444
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago

to anyone who understand this behavior - what's the man trying to do here? Is there any charitable read? Having a hard time imagining it.

[-] [email protected] 28 points 5 months ago

I didn't watch the video, but it sounds like it was in the context of discussing self defense. A student asked if he meant people should carry guns, so he showed that he was carrying one in an attempt to confirm that he practices what he preaches. He was probably also trying to normalize it. Pretty dumb, but obviously not intending to intimidate the kids.

[-] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

If you watch the video, it clearly didn’t seem like any kind of intentional intimidation. Definitely a whoopsie since brandishing is illegal in most but not his state. But we should be charitable to compensate for our own biases and I think the title is a bit misleading about the context

[-] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago

Responsible gun owners sure do seem to have a lot of "whoopsies".

"Whoopsie, I seem to have brandised my weapon at children"

"Whoopsie, I seem to have allowed my gun to be stolen"

"Whoopsie, a family member seems to have comitted suicide with my poorly secured firearm".

"Whoopsie, I seem to have shot a child in the face over a misunderstanding".

[-] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago
[-] winterayars 2 points 5 months ago

Straight up intimidation.

this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
444 points (97.4% liked)

politics

18080 readers
2327 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS