firearms and an F350 and walks around yelling homophobic slurs.
Tim shouldn’t be allowed guns either.
Tim ain’t gonna give up his guns without violence. Good luck with your proposal now.
If we treated every criminal like that, the world would overflow with murderers and violent thugs even more than it already does.
You’re not an American, you don’t get a seat at this table. A. The state of New York is three times larger than your entire country by land mass. B. The state of New York is larger by population than your entire country. That’s one state out of fifty, what works for you doesn’t work for everyone. Go play with your home-use pocket knife, don’t forget to lock it in the trunk while you drive to the campsite.
Then Tim is probably going to get himself killed in a standoff with the police.
The police in the U.S. are on Tim’s side. Hell, Tim might be a police officer.
I’m tending to side with her, but they were legally purchased and probably expensive, it would be nice if he could at least get a tax write-off or something.
Sometimes you gotta pick your battles. What’s gonna be easier long term, giving up your guns or fighting this in the courts?
That is a very controversial take for Americans, and not just from a gun-toter’s perspective. The US has a long history of gun violence, yes, but the US also has a long history of state corruption which only ended by guns driving that corruption back.
In 1946, Veterans in the town of Athens used their firearms to fight against a corrupt police department helping the standing state rig the elections.
In 1921 The Battle of Blair Mountain occurred, where West Virginia miners who’d been stuck in the exploitive company town employment model, battled along the ridges of Blair Mountain against Police. In the company towns you could be fired from your job and evicted from your home without trial - since the mining company owned the houses and only let employees use them - and being in a Union was a fireable offense. This was the largest labor uprising in US history, mine workers fighting deputy sheriffs and strike breakers, with the police actually using biplanes to drop bombs overtop the heads of the miners. This was apart of the Coal Wars of the US, and apart of the broader Labor Wars in the US, which eventually led to the pro-labor regulations we now have in place within the US (which are now being dismantled despite a massive rise in peaceful protests).
In 1968, the Holy Week Uprising occurred in response to Rev. Martin Luther King Junior’s assassination, and fueled by the massive inequality that the black community still faced.
All of these were cases of a overhead government, whether state, town, or federal, failing to provide for it citizens, and those citizens helping change that governments’ behaviour through violent armed uprising. It is a regular occurrence in American history for us to have corrupt officials who start setting inhumane policies, and it’s also been a regular occurrence for that corruption to need violent intervention in order for changes for the better to occur.
Wtf? Cops just come and take your shit away because some girl said so?
No. Thats 4chan, a place of lies and deception.
When I was living with my parents my dad pushed my brother and told him to “get the fuck out”. My brother called the cops on him and the cops came and took my dad away that day. He got let out but IIRC a couple days later he had to surrender his firearms later until everything was settled.
This is the horror story for red flag laws existing.
Now imagine the horror stories of red flag laws not existing.
You don’t even have to imagine, just listen to one of the million true crime podcasts. Then multiply all those cases by 5 for all the minority women who they don’t talk about.
I appreciate the 100% complete, unbiased and unvarnished picture of the situation Green OP (Gropey?) has painted for us.
Story: Girlfriend cheats This guy: Maybe he deserved it
Weird take. If you ain’t happy with your SO you try and deal with it or you fuck off. Cheating just makes everything worse.
My colleague cheated on her man and now everything is worse. Whatever situation caused her to do it, now the situation is even harder to resolve. No one is gonna go “yeah okay, I probably deserved that. Let’s move on”, haha!
Funny to read the comments. I don’t want to judge anyone as Im not american and I grew up without even touching a real gun.
Its just amazing how big role guns play in US culture. I can’t imagine owning one, but most americans can’t live without them. Its very bizarre.
It’s not most Americans. It’s about a third (which is still huge) and less than half of the population living in a gun owning household.
Then there’s a spectrum of how “important” guns are culturally. There are in my experience 3 categories of gun owners.
- People who own a gun or two. They may take it to the range or hunt, but mostly it’s tucked securely away and they don’t think about it or use it.
2)Then there are collectors and enthusiasts. They enjoy firearms as a hobby. They have multiple. They watch firearms videos on social media. They go to gun shows and might join a club related to the hobby.
3)Then there are the paranoid psychopaths for whom gun ownership and the insistence that they could have to defend themselves at any time is constantly at the forefront of their mind. They wish they had a reason to shoot someone and may end up shooting someone anyway.
deleted by creator
You’re fine. It doesn’t count as “bad phrasing” when you admit that you’re talking about something that’s weird to you and you don’t understand.
Lots of Americans think the gun culture is messed up, too.
Sorry bad phrasing, by most I meant a lot of americans. Thanks for correcting me :)
I am somewhat familiar with the type of gun owners from US media and movies.
For me the most mind-blowing thing is how easy is to get a gun at some places. I just imagine some shady people I know in my country, even some of my family members and can’t imagine them having access to guns :D
It perpetuates itself. If someone thinks there is a significant probability a burglar might have a gun, getting a gun themselves can increase their chance of survival. This is even ignoring the actual culture around it, where people want guns “just to have them”.
