Thats not quite how its used, its not a verb, its an adjective. So instead of “She’s been ran through”, you would say “That girl? Nah man, she’s ran through.”

Agree but the photo is bullshit, it was generated with Gemini.

Literally couldn’t agree more

Honestly I think these thoughts are normal to have at any time, at least for me. I ratitonalize it like this: I’m not considering doing something; I’m thinking about something that could happen. They’re intrusive!

Buy a handgun (or a rifle if money’s no object), let me know a budget and I can talk you through what your best options are there if you’d like. I was going to say security system, but a more cost effective solution might be to get deadbolts on all exterior doors (easier the smaller your house is and even easier if you’re in an apartment that’ll let you)

Thats irrelevant, but as a counterpoint: why wouldn’t protestors want to be armed? Its your right just like the freedom to protest, so why not exercise it?

Black panthers

+1 on the other reply. It’s more of a general, common idea than something applicable to this scenario

I don’t think anyone believes those are ‘worth it’ because of a fetish over guns. I think if people do think that, the pro is usually the ability to defend yourself

Organized, armed* mass resistance

Duh

First of all the civilian is a hero; but assuming I had the balls to disarm him and knew how to operate his gun (and it wasn’t out of rounds), why wouldn’t you shoot the guy?

That point isn’t conveyed through what you said

Should is not the same word as has.

should imperative Used as an auxiliary verb, to express a conditional or contingent act or state, or as a supposition of an actual fact; also, to express moral obligation (see shall); e. g.: they should have come last week; if I should go; I should think you could go.

has verb Third-person singular simple present indicative form of have.

Your comment doesn’t actually address what the inital comment said at all.

‘Should’ != ‘Has’

Ironic comment

Isn’t this almost never enforced? You’d have to be caught by federal law enforcement with both on you, which seems incredibly unlikely.

IIRC this is mainly used as a foot in the door to get people on more serious charges, like Al Capone w/ tax evasion.

Not defending it, as #1 the federal government doesn’t have the power to criminalize or regulate marijuana in the first place, and #2 it’s a gross violation of your rights.

… I couldn’t disagree more. A free, excused day off is as good as it can get.

I think it’s an attempt at an anti-truth what-aboutism, which Mike Johnson failed to come up with and accidentally agreed.

So your point is that Johnson only agrees that he’s unwell, but not unhinged? Also, your example isn’t even close to the same flow of conversation. He didn’t reply with a deflection, he literally said “And some people on your side are too”. Whether he intended to agree or not is debatable, but his statement is absolutely agreeing because he used the word “too” AND didn’t mention anything completely unrelated like in your example.