Skip Navigation
66 comments
  • Remember the parable of the man who was beaten on the road to Damascus? In the New Republican Version, it ends with the Samaritan gunning him down from 100yds, just in case.

    • Scene: The road to Damascus

      Samaritan: laying on the ground, beaten and bloody

      Repub: GET ON THE GROUND GET ON THE GROUND!!!!

      Samaritan: lifts head slightly to see who is yelling

      Repub: HE'S COMING RIGHT AT ME!! pew pew pew

      Samaritan: dies

      Repub: you guys all saw that right? He was coming right at me, I had to stand my ground! (from 100 yards away)

    • what's hilarious about that (OG) parable was... it's original purpose.

      some cultural context is important there; not rendering aid if it could be rendered was viewed every bit as much as stabbing a dude would have been. It was the only commandant that could have been broken by inaction.

      now the merchant and the pharisee were both seen as righteous men. So as jesus was telling the story; everybody expected him to stop. When the merchant kept going by, everyone thought (more or less,) "oh, the pharisee had it."

      When the Pharisee kept going... he was literally calling the rich fucks and their puppets (the pharisees) murderers. The point of the parable was that those two were worse than the "unclean" and broadly despised Samaritans. (which were viewed in very similar manner to how Trumpian broke-dicks view migrants seeking asylum, in point of fact.)

  • There's some nuance here. INAL, but I'm reading that this bill would allow someone to confront a trespasser, far from home, yet on their property, and call it castle doctrine. If that's the case, I disagree mightily. Fuck around outside? That's for 911, even if they're far away. Don't care what you do outside, I'll wait on law enforcement. Inside? FAFO.

    If passed, the change of ā€œandā€ to ā€œorā€ in state law would give a much broader defense to people who use deadly force, as property would only have to satisfy some of the requirements instead of all of them, said criminal defense attorney Jack Litwak. [emphasis mine]

    ā€œThe idea with the Castle Doctrine is that you are supposed to be able to defend house and home,ā€ he said.ā€œThis seems to broaden it to say you can shoot someone thatā€™s just on your actual property.ā€

    On the surface, this doesn't seem like much of a change. But I've seen cases revolve around seemingly minor details. Words have very specific meanings in law. Very specific.

    Remember the guy who shot a YouTube bully who was fucking with him in a food court? And we all cheered him on? Here James Reeves, gun nut and attorney, breaks it down. Yes, being somewhat cheesy is part of his shtick. In any case, he's expert on both firearms and related law (ex-military and a practicing attorney.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QMkL5wlcaM

  • We aren't quickly becoming the Imperium, we're already there. The hottest and most abundant commodity is bodies, exploited to the last sinew. Whether your shot dead, or worked to death in dangerous conditions, you will serve. It is beyond time we've dealt with our demostic terrorism, the politicians that enable them, and the corporations that fund it all.

    • I was just thinking the same thing a moment before I happened upon your comment. These guys just want to make 40k a reality but without all the things that make 40k great.

      Wheres my Nurgle?

66 comments