You don’t own a gun in case of a burglar having a gun. It’s in case of home invasion period. I’m not going to wait around to determine if they’re armed or not and I’m not going to restrict myself to some lesser means of stopping them just because they aren’t. I didn’t create this situation and I am not going to accept risk to myself to preserve the life of some asshole who doesn’t even respect me enough not to break into my home.
Isn’t this just a vicious cycle? You own a gun, because other people also have access to guns. The burglar might bring a gun, because the home owner possibly has a gun, etc
I don’t own a gun, I am 100x more likely to use it on myself than need it for self defense where I’m at. But the scenario I’m describing, whether or not the home invader has a gun or not doesn’t matter, the simple fact that they are invading your home in the first place justifies lethal force. You could be injured/killed by them even without them having a gun so the safest option for the resident is shoot them immediately. The resident should not have to accept any level of risk whatsoever in dealing with this situation. You’re not getting a gun because someone might attack you with a gun. You’re getting a gun because someone might attack you.
Kinda. It’s also a remnant of the old west. Guns were freedom, protection, power, etc.
It would be much more effective to curb crime by meeting everyone’s basic needs than giving everyone a gun.
But dumb Americans don’t know any other way. They are just too self-centered and absorbed to think about anyone else.
It would be much more effective to curb crime by meeting everyone’s basic needs than giving everyone a gun.
If crime is reduced by meeting everyone’s needs, then it shouldn’t matter whether people have guns or not. So let’s have strong social safety nets and quit pissing people off by taking away their hobbies and property.
Can afford a bunch of guns and ammo, but can’t afford a lawyer to defend yourself in court?
Strange priorities
I mean you can buy a gun for 200 USD at Walmart. Lawyers cost 200 USD per hour.
Do you really believe that “all my guns, bullets and reloading material” is cheaper than a lawyer for a hearing like this? In my mind that phrase represents thousands of dollars worth of gun stuff, and a lawyer who can represent you in a TRO hearing might be about $500-1500 ($200/hour, maybe 2-8 hours of work for that first hearing).
I mean they already own the guns. They can’t even sell them to hire a lawyer because they were taken.
If you can’t see the difference between buying one gun every x months and paying a lawyer 4 to 5 figures all in one go that’s on you.
Time is linear and you can’t sell what was taken from you. 🤷♀️
If you can’t see the difference between buying one gun every x months and paying a lawyer 4 to 5 figures all in one go that’s on you.
You’re off by an order of magnitude. I’m saying the lawyer would cost between 3 to low 4 figures, generally less than a single gun.
Time is linear and you can’t sell what was taken from you.
The ownership of the gun hasn’t changed. That owner can sell the gun even if they can’t physically possess it. Federal law requiring relinquishment of firearms (like upon conviction of a disqualifying felony or domestic violence misdemeanor) explicitly provides for selling the guns as a way to comply with the order. Each state is different in their rules on selling weapons already in the police’s possession, and states require that transfer to go through an FFL, but most do not.
Look, I’m a gun owner. And I think part of being a responsible gun owner means having the financial means to actually deal with the consequences of owning, and potentially using, that firearm. I think it’s a defect of American gun culture that there are so many people with concealed carry licenses who wouldn’t even know how to contact a lawyer if they were to actually fire a gun in a real situation, whether it’s a legitimate self defense situation or a negligent discharge. Gun ownership carries important responsibilities, and there is such a thing as someone who is too poor to responsibly own a gun (much less enough to where the phrase “all my guns” carries its own implicit meaning).
You do you. But I challenge you to go and look at gun prices at your local Walmart in the USA. Not every guy you buy has to be an FN-Scar 17 in pricing.
Turn around a look at how much it costs to defend yourself criminally in the USA.
Guns are about $200 at Walmart.
Robust criminal defense is about 30-40 hours.
Also good luck selling a gun you don’t have in your possession. Try going to a gun shop and saying “give me the cash now, I promise to give you the gun when the police give it back to me”
You might legally have that right but practically… good luck.
We do agree that you should be responsible for your actions. But looking at the meme here nothing wrong was done.
defend yourself criminally
Robust criminal defense
These court proceedings aren’t criminal cases. They’re more like hearings on restraining orders and things of that nature. Like I said, this is generally less than a single day’s work for a lawyer, 2-5 hours.
I’m comparing middle of the road prices for handguns ($500-$1200) to middle of the road prices for a lawyer who can handle one of these hearings ($500-$1500). I still think it’s financially irresponsible to own more than 3 guns and not have a $1000 emergency fund.
I’d like to hear her version
Right? I’m sure the BF is a very well adjusted person that just happens to post on 4chan
I mean more often than not, when a woman accuses a man of doing horrible things and the man denies it, the woman is right
Well? How did this story end? I can’t find it in the 4plebs archive.
Anon hired a decent lawyer who argued that the seizure was frivolous and antagonistic. The court agreed, but by the time his guns were released, they had all converted to Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, and Linux.
The plot twist at the end there got me
deleted by creator
The second
