Brianna Wu / John Walker Flynt - "Biggest Victim of Gamergate," Failed Game Developer, Failed Congressional Candidate

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
You can already buy guns at the Dick's Sporting Goods in Dedham, but that's in a shopping plaza.

I don't know how to insert the video since it's from a news site, but a lot of people are unhappy about it, not just Frank Wu.
www.wcvb.com

Suburban gun shop set to open has some Dedham residents alarmed

A gun shop scheduled to open in one of Boston’s biggest suburbs in September has alarmed some residents over its proximity to a playground.
www.wcvb.com www.wcvb.com

Enjoy the selectman talking about how they tried and failed to keep out Hootahs.
 
I can only imagine that right outside a gun shop in a nice neighborhood is one of the safest places you can be. Who would be insane enough to open fire right in front of an arsenal full of gun owners? What do you think would happen?
 
John just can't keep himself from lying.

In his bio for Write/Speak/Code, the headline reads "Democratic Candidate for Congress." No, John, you pathological liar, you are a candidate for the Democratic nomination, which election you will lose in a humiliating landslide. You will -- again -- declare your crushing defeat a moral victory and file for the 2022 election in order to continue using campaign donations to fund vacations, meals, and extravagant purchases of high-end electronics that somehow end up in Frank's house.
 
1566092228845.png
 
Not a single other woman on that roster has a bio half that long, not even exceptionals like Fong-Jones— and none of them are autist stump speeches like Wu’s.

And yes John, everyone is aware of who Steve Bannon is, thanks.
 
AprilRains said:
The Barrett and other .50-caliber rifles are used in very long-range rifle competition. Despite the lies told by authoritarian assholes, they do indeed have a sporting use.

And if they did not, what of it? US citizens are not and should not be restricted to the ownership of sporting arms.
Click to expand...

The Second Amendment says nothing whatsoever about sporting use. Furthermore, at the time, the "militia" spoken of in the "well-regulated militia" phrase would have consisted of every able-bodied male in the state, and it would have been up to the states to defend their own interests, since the Framers were highly suspicious of a federal standing army.

So the "militia" would have been those men who could be called into service for the military. The "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" would have been precisely those arms which would also be used in military service, as citizens would have provided their own guns when responding to a crisis, especially the wealthier classes who were more likely to be officers.

tl;dr yes when the Second Amendment was drafted they did, indeed, actually mean military grade arms.
 
AnOminous said:
The Second Amendment says nothing whatsoever about sporting use. Furthermore, at the time, the "militia" spoken of in the "well-regulated militia" phrase would have consisted of every able-bodied male in the state, and it would have been up to the states to defend their own interests, since the Framers were highly suspicious of a federal standing army.

So the "militia" would have been those men who could be called into service for the military. The "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" would have been precisely those arms which would also be used in military service, as citizens would have provided their own guns when responding to a crisis, especially the wealthier classes who were more likely to be officers.

tl;dr yes when the Second Amendment was drafted they did, indeed, actually mean military grade arms.
Click to expand...
Correct. In the context of that amendment, "well-regulated" meant "well provided for in law", not under tight governmental control. We can at least provide for them in law by allowing them their choice of arms.
 
AprilRains said:
Correct. In the context of that amendment, "well-regulated" meant "well provided for in law", not under tight governmental control. We can at least provide for them in law by allowing them their choice of arms.
Click to expand...

The British were unable to disarm their colonists. Militia and armed citizens were vital to the success of the Revolution and the removal of a government that did not represent the people or reflect their will. The founding fathers knew all about power-hungry tyrants, and if any cropped up in future generations, they wanted to be sure future Americans would have the tools to overthrow them.

Venezuela has nation-wide blackouts, shortages of food, basic supplies, and medicine. The people can't do shit about it because the government took all their weapons in 2013 so have to sit back and take it while a single power-mad dictator gives weapons to loyalist civilians to keep them in line.

Never, ever let any one vote in gun control.

Any AR-15 variant, even the evil ones that are black and have pistol grips, have low recoil allowing rounds to be placed quickly and accurately on the target. They are amazing for coyotes, allowing you to engage a pack at a range they are likely to initially detect you, and allowing you to potentially drop several members once they start running.
They are also better for target shooting than other weapons because of the reduced recoil, meaning smaller & less muscular people can control them. This also makes them a good home-defense weapon, since its unlikely to fly out of someone's hands.

Which leads to the question:
Why does MA-8 candidate Brianna Wu hate women and wish to leave then defenseless to robbery and rape?
 
Last edited:
AprilRains said:
The Barrett and other .50-caliber rifles are used in very long-range rifle competition. Despite the lies told by authoritarian assholes, they do indeed have a sporting use.

And if they did not, what of it? US citizens are not and should not be restricted to the ownership of sporting arms.

Fuck both of those idiots. I don't want such a rifle, but I'll be damned if I'll have some assholes tell me I can't have one.
Click to expand...
And despite the gash-licker's assertion, a Barrett has never been used for a mass murder. In fact I dont think one has ever been uses in any crime.
AnOminous said:
The Second Amendment says nothing whatsoever about sporting use. Furthermore, at the time, the "militia" spoken of in the "well-regulated militia" phrase would have consisted of every able-bodied male in the state, and it would have been up to the states to defend their own interests, since the Framers were highly suspicious of a federal standing army.

So the "militia" would have been those men who could be called into service for the military. The "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" would have been precisely those arms which would also be used in military service, as citizens would have provided their own guns when responding to a crisis, especially the wealthier classes who were more likely to be officers.

tl;dr yes when the Second Amendment was drafted they did, indeed, actually mean military grade arms.
Click to expand...
U.S. code still defines the milita as all able-bodied males between 17 and 45.
 
AnOminous said:
The Second Amendment says nothing whatsoever about sporting use. Furthermore, at the time, the "militia" spoken of in the "well-regulated militia" phrase would have consisted of every able-bodied male in the state, and it would have been up to the states to defend their own interests, since the Framers were highly suspicious of a federal standing army.

So the "militia" would have been those men who could be called into service for the military. The "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" would have been precisely those arms which would also be used in military service, as citizens would have provided their own guns when responding to a crisis, especially the wealthier classes who were more likely to be officers.

tl;dr yes when the Second Amendment was drafted they did, indeed, actually mean military grade arms.
Click to expand...


Aside from all that, John -- who knows nothing of history -- would be especially distressed to learn that militias were frequently funded and under the command of wealthy individuals or organizations. The Hampton Legion, led by South Carolina planter Wade Hampton, had the best military equipment available, including artillery. And the Nauvoo Legion, run by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also had infantry, cavalry, and artillery units armed with the best materiel available. John's reaction to a conservative religious organization with its own perfectly legal army would be entertaining to witness.

On the other hand, John would be happy to learn that the militias' members -- except maybe Wade Hampton -- didn't get to keep their artillery pieces at home. Not because doing so would be illegal, but because of the logistics of moving the guns and their supplies of powder and shot.
 
Particle Bored said:
And despite the gash-licker's assertion, a Barrett has never been used for a mass murder. In fact I dont think one has ever been uses in any crime.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I mean, how the fuck would you? They're huge, heavy, unwieldy. Something else would almost always be a better choice.

Not that I mind citizens having guns which might incidentally be effective for certain criminal uses. It is hard to have a gun that is good for self-defense that cannot facilitate any crime. I don't want all of the citizens to be treated as though they are criminals.

Brianna does. May she never win any election.
 
Particle Bored said:
And despite the gash-licker's assertion, a Barrett has never been used for a mass murder. In fact I dont think one has ever been uses in any crime.

U.S. code still defines the milita as all able-bodied males between 17 and 45.
Click to expand...

Correct. 10 U.S.C. § 246(a). It also includes females in the National Guard.

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
 
OttoWest said:
Not a single other woman on that roster has a bio half that long, not even exceptionals like Fong-Jones— and none of them are autist stump speeches like Wu’s.

And yes John, everyone is aware of who Steve Bannon is, thanks.
Click to expand...
Ah, so.
Liz Fong-Jones, the shemale mandarin and president of Null’s fan club.
Ching Chong, Bing Bong, indeed.

22E2481E-57F8-40CF-BCF2-50846145D298.jpeg
 
XtrmGamr719 said:
Did I already express my worry about Wu abusing the red flag laws to get rid of her enemies and have them killed? Because that is a genuine worry.
Click to expand...
He would absolutely do that, if he ever got power.

There seems to be no danger of him getting any, but if he ever gets close, it'll the time to make sure the truth of him is known to every damn voter in his district.
 
AprilRains said:
He would absolutely do that, if he ever got power.

There seems to be no danger of him getting any, but if he ever gets close, it'll the time to make sure the truth of him is known to every damn voter in his district.
Click to expand...
Are we autistic enough to do like a state/city wide public announcement or something like that to show that Wu is nothing but a scammer and someone that absolutely should not be in Congress?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom