But we're FREE. And when open carry is forced on California, people will have so much freedom, they'll die from freedom and go to the Lord.
this post was submitted on 29 May 2026
388 points (99.7% liked)
Not The Onion
21599 readers
1546 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
This isn't remotely similar to an onion headline. Why does it have 350 upvotes
It's very troubling that so many men in America know only one way to express emotions: anger. This kid sounds mostly just heart-broken and lonely, and yet he manages to use healthy emotions, albeit negative, to fuel an increasingly destructive rage.
Expressing sadness and loneliness as anger is bound to make both worse. It's as if American society had given this kid only one way out of his predicament, and that way out is in fact going to cost lives.
In unrelated news, US citizens with unflattering memes of any White House official continue to be detained for national security reasons.
Tell me a story about the US without telling me it's about the US. What a sad story.
No Way to Prevent This
The teen’s father then informed police that he had 12 registered firearms in the home and assured detectives that he would secure them, the documents show.
No one in the world needs twelve firearms.
The answer is Love and Peace!
No you see they need it to protect themselves from an evil governement that supports people, violates the constitution and harbors criminals, whilst threatening most of their allies and teaming up with genocidal regimes.
They will put these arms to their intended use any minute now...
AAaany minute now.
Come on Lemmy, you can't have it both ways. How are we going to stage a massive revolution and die horribly in the process if we don't have a shit ton of guns?
Fewer guns leaves more room in the safe (& budget) for ammunition.
I mean, at most you’d only need like three per person. Long gun, sidearm, and maybe a backup long gun.
I guess you could make the argument that this parent was simply trying to arm an entire family of four. It’s not a good argument. But we’ve already established that these aren’t good parents.
90's shooters taught me that the ideal amount of weapons to carry is 9, with a 10th one ideally becoming available at the end of your adventure
Right so the guy with extra guns can give them to those with less.
I think if all civilian guns were equally distributed you do get about 3 guns per person
he assured them, but dint actually do it. if someone has and wants 12 firearms, they are unlikely to fully secure them at all. they probably have it stashed all in one place or multiple places for easy acces. thats how these ammosexuals think.
they probably have it stashed all in one place or multiple places
This does read as if you're mad no matter what they do.
Somehow i read that quote as if Trump spoke it
I am.
I mean, if you hunt deer, pheasant, small game, target shoot, and have a handgun or two for home defense, that's already 6ish guns right there. If you have any heirlooms or collector items that are firearms, that's a few more. I don't have 12 guns, but I don't have a hard time picturing why someone might, especially an entire family who hunts and does outdoorsy things. Then again I live in the western US and outdoor recreation is huge here.
Though if you don't have any sense of responsibility, you shouldn't have any guns either. If anyone disagrees with that, I don't know if logic can reach them!
I don't mean to sound insensitive to your culture, but there are other activities that can be done outdoors, can you tell your country please?
Even though I'm very glad that I live in a country where guns are heavily restricted, I can't deny that shooting is kinda fun.
We know. There's also paintball, and dynamite fishing!
/s
You mean bow hunting like a caveman?
We don't have walkable cities, and in rural areas infrastructure may be so underwhelming that shooting stuff might be the best you can hope for excitement.
(Fortunately it's usually in a non harmful way like target shooting or plinking).
load more comments
(6 replies)
I do lots of outdoor recreation, mountain biking, swimming, hiking, basketball...
Or did you mean gun-based recreation is huge there?
load more comments
(8 replies)
It's possible you need the first 11 to kill the 200 people coming for you.
But, what if there are 201???!!!!
checkmate, cynic.
Need?
Who cares about need.
When it comes right down to it, nobody needs more than one of most things.
But in reality, there is a limit to how much "you" (as in someone that is trying to limit someone else's access to something) should be allowed to limit said thing without both due process and significant cause. When something is a fundamental right (and anyone with multiple firearms is definitely of the mind that firearms are a natural extension of fundamental rights, so long as they exist at all), you, me, the government simply shouldn't be able to declare that anyone has to show need to exercise that right.
To the contrary, suppression of rights has to be done only under extreme and unusual circumstances.
Now, from your comment, I doubt you consider the right to defense as extending to firearms. That's fine, I'm not debating that by this comment (and won't, it bores the fuck out of me because nobody ever has anything new to bring to the debate). I'm just saying that if something is a right, placing your idea of need on it simply isn't acceptable.
A dozen, a hundred, a thousand, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that the right exists. And, in the US it is a specifically enumerated right. There's wiggle room on when rights can be curtailed, suppressed. We do it all the time. But it can't be done lightly, and shouldn't be based on some arbitrary, ill defined standard of need.
That being said, the role of a handgun vs a shotgun vs a rifle at least points to three use cases that can't be met by the others. Since different calibers of ammunition have discrete properties, it can also be said that significantly different rounds would fulfill different roles (you shoot a squirrel with a .50 cal, you ain't scraping up enough to roast). Just based on that concept, it would be easy to point to at least six different firearms being "needed" to fulfill roles.
If you have multiple people using the firearms, you can need different ones for each person.
So twelve? It really isn't that many. I've seen hunters that will regularly use at least twelve different rifles in a year, sometimes more, depending on how often they can find time to hunt. Ignoring any debate about hunting being something you or I support, it is a use case that is common enough to merit the term need when it comes to the tools used to do it.
Now me? I don't need that many. Not a hunter, don't compete in shooting sports, don't even target shoot as a regular hobby. But you sure as hell don't get to decide what I do and don't need. Nor does anyone else without the application of due process and just cause.
In the case of U.S. gun regulation at least, I don't think a piece of paper from over two hundred years ago declaring firearm ownership as an inherent right supersedes the extreme level of gun violence that has long been occurring and largely ignored.
Limited and highly regulated gun ownership for hunting or collecting is one thing, but there wouldn't be a need for people to amass arsenals of weapons for 'self-defense' if guns weren't so prevalent in the first place. Other first world countries do not have the gun problem the U.S. has.
In the case of U.S. gun regulation at least, I don’t think a piece of paper from over two hundred years ago declaring firearm ownership as an inherent right supersedes the extreme level of gun violence that has long been occurring and largely ignored.
Trump or someone like him was inevitable. Even the "good guys" want the boot so fucking bad.
Individual gun ownership cannot hold a candle to the gross extent to which American police departments are armed and militarized. The notion of a 'well-armed militia' safeguarding individual rights from a tyrannical government hasn't been relevant for most of the country's history.
Your right to swing a fist has always ended where my nose begins. In this case, the swung fist is a cache of weapons left where a mentally unstable person can gain access to and misuse them. It's certainly valid to own weapons, but that ownership is a liability that requires investments in safety.
You accurately describe the difference between need and want at the beginning of your comment, then ignore it at the end.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(14 replies)
Seriously, how do you "dress up like Dexter Morgan"? Was he wearing a polo shirt and khakis?
I had the same thought. Maybe with a clear parka over top?
Um, ekskushe me, he wore henleys.
load more comments
(1 replies)
That order was temporarily granted, and the father stated he would place the 12 guns in storage.
The United States is such a fucking weird place, man.
Why do these Spanish pick mes think they are white supremacists? Like I don't get it.
Spaniards are Caucasian Europeans and they ruled their colonies with bigotry, murder and racism.
view more: next ›