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
Peace and Harmony said:
Nothing weird here.

View attachment 1938449
Click to expand...
If memory serves, this is yet another aspect of John's past that he can't help but lie about (beyond your more truthful rendition, @Water-T). The span of time between first meeting and getting engaged always changes, as does the duration of the engagement. I'm pretty sure someone has collected his various renditions of the tale in this thread, as well as the actual length of his engagement, but I can't remember where that is.

Place your bets: does John do this intentionally to throw himself into whatever conversation as how much he relates to the topic at hand, or is he too retarded to remember these dates anymore?
 
King Dead said:
If memory serves, this is yet another aspect of John's past that he can't help but lie about (beyond your more truthful rendition, @Water-T). The span of time between first meeting and getting engaged always changes, as does the duration of the engagement. I'm pretty sure someone has collected his various renditions of the tale in this thread, as well as the actual length of his engagement, but I can't remember where that is.

Place your bets: does John do this intentionally to throw himself into whatever conversation as how much he relates to the topic at hand, or is he too retarded to remember these dates anymore?
Click to expand...
It's probably both. John being both a pathological liar and a massive egotist, who is also dumb.
 
You just know for sure it's the balanced and reasonable position when John says it is.

left.jpg
 
I love dipshits who try to argue from a position of authority. "IM A US MUHREEN AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE OATH I TOOK AT ALL" is essentially what that retard is saying.
 
Peace and Harmony said:
You just know for sure it's the balanced and reasonable position when John says it is.
Click to expand...
John is dumb as dogshit. The stated purpose of the Second Amendment, in its own language, is to ensure the right of the people to own, quite literally, weapons of war, such that they can comprise the "well-regulated militia" which is the reason for the Amendment existing.
 
AnOminous said:
John is dumb as dogshit. The stated purpose of the Second Amendment, in its own language, is to ensure the right of the people to own, quite literally, weapons of war, such that they can comprise the "well-regulated militia" which is the reason for the Amendment existing.
Click to expand...
but... but... weapons of war back then were single shot muskets! The founding fathers would have never allowed private citizens to own machine guns!!!!

And other copes leftists use to deflect from the fact that the entire point of the 2nd is parity with the government.
 
Oh is that what it is whenever you tell someone to fuck off and kill themselves whenever they call you out on your bullshit?

pain.jpg


Did I time warp to fucking 2015?

hogwarts.jpg
 
Last edited:
Peace and Harmony said:
Oh is that what it is whenever you tell someone to fuck off and kill themselves whenever they call you out on your bullshit?

View attachment 1938997

Did I time warp to fucking 2015?

View attachment 1939061
Click to expand...
Maybe this is the part that Wu is talking about being targeted by.
"Among Leavitt’s other videos are lengthy defenses of ... and Nolan Bushnell, the Atari co-founder who Kotaku’s reporting found to have fostered a toxic work environment for women."
The women working for Bushnell at the time, the ones used as evidence, then disagreed with Wu and told him to shove it.

The damning image from his channel that they use in the article. It's so fucking milquetoast.
damnwuu.jpg
 
Peace and Harmony said:
You just know for sure it's the balanced and reasonable position when John says it is.

View attachment 1938836
Click to expand...
but wouldn't a background check include the name "john" !?!

he always runs from that.

it's been mentioned a couple of times already but ...militia..military -- see the common root?

when you really look at amendment 2 - it would cover military arms more than it would cover sporting arms

as John himself talked about when he plagirized Snow Crash..it isn't a polite game

what always gets me with the assault rifle thing...an assault rifle isn't that powerful. It's actual a light version of the more powerful battle rifle.
The round is too light to legally hunt bigger game with

sporting rifles can be considerably more powerful...and you know what a big game rifle really is??? a sniper rifle designed to take down something tougher than a human

I'd tell bri bri this but he can field strip a deer while eveyone else field dresses it
and I noticed when he said he could drop that deer at 200yds, somebody asked what shooting position? and bri bri responded with..silence

drive your porsche in the dark to get a soggy slugburger from a field stripped animal
 
