Honestly that guy has my vote
Finally. Gun violence I can support!
He probably got a boost in the polls for this in Tennessee.
Being sick of the expanding surveillence and censorship network that saw dystopian fiction as an instruction manual rather than a warning seems to reach across party lines.
Can we make him president?
Couldn’t be him. He was at my birthday party all of those days.
True. I was there and also saw him each of those days.
He should get a medal instead.
Jeff Sovern and this guy are the best.
He’s got my vote
This will get him more votes not fewer
Yeah, might have found a way to swing republican voters to his side.
It don’t matter if the accusations are true or not because we at close enough to the election too.
Using what? Shotgun, paintball gun, pellet gun: I’ll donate to this campaign/defense fund. Handgun, canon, or rifle: go fuck yourself.
I broke my foot a few years ago and can’t run anymore. I can’t play anymore but I’ve really been considering pulling my paintball gun out of the closet.
Let’s cheer you up by going to the paintball range and purchasing far more paintballs than we’ll be able to use in our allotted time. I’m sure you’ll dispose of the extras safely.
Also, going to the beaches here in San Diego and harassing the people harassing the seals and sea lions.
Of course, you’re joking and we’d never do anything like that. In fact, we were busy studying the white Jesus Bible when we saw those people’s backs spontaneously expel paint splats onto themselves.
Lol, what?
“I support it if he used a shotgun but by gawd if he used a handgun he can burn in hell”
This makes no god damn sense man.
Edit: I was wrong about this. The issue is that handguns and rifles will keep traveling and potentially kill someone. A shotgun with birdshot would not do that.
Basic gun safety states to know your target and what lies beyond it. Even a simple .45 has the potential to go through a camera, wall, and into a person, meaning that a perfect shot still has a non-zero chance of your bullet taking out a person or ruining someone’s day.
Using one of the first gun types displays foresight and consideration that I’d desire in a politician. The second type indicates a reckless figure who is uninformed about the tools and power that they wield, and doesn’t embody the values of a politician I’d trust.
It’s not enough to take action and be a badass; it’s important to also show that you’ll at least try to keep your constituents safe.
That’s fair actually and does make sense.
Well, shotguns generally are extremely range limited, and birdshot is pretty mild after a couple dozen feet. You’re not gonna hurt someone accidentally, even if you completely miss the thing.
Handguns and rifles have an extremely high likelihood of hitting something or someone behind whatever you’re shooting at and travel great distance. Miss the camera, and you end up doming some poor bastard just walking down the street a mile away, or hitting some kid chilling in their room.
If by “extremely high likelihood” you mean “a remote but non zero chance” then I agree. It’s obviously too high a chance to take when it could result in someone’s death, but there’s just to much empty space between people to make it likely he would hit someone.
Well if you’re aiming up toward a camera on a pole, and miss, there’s a 100% chance it hits something else behind it. That being a person is low, but that’s not the only irresponsible thing to hit with a bullet.
Also, there are 30-40 deaths every year from inadvertent falling bullets from shooting up into the air.
I’m not defending shooting into the air, I’m just disputing the “extremely high likelihood” that you will hit a person.
I mean, if you just gloss over half of what I said sure.
You’re not disputing anything because that’s not what I said.
I said you have an extremely high likelihood of hitting “something or someone” behind it.
Which is absolutely true.
That’s fair acrually but I would hope he would walk up to it and shoot it and not try to hit it with a scope from 100 yards away.
There is truth in what you say though.
I’ve seen people completely miss a target from 5 feet out lol. And even then, the cameras are mostly plastic. A higher-powered rifle or handgun round would just go right through and keep going like nothing.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
I mean, based? Elect him
Welp, let’s get him elected and some of that immunity with it. Him running against flock and showing he is willing to do what it takes should give him good chances no?
I remember a candidate talking about shooting a person in public and still winning, and he did. Call this a hot take, but I’d rather my politicians brag about shooting cheap surveillance tech than a living being
Was going to say the same thing. I read his ballotopedia responses and he seems better than a Republican. But that’s a pretty low bar.
True. The Republican incumbent that he’s running against, Tim Burchett, promised to legislate against Flock cameras. While that’s nice, I no longer trust the promises of any Republican.
As far as I’m concerned, we need to replace all Republican politicians. If their opponent is a Democrat, we need to be a little careful not to elect a wolf in sheep’s clothing. But if they’re independents like the guy we’re talking about, I think just about anybody would do. Like an animal or an inanimate object would even be infinitely preferable to a Republican.
You need to vote for people who can win
Better start canvassing then, atleast this dude is already in the media!
I’m Canadian and happy with my provincial, municipal, and federal governments!
nuh uh I was playing mecha chameleon with him when that happened
From their Q&A:
Trickle down economics has failed to produce results. Subsidizing projects for corporations to reap the benefits while working class Americans struggle is fiscally irresponsible. Redirecting subsidies from multi-billion dollar corporations to public education and health programs.
Based.