Sonichu-choo trainwreck said:
it's been mentioned a couple of times already but ...militia..military -- see the common root?

when you really look at amendment 2 - it would cover military arms more than it would cover sporting arms
Click to expand...
The "militia" as contemplated in the Amendment would have been every able-bodied male. While there was a desire not to have a standing army, the Amendment initially protected the people of the States from seizures of their weapons by the federal government. States were also supposed to be able to mobilize the unorganized militia and activate them reasonably promptly, as they were already armed and familiar with their own weapons.

As such, not only would it cover "military weapons," the guns one already had would quite literally be the very ones you would be using if it came down to a war.
 
I find that people who say things like John here often think it's illegal in the United States to own stuff like cannons and tanks. Real heavy weapons of war. When it's not. It's just really expensive to buy and maintain them but there are plenty of them in private hands*. The federal and state governments have placed more restrictions on personal ownership of (sub)machine guns historically than it has on personal ownership of tanks. One reason is because (sub)machine guns were considered weapons of gangs, not weapons of war.

Further, cannons were also privately owned during the founders era. That's why you had to "call them out" and ask the states for them, no standing armies remember? It's amazing how much sense it all makes when you aren't trying to twist the words in knots to justify something you want today.

*There's some rich faggot who owns like twelve WWII tanks I saw on The History Channel or something once. He's got this massive garage that looks like Jay Leno's but inside it's all tanks, APCs, etc. instead of cars.

And yes, of course, the dude had all the included weapons on the tanks and enough arms in storage to fire regularly from them. :semperfidelis:
 
AirdropShitposts said:
I find that people who say things like John here often think it's illegal in the United States to own stuff like cannons and tanks. Real heavy weapons of war. When it's not. It's just really expensive to buy and maintain them but there are plenty of them in private hands*. The federal and state governments have placed more restrictions on personal ownership of (sub)machine guns historically than it has on personal ownership of tanks. One reason is because (sub)machine guns were considered weapons of gangs, not weapons of war.

Further, cannons were also privately owned during the founders era. That's why you had to "call them out" and ask the states for them, no standing armies remember? It's amazing how much sense it all makes when you aren't trying to twist the words in knots to justify something you want today.

*There's some rich faggot who owns like twelve WWII tanks I saw on The History Channel or something once. He's got this massive garage that looks like Jay Leno's but inside it's all tanks, APCs, etc. instead of cars.

And yes, of course, the dude had all the included weapons on the tanks and enough arms in storage to fire regularly from them. :semperfidelis:
Click to expand...
You can actually rent tanks as well, Drivetanks in Texas is probably the largest but they aren't the only ones. They'll even let you rent machineguns and anti-tank guns to shoot.

Edit: shits expensive yo
dt.png
 
Right from that website:
1613955117947.png

The thing about the main gun isn't even necessary if you buy a license for it. Which would probably be trivial for most tank purchasers.

I think the main legal restrictions you'd run into with a tank is its street legality, you can't really drive it anywhere except on private property in most localities. I'm sure as a member of the local militia you can get some kind of waiver if your piece gets called up.

edit: It's not just "red" states like Texas either, there's huge amounts of tanks in private hands in a hard blue state like California. Just looking up if there were any state restrictions I found at least three separate estate auctions selling 100+ tanks in the last decade for California. Here's a dude who has a Wikipedia page because he owned 220 military vehicles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Littlefield

Not to mention how many TV shows and movies are getting their stuff by renting it from private owners.

Yikes, 85 of that guys tanks are within striking distance of the Wu household!
The American Heritage Museum at the Collings Foundation headquarters in Stow, Massachusetts had its grand opening in May, 2019 and displays over 85 vehicles of the Littlefield Collection.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
King Dead said:
If memory serves, this is yet another aspect of John's past that he can't help but lie about (beyond your more truthful rendition, @Water-T). The span of time between first meeting and getting engaged always changes, as does the duration of the engagement. I'm pretty sure someone has collected his various renditions of the tale in this thread, as well as the actual length of his engagement, but I can't remember where that is.

Place your bets: does John do this intentionally to throw himself into whatever conversation as how much he relates to the topic at hand, or is he too retarded to remember these dates anymore?
Click to expand...
According to his own twitter, it was a decade on Oct 6 2018, but, also according to his twitter he has been married a decade in 2017. Found anothwr of 8 years in 2014. 12 years in sept of 2020, but engaged after 6 days. He forgot the month he was married in.

I'm actually enjoying this lol.

Another in Oct 6 one in 2014 that actually means a decade in 2018.

Frank Wu, Doctor Lawyer.
 
AnOminous said:
The "militia" as contemplated in the Amendment would have been every able-bodied male. While there was a desire not to have a standing army, the Amendment initially protected the people of the States from seizures of their weapons by the federal government. States were also supposed to be able to mobilize the unorganized militia and activate them reasonably promptly, as they were already armed and familiar with their own weapons.
Click to expand...
[/quote]

I was pointing out the latin root from militaris, or IIRC it goes all the way back to etruscan..those who march together.
The concept of the citizen soldier is older than the English language
becuase bri bri put up weapons of war



AnOminous said:
As such, not only would it cover "military weapons," the guns one already had would quite literally be the very ones you would be using if it came down to a war.
Click to expand...
yep yep.
I mean when you look at the history of weapons, farmers used the same shit they had.
go into your average house and you don't need bri bri's slingblade...there's a 9+inch pigsticker in the kitchen

and what do they shut down before a riot? gasoline sales
 
Last edited:
Sonichu-choo trainwreck said:
but wouldn't a background check include the name "john" !?!

he always runs from that.

it's been mentioned a couple of times already but ...militia..military -- see the common root?

when you really look at amendment 2 - it would cover military arms more than it would cover sporting arms

as John himself talked about when he plagirized Snow Crash..it isn't a polite game

what always gets me with the assault rifle thing...an assault rifle isn't that powerful. It's actual a light version of the more powerful battle rifle.
The round is too light to legally hunt bigger game with

sporting rifles can be considerably more powerful...and you know what a big game rifle really is??? a sniper rifle designed to take down something tougher than a human

I'd tell bri bri this but he can field strip a deer while eveyone else field dresses it
and I noticed when he said he could drop that deer at 200yds, somebody asked what shooting position? and bri bri responded with..silence

drive your porsche in the dark to get a soggy slugburger from a field stripped animal
Click to expand...

In the lead up to the American Revolution, the governor of Massachusetts (in a rare case of a politician listening to a military advisor) had the guns of known Patriots seized. This included large numbers of muskets being stockpiled for arming militia. However, this was ruled an illegal seizure of private property by a British judge, and the arms were ordered returned to their owners. Had British law not forced the return of these weapons to their owners, the American revolution may not have started off - or if it had, the patriots would have had a much harder time of it.

The founding fathers recognized this, and this is why the bill of rights first enshrines Religion and Press (because many early patriot meetings were held in church/preachers basically preached independence) and the right to assemble; basically the government can't stop people who feel they aren't being served by the government to gather.

The second amendment enshrines their ability to DO something about a tyrant once they are gathered together, and that is why it comes immediately after. It very clearly means military-grade arms, because citizens should have ability to fight against the army of an oppressor.


Never trust anyone who wants to weaken the 2nd amendment, because it probably means they have designs on being a tyrant.
 
Last edited:
The first clause in the second amendment has kind of been ground for contention..a big question is it functional or preambulatory

The SCOTUS tends not to over specify on tha one

SCalia had a neat take (even if it was a side step , it was a brillinat one) in IIRC Heller that the clause informed but didn't restrict
(the preamble has been used to try to say it's a collective right)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom