Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

Scooby has confirmed in a Space that the Firearm is Legitimate and he possesses all the necessary Documentations_ Can SAPS verify this? And also we would like to know whether, in terms of the Firearms Control Act, it is legally permissible to display a firearm in that manner.

Msunu ka Johann Rupert

44,210 subscribers

52,526 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политика

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Great to see Julius Malema back in court. Unfortunately not behind bars... yet. Here are the 8 reasons why I believe the object Julius Malema discharged was a real firearm, also see the video below. Muzzle flash: Muzzle flash is clear on the video of Julius Malema discharging a firearm that was made public. Muzzle flash can only occur when a detonator ignites gunpowder in the cartridge to then discharge the projectile with high pressure. Recoil: The video clearly shows that the firearm causes recoil with every shot that was fired. It is clear that Julius Malema must hold on with both hands to compensate recoil. If it was a toy gun/another object that didn’t discharge real ammo, it would not have caused recoil. Handling of the firearm: The firearm Julius Malema used to discharge the shots was handled with extreme caution during the presentation and recovery thereof by Adriaan Snyman, Malema’s Head of Security during the event. He would not have handled a toy gun in this manner. Gunshot sound: The sound and buzzing of the shots that are clearly audible in the video byte disprove many of Julius Malema’s excuses that it wasn’t a real firearm or ammunition that was discharged, according to several experts that were consulted. Accounts: Julius Malema and the EFF have continuously adjusted their accounts since the incident. It was initially alleged that blanks were used. Experts that were consulted describe this as unlikely seeing as the necessary accessories to discharge the firearm in this manner were lacking and the firearm didn’t react in the way it would have had the firearm discharged these blanks. The EFF later stated that it wasn’t a real firearm, but a toy gun that was used in synchronisation with fireworks to create the realistic effect. The experts also reject this account due to the reasons mentioned above. Julius Malema’s Head of Security handled and presented the firearm: Snyman that presented the firearm to Malema and also collected it again. Snyman’s security company is well known for owning similar firearms. Snyman has also in the past made himself guilty of the inappropriate carrying of these types of weapons during one of Malema’s court appearances. This incident caused a major uproar and it demonstrates Snyman’s apparent careless attitude with regard to these weapons.

Great to see Julius Malema back in court. Unfortunately not behind bars... yet. Here are the 8 reasons why I believe the object Julius Malema discharged was a real firearm, also see the video below. Muzzle flash: Muzzle flash is clear on the video of Julius Malema discharging a firearm that was made public. Muzzle flash can only occur when a detonator ignites gunpowder in the cartridge to then discharge the projectile with high pressure. Recoil: The video clearly shows that the firearm causes recoil with every shot that was fired. It is clear that Julius Malema must hold on with both hands to compensate recoil. If it was a toy gun/another object that didn’t discharge real ammo, it would not have caused recoil. Handling of the firearm: The firearm Julius Malema used to discharge the shots was handled with extreme caution during the presentation and recovery thereof by Adriaan Snyman, Malema’s Head of Security during the event. He would not have handled a toy gun in this manner. Gunshot sound: The sound and buzzing of the shots that are clearly audible in the video byte disprove many of Julius Malema’s excuses that it wasn’t a real firearm or ammunition that was discharged, according to several experts that were consulted. Accounts: Julius Malema and the EFF have continuously adjusted their accounts since the incident. It was initially alleged that blanks were used. Experts that were consulted describe this as unlikely seeing as the necessary accessories to discharge the firearm in this manner were lacking and the firearm didn’t react in the way it would have had the firearm discharged these blanks. The EFF later stated that it wasn’t a real firearm, but a toy gun that was used in synchronisation with fireworks to create the realistic effect. The experts also reject this account due to the reasons mentioned above. Julius Malema’s Head of Security handled and presented the firearm: Snyman that presented the firearm to Malema and also collected it again. Snyman’s security company is well known for owning similar firearms. Snyman has also in the past made himself guilty of the inappropriate carrying of these types of weapons during one of Malema’s court appearances. This incident caused a major uproar and it demonstrates Snyman’s apparent careless attitude with regard to these weapons.

Ian Cameron

319,601 просмотров • 2 лет назад

The Firearms Control Amendment Bill cannot be steamrolled through Parliament. In the Portfolio Committee on Police, I raised a serious concern with the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service. On slide 9 of their presentation, the Secretariat referred to the review of the Firearms Control Amendment Bill and used the words “to ensure enactment.” That wording matters. It suggests that the outcome has already been decided: push the Bill through, and treat Parliament and public participation as process boxes to tick afterwards. I asked the Secretariat directly whether they intend to advance the Bill in its current form, or whether they are prepared to substantially reconsider it based on actual evidence and stakeholder input. Because right now, the approach does not line up with the serious concerns raised by stakeholders, the slow Nedlac process, and the failures we already see in the current firearm control system. My question was simple: Why is the Department prioritising further legislative restriction before demonstrating measurable improvements in: -the Central Firearms Registry; -SAPS’s own firearm losses; -illegal firearm recovery; -firearm tracing; -ballistic capacity; and -actual enforcement against criminal possession of firearms? I also made it clear: the Portfolio Committee on Police is not a rubber stamp. The Secretariat then made an important concession. They accepted that the word “enactment” may need to be revised. More importantly, they confirmed that they have commissioned research into whether the current firearm legislation is actually being fully implemented, and what the failures in implementation are. The most important line from the response was this: “We can’t rush to the amendment of legislation if, for instance, it’s the failures of the implementation of the current legislation.” That is exactly the point. Marco van Niekerk captured this well in his article. The concern is that government appears to be moving towards new restrictions before properly diagnosing the real problem. He also points out that the failures are not theoretical: CFR dysfunction, state firearm losses, weak tracing capability, and limited enforcement against criminal possession of illegal firearms are all part of the problem. (Here is Marco’s article on The Common Sense: And to add insult to injury, this past week the SANDF confirmed that military weapons were stolen from Tek Base in Lyttelton. Reports state that three R4 assault rifles and a grenade launcher were stolen after a break-in was discovered on 27 April. Access was suspected to have been gained by cutting a hole in the perimeter fence, and a burglar door was forced open. That raises obvious questions. Where were the controls? Was there functioning CCTV? Were there alarm systems? Were there access logs? Were there armed patrols? Were inventories being audited? How can military-grade weapons be stolen from a base while government wants to tell law-abiding citizens that the problem is that they are not regulated enough? This is the contradiction. The State loses firearms. The State fails to secure military weapons. The State struggles with tracing and ballistics. The CFR remains dysfunctional. Criminals continue to possess illegal firearms. But the policy answer is apparently more restriction on lawful firearm owners. That is not good enough. South Africa does not need symbolic legislation. We need enforcement. We need working systems. We need accountability. We need functioning ballistics. We need a competent CFR. We need state-owned firearms secured. We need illegal firearms recovered. We need criminals prosecuted. Any revised Firearms Control Amendment Bill must be evidence-based, transparent and properly consulted on. No steamrolling. No predetermined enactment. No rubber-stamping. Fix the State’s failures first.

The Firearms Control Amendment Bill cannot be steamrolled through Parliament. In the Portfolio Committee on Police, I raised a serious concern with the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service. On slide 9 of their presentation, the Secretariat referred to the review of the Firearms Control Amendment Bill and used the words “to ensure enactment.” That wording matters. It suggests that the outcome has already been decided: push the Bill through, and treat Parliament and public participation as process boxes to tick afterwards. I asked the Secretariat directly whether they intend to advance the Bill in its current form, or whether they are prepared to substantially reconsider it based on actual evidence and stakeholder input. Because right now, the approach does not line up with the serious concerns raised by stakeholders, the slow Nedlac process, and the failures we already see in the current firearm control system. My question was simple: Why is the Department prioritising further legislative restriction before demonstrating measurable improvements in: -the Central Firearms Registry; -SAPS’s own firearm losses; -illegal firearm recovery; -firearm tracing; -ballistic capacity; and -actual enforcement against criminal possession of firearms? I also made it clear: the Portfolio Committee on Police is not a rubber stamp. The Secretariat then made an important concession. They accepted that the word “enactment” may need to be revised. More importantly, they confirmed that they have commissioned research into whether the current firearm legislation is actually being fully implemented, and what the failures in implementation are. The most important line from the response was this: “We can’t rush to the amendment of legislation if, for instance, it’s the failures of the implementation of the current legislation.” That is exactly the point. Marco van Niekerk captured this well in his article. The concern is that government appears to be moving towards new restrictions before properly diagnosing the real problem. He also points out that the failures are not theoretical: CFR dysfunction, state firearm losses, weak tracing capability, and limited enforcement against criminal possession of illegal firearms are all part of the problem. (Here is Marco’s article on The Common Sense: And to add insult to injury, this past week the SANDF confirmed that military weapons were stolen from Tek Base in Lyttelton. Reports state that three R4 assault rifles and a grenade launcher were stolen after a break-in was discovered on 27 April. Access was suspected to have been gained by cutting a hole in the perimeter fence, and a burglar door was forced open. That raises obvious questions. Where were the controls? Was there functioning CCTV? Were there alarm systems? Were there access logs? Were there armed patrols? Were inventories being audited? How can military-grade weapons be stolen from a base while government wants to tell law-abiding citizens that the problem is that they are not regulated enough? This is the contradiction. The State loses firearms. The State fails to secure military weapons. The State struggles with tracing and ballistics. The CFR remains dysfunctional. Criminals continue to possess illegal firearms. But the policy answer is apparently more restriction on lawful firearm owners. That is not good enough. South Africa does not need symbolic legislation. We need enforcement. We need working systems. We need accountability. We need functioning ballistics. We need a competent CFR. We need state-owned firearms secured. We need illegal firearms recovered. We need criminals prosecuted. Any revised Firearms Control Amendment Bill must be evidence-based, transparent and properly consulted on. No steamrolling. No predetermined enactment. No rubber-stamping. Fix the State’s failures first.

Ian Cameron

15,352 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

I love calling out these accounts from overseas that have zero clue what it takes to purchase a firearm here in the United States. In fact, purchasing a firearm is one of the most strict things that you can do here. So let’s make it as easy to purchase a firearm as it is to vote.

I love calling out these accounts from overseas that have zero clue what it takes to purchase a firearm here in the United States. In fact, purchasing a firearm is one of the most strict things that you can do here. So let’s make it as easy to purchase a firearm as it is to vote.

Steve 🇺🇸

23,181 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

ROAD RAGE: Two motorists, including a taxi driver, were involved in a physical altercation on Mandume Ndemufayo Avenue in Windhoek at around 07h30 this morning, during which one of the men was seen drawing a firearm and pointing it at his opponent. The circumstances that triggered the confrontation remain unclear. Under Namibia's Arms and Ammunition Act 7 of 1996, the unlawful display of a firearm in public may result in arrest, criminal prosecution and the revocation of a firearm licence. Videos: Contributed.

ROAD RAGE: Two motorists, including a taxi driver, were involved in a physical altercation on Mandume Ndemufayo Avenue in Windhoek at around 07h30 this morning, during which one of the men was seen drawing a firearm and pointing it at his opponent. The circumstances that triggered the confrontation remain unclear. Under Namibia's Arms and Ammunition Act 7 of 1996, the unlawful display of a firearm in public may result in arrest, criminal prosecution and the revocation of a firearm licence. Videos: Contributed.

Namibian Sun

116,741 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

🛎️ “Before they exerted the full extent of their power, the tyrants in government took away all guns legally owned by the people.” THE FIREARMS SHOWDOWN BEGINS IN CANADA The Canadian government just CONFIRMED that they will FORCE both Alberta and Saskatchewan to enforce all firearm bans. Or else! These two provinces recently enacted laws to opt out of this program.

🛎️ “Before they exerted the full extent of their power, the tyrants in government took away all guns legally owned by the people.” THE FIREARMS SHOWDOWN BEGINS IN CANADA The Canadian government just CONFIRMED that they will FORCE both Alberta and Saskatchewan to enforce all firearm bans. Or else! These two provinces recently enacted laws to opt out of this program.

♠️ ACE of Spades™

15,556 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Brown Mogotsi refused to comment, appearing rattled but remaining in good spirits. He briefly stated that he would speak out at the “right time.” Mogotsi faces five charges: Defeating the ends of justice, Perjury, Illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition,and Discharging a firearm in a public place. Police say the firearm used has not yet been found. Pule Letshwiti-Jones eNCA

Brown Mogotsi refused to comment, appearing rattled but remaining in good spirits. He briefly stated that he would speak out at the “right time.” Mogotsi faces five charges: Defeating the ends of justice, Perjury, Illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition,and Discharging a firearm in a public place. Police say the firearm used has not yet been found. Pule Letshwiti-Jones eNCA

Yusuf Abramjee

90,378 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🚨🚨 Senate Bill 727 Redefines Homeschool, Catch Clause Added “If you homeschool your children under this catch clause and you have a firearm in the vicinity, it adds an automatic felony” “Some far left wing group has spent a lot of money in Jefferson City. Senate Bill 727 would redefine what a homeschool is, turn into a public school, but there has been a small catch clause added into it. Then if you homeschool your children under this catch clause and you have a firearm in the vicinity, it adds an automatic felony. If you know anybody that lives in the state of Missouri where you currently live in the state of Missouri are liberty minded, you need to be contacting your senators right now and burning up their phone lines.” Additional Context From Grok: “Missouri Senate Bill 727 mentions firearm penalties in the context of making it illegal to possess a firearm in a home school under certain circumstances. The bill moves the definition of "home school" as a "school" to apply to all statutes, which technically makes it illegal to possess a firearm in a home school based on existing laws that prohibit firearms in schools. This change in definition appears to have been made unintentionally, as the Senate perfected version of the bill seems to have created this situation. The bill itself, as per the context provided, focuses on creating and modifying provisions relating to elementary and secondary education, but this drafting error has led to potential firearm penalties in home schools as a consequence.”

🚨🚨 Senate Bill 727 Redefines Homeschool, Catch Clause Added “If you homeschool your children under this catch clause and you have a firearm in the vicinity, it adds an automatic felony” “Some far left wing group has spent a lot of money in Jefferson City. Senate Bill 727 would redefine what a homeschool is, turn into a public school, but there has been a small catch clause added into it. Then if you homeschool your children under this catch clause and you have a firearm in the vicinity, it adds an automatic felony. If you know anybody that lives in the state of Missouri where you currently live in the state of Missouri are liberty minded, you need to be contacting your senators right now and burning up their phone lines.” Additional Context From Grok: “Missouri Senate Bill 727 mentions firearm penalties in the context of making it illegal to possess a firearm in a home school under certain circumstances. The bill moves the definition of "home school" as a "school" to apply to all statutes, which technically makes it illegal to possess a firearm in a home school based on existing laws that prohibit firearms in schools. This change in definition appears to have been made unintentionally, as the Senate perfected version of the bill seems to have created this situation. The bill itself, as per the context provided, focuses on creating and modifying provisions relating to elementary and secondary education, but this drafting error has led to potential firearm penalties in home schools as a consequence.”

Wall Street Apes

268,938 просмотров • 2 лет назад

AOC: "It is reported he had a permit. And this administration's response is that the very that he was a legal firearm owner was reason for them to shoot him in the street ... if we do not do something now, I do not what can happen afterward. We have to contain this chaos."

AOC: "It is reported he had a permit. And this administration's response is that the very that he was a legal firearm owner was reason for them to shoot him in the street ... if we do not do something now, I do not what can happen afterward. We have to contain this chaos."

Aaron Rupar

118,118 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

To make it simple for everyone: The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the usage of federal military forces to enforce domestic laws within the United States. However, there is an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, known as the Insurrection Act, which allows the President to bypass Posse Comitatus in the event of insurrection. Mind you, the actions of Pritzker and Johnson over the last few months, openly engaging in rebellion and refusing to enforce the laws in Chicago, meet the legal criteria for “insurrection”, which is also extremely vague and essentially up to POTUS’ discretion. In conclusion, the Supreme Court confirmed that if Trump wants to send troops to Chicago, he will need to bypass Posse Comitatus by invoking the Insurrection Act. Meaning, that the only thing standing between Trump legally sending troops to Chicago, and any city he wants, is a public proclamation that he is invoking the Insurrection Act and a public warning for the insurrectionists to disperse, before sending in the troops. So until Trump publicly announces that he is invoking the Insurrection Act, he’s not allowed to send the troops in. But all he has to do is give the order. It takes two seconds. Trump has confirmed many times that he is willing to do this. Here he is on 10/6/2025 saying he will invoke the Insurrection Act if he has to.

To make it simple for everyone: The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the usage of federal military forces to enforce domestic laws within the United States. However, there is an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, known as the Insurrection Act, which allows the President to bypass Posse Comitatus in the event of insurrection. Mind you, the actions of Pritzker and Johnson over the last few months, openly engaging in rebellion and refusing to enforce the laws in Chicago, meet the legal criteria for “insurrection”, which is also extremely vague and essentially up to POTUS’ discretion. In conclusion, the Supreme Court confirmed that if Trump wants to send troops to Chicago, he will need to bypass Posse Comitatus by invoking the Insurrection Act. Meaning, that the only thing standing between Trump legally sending troops to Chicago, and any city he wants, is a public proclamation that he is invoking the Insurrection Act and a public warning for the insurrectionists to disperse, before sending in the troops. So until Trump publicly announces that he is invoking the Insurrection Act, he’s not allowed to send the troops in. But all he has to do is give the order. It takes two seconds. Trump has confirmed many times that he is willing to do this. Here he is on 10/6/2025 saying he will invoke the Insurrection Act if he has to.

Clandestine

159,793 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

LICENSED FIREARM MANUFACTURER “THE AK GUY” WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE ATF ABOLISHED IN TOTALITY Licensed Firearm Manufacturer Brandon Herrera tells Matt Gaetz that he would LOVE to see the ATF “abolished in totality,” but that he is happy with some of the changes they’ve made, such as the reversal of the FRT.

LICENSED FIREARM MANUFACTURER “THE AK GUY” WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE ATF ABOLISHED IN TOTALITY Licensed Firearm Manufacturer Brandon Herrera tells Matt Gaetz that he would LOVE to see the ATF “abolished in totality,” but that he is happy with some of the changes they’ve made, such as the reversal of the FRT.

One America News

43,225 просмотров • 1 год назад

I know all too well the damage a firearm can do in the wrong hands. Today, we’re introducing the GOSAFE Act, a new effort to tackle the most deadly guns we see used over and over again in mass shootings.

I know all too well the damage a firearm can do in the wrong hands. Today, we’re introducing the GOSAFE Act, a new effort to tackle the most deadly guns we see used over and over again in mass shootings.

Senator Mark Kelly

382,566 просмотров • 2 лет назад

"What is P vs NP and how does it relate to human knowledge?" Avi Wigderson (Turing Award & Abel Prize winner): "In a very basic way, all the problems we want to solve are really NP problems. A subset of it is the problems we can solve. So the question of P versus NP is whether we can solve all the problems we want to solve, whether we can know everything we want to know. This is basically about the limits of our knowledge. You can think there is no limit to what we may want to know but I claim that essentially in any human endeavor, what people are searching for have the property that when a solution is found, it is easily recognized. NP are all problems that we can honestly say we really want to solve and P are those that we can solve. Whether they are equal is just the very fact that a solution can be easily recognized would imply that it can be efficiently found. That means that we can know everything we ever want to know, it's a fundamental question about human knowledge."

"What is P vs NP and how does it relate to human knowledge?" Avi Wigderson (Turing Award & Abel Prize winner): "In a very basic way, all the problems we want to solve are really NP problems. A subset of it is the problems we can solve. So the question of P versus NP is whether we can solve all the problems we want to solve, whether we can know everything we want to know. This is basically about the limits of our knowledge. You can think there is no limit to what we may want to know but I claim that essentially in any human endeavor, what people are searching for have the property that when a solution is found, it is easily recognized. NP are all problems that we can honestly say we really want to solve and P are those that we can solve. Whether they are equal is just the very fact that a solution can be easily recognized would imply that it can be efficiently found. That means that we can know everything we ever want to know, it's a fundamental question about human knowledge."

Ryan Peterman

20,069 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Kentucky doesn’t need to codify federal gun control. Yesterday in Judiciary Committee, legislators heard a bill proposal that would change Kentucky law to adopt a federal firearm restriction. I’m vehemently opposed to gun control at the federal level—why on earth would we want to codify it into a state law here in the Commonwealth?! As a stalwart defender of our Second Amendment Rights, it is my hope that federal firearm restrictions will be repealed by Congress, or at least overturned like the bump stock ban. The last thing we need is more gun control at the state level. Those of us working to repeal existing gun control laws already have our hands full! This is Kentucky, and our right to keep and bear arms is not negotiable. 🇺🇸

Kentucky doesn’t need to codify federal gun control. Yesterday in Judiciary Committee, legislators heard a bill proposal that would change Kentucky law to adopt a federal firearm restriction. I’m vehemently opposed to gun control at the federal level—why on earth would we want to codify it into a state law here in the Commonwealth?! As a stalwart defender of our Second Amendment Rights, it is my hope that federal firearm restrictions will be repealed by Congress, or at least overturned like the bump stock ban. The last thing we need is more gun control at the state level. Those of us working to repeal existing gun control laws already have our hands full! This is Kentucky, and our right to keep and bear arms is not negotiable. 🇺🇸

Savannah Maddox

32,261 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

What should happen now is that SA Police Service 🇿🇦 needs to trace the registration and hold a section 102 enquiry to determine the circumstances of her brandishing a firearm in this manner, and then determine if she is fit to own a firearm. If they do not. They are failing in their duty. PLEASE SHARE TO RAISE AWARENESS AND FORCE SA Police Service 🇿🇦 into action. Tip offs can also be called into 0860010111 The vehicle registration is LD10LCGP Cyril Ramaphosa 🇿🇦 The Presidency 🇿🇦 Gideon Joubert

What should happen now is that SA Police Service 🇿🇦 needs to trace the registration and hold a section 102 enquiry to determine the circumstances of her brandishing a firearm in this manner, and then determine if she is fit to own a firearm. If they do not. They are failing in their duty. PLEASE SHARE TO RAISE AWARENESS AND FORCE SA Police Service 🇿🇦 into action. Tip offs can also be called into 0860010111 The vehicle registration is LD10LCGP Cyril Ramaphosa 🇿🇦 The Presidency 🇿🇦 Gideon Joubert

Pookie's Polls & Opinions

217,123 просмотров • 1 год назад

Bret Weinstein on Alex Pretti's Reckless Gun Behavior "I want people not to focus so much on the details of the firearm as the analysis from the perspective of somebody who has been involved in these discussions about how how to think about firearms and behavior in a safe way. There are numerous things here, which I would say he is legally entitled to do, but I would regard as reckless and I don't mean legally reckless, I mean reckless in the common parlance sense of the term. He's carrying a loaded firearm into a zone of conflict with armed federal officers. I wouldn't do that. If I was... let's say that's not a decision he made, maybe he happened there by accident and somehow was not focused on the fact that "hey I need to be extra careful and not go this direction, because I'm armed and it could get bad," but then he steps in as the officer is behaving, I think in an illegitimate way towards this woman. Right, this officer shoves this woman to the ground and Pretti steps in. I would argue that's reckless if you're armed the way he is because of exactly the sort of thing that unfolds. I don't know that he had one in the chamber, because I don't know that his gun went off, but if the gun went off it says he had one in the chamber and I would say wow, that's really reckless especially with that gun."

Bret Weinstein on Alex Pretti's Reckless Gun Behavior "I want people not to focus so much on the details of the firearm as the analysis from the perspective of somebody who has been involved in these discussions about how how to think about firearms and behavior in a safe way. There are numerous things here, which I would say he is legally entitled to do, but I would regard as reckless and I don't mean legally reckless, I mean reckless in the common parlance sense of the term. He's carrying a loaded firearm into a zone of conflict with armed federal officers. I wouldn't do that. If I was... let's say that's not a decision he made, maybe he happened there by accident and somehow was not focused on the fact that "hey I need to be extra careful and not go this direction, because I'm armed and it could get bad," but then he steps in as the officer is behaving, I think in an illegitimate way towards this woman. Right, this officer shoves this woman to the ground and Pretti steps in. I would argue that's reckless if you're armed the way he is because of exactly the sort of thing that unfolds. I don't know that he had one in the chamber, because I don't know that his gun went off, but if the gun went off it says he had one in the chamber and I would say wow, that's really reckless especially with that gun."

The DarkHorse Podcast

104,130 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

We are now back onto the Binary Trigger ban. Senator Lucero: "That firearm that was legally obtained, that they are now legally required to be turned in... are they going to be compensated in any way for the firearm they are handing over to the government?" Senator: Gustafson: "No" Flagrantly unconstitutional.

We are now back onto the Binary Trigger ban. Senator Lucero: "That firearm that was legally obtained, that they are now legally required to be turned in... are they going to be compensated in any way for the firearm they are handing over to the government?" Senator: Gustafson: "No" Flagrantly unconstitutional.

National Association for Gun Rights

98,100 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Today the House is voting on a bill that would make it easier for veterans in crisis to walk into a gun store and buy a firearm. There is no liberty in a coffin and there is no freedom in a funeral. Veterans will die if this passes.

Today the House is voting on a bill that would make it easier for veterans in crisis to walk into a gun store and buy a firearm. There is no liberty in a coffin and there is no freedom in a funeral. Veterans will die if this passes.

Congressman Maxwell Alejandro Frost

26,004 просмотров • 1 год назад

Brian O'Hara: "You have a 2nd Amendment right in the U.S. to possess a firearm. And there are some restrictions around that in Minnesota…He did not violate any of those restrictions. He is not a convicted felon. He is someone that did have a permit for the handgun to carry it."

Brian O'Hara: "You have a 2nd Amendment right in the U.S. to possess a firearm. And there are some restrictions around that in Minnesota…He did not violate any of those restrictions. He is not a convicted felon. He is someone that did have a permit for the handgun to carry it."

The Bulwark

106,354 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

This is evergreen! When a young boy asks John MacArthur why didn’t Jesus just *Pow* in the garden when Eve ate the apple, He can stop it like that? Bible Questions and Answers, Part 70 — John MacArthur “I’m Joey Cusenza, and my question is, why didn’t Jesus stop Eve at the garden of Eden when she ate the fruit? *Like, I mean, pow,* He can just stop it like that. Why didn’t He?” JOHN: That is the most profound question of all questions: Why didn’t God stop Eve from eating the fruit? This theologians call the problem of theodicy: Why is there evil in the world? If God is absolutely holy, why is there evil in the world? That’s essentially that question: Why didn’t He stop it before it started? First of all, the broad answer is this: because God allowed her to eat that fruit, God allowed sin to come into the world, so that He could be glorified. Now God is a God of love, and He could express that love even in the perfection of the Trinity. And He expressed that love to Adam and Eve when He walked and talked with them before they sinned and before she ate. So God could express His love. But if there had never been a sin, there would never be forgiveness, there would never be mercy, there would never be grace, there would never be compassion, there would never be healing, there would never be restoration. And so, forever and ever, the angels would never be able to worship God for all those aspects of His nature. So God allows evil so that He can display grace and mercy and compassion because those also are attributes of God that can only be put on display through His response to sin. There’s another reason, and that is that God is holy and just and righteous. He would never be able to display ultimately what that means unless there were sinners to judge. So whether it is judgment on sin or whether it is salvation from sin, the fact that sin exists allows God to display eternally the glory of the full scope of His attributes. Okay? Great question. Thank you, bud.

This is evergreen! When a young boy asks John MacArthur why didn’t Jesus just Pow in the garden when Eve ate the apple, He can stop it like that? Bible Questions and Answers, Part 70 — John MacArthur “I’m Joey Cusenza, and my question is, why didn’t Jesus stop Eve at the garden of Eden when she ate the fruit? Like, I mean, pow, He can just stop it like that. Why didn’t He?” JOHN: That is the most profound question of all questions: Why didn’t God stop Eve from eating the fruit? This theologians call the problem of theodicy: Why is there evil in the world? If God is absolutely holy, why is there evil in the world? That’s essentially that question: Why didn’t He stop it before it started? First of all, the broad answer is this: because God allowed her to eat that fruit, God allowed sin to come into the world, so that He could be glorified. Now God is a God of love, and He could express that love even in the perfection of the Trinity. And He expressed that love to Adam and Eve when He walked and talked with them before they sinned and before she ate. So God could express His love. But if there had never been a sin, there would never be forgiveness, there would never be mercy, there would never be grace, there would never be compassion, there would never be healing, there would never be restoration. And so, forever and ever, the angels would never be able to worship God for all those aspects of His nature. So God allows evil so that He can display grace and mercy and compassion because those also are attributes of God that can only be put on display through His response to sin. There’s another reason, and that is that God is holy and just and righteous. He would never be able to display ultimately what that means unless there were sinners to judge. So whether it is judgment on sin or whether it is salvation from sin, the fact that sin exists allows God to display eternally the glory of the full scope of His attributes. Okay? Great question. Thank you, bud.

Terri Green

132,141 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

French Army General and Chief of the Defence Staff Thierry Burkhard Chef d'état-major des armées: "Russia is a lasting threat. The war in Ukraine is existential for Russia. And it is determined to achieve what it has set as its goal, or at least what Putin has set as his goal, with the ultimate objective, in military terms, being to weaken Europe and dismantle NATO. That is Russia's goal, it is Putin's goal. To achieve it, through the war in Ukraine, it has reorganized itself quite quickly and effectively, setting up a war economy that is now running at full capacity. This war economy, I believe, is currently one of the key factors keeping the Russian economy afloat. And so, there is no reason - and even a kind of impossibility - to abruptly stop this. This means that Russia will continue to rearm at this pace. And so, despite the losses it is suffering, the incredible losses it is suffering, we estimate that by 2030, it will once again be a force that will pose a real threat to our borders on the eastern flank of Europe. It is clear that what is at stake in Ukraine is, on the one hand, the security of Europe, but I also think that it is, in fact, the place of European countries in the world, in tomorrow's world, in the world that we are shaping today. And if the outcome in Ukraine were a Russian victory and a Ukrainian defeat, we often say that would be a Western defeat, I think that it would be, and is increasingly becoming, due to the American stance, something that would be a real European defeat. And this European defeat is something we would have to endure and absorb. So, Ukraine, of course, must be defended as such. And I think that defending Ukraine is also, in a way, about how we see ourselves and what we are willing to do to shape Europe as it needs to be in the future, and live in today's world. And you understand that, if that doesn't happen - to use an image that has already been used - we would become something like herbivores in a world of carnivores. And that's not a very comfortable position — being at the bottom of the food chain. So for that reason, we must remain extremely vigilant."

French Army General and Chief of the Defence Staff Thierry Burkhard Chef d'état-major des armées: "Russia is a lasting threat. The war in Ukraine is existential for Russia. And it is determined to achieve what it has set as its goal, or at least what Putin has set as his goal, with the ultimate objective, in military terms, being to weaken Europe and dismantle NATO. That is Russia's goal, it is Putin's goal. To achieve it, through the war in Ukraine, it has reorganized itself quite quickly and effectively, setting up a war economy that is now running at full capacity. This war economy, I believe, is currently one of the key factors keeping the Russian economy afloat. And so, there is no reason - and even a kind of impossibility - to abruptly stop this. This means that Russia will continue to rearm at this pace. And so, despite the losses it is suffering, the incredible losses it is suffering, we estimate that by 2030, it will once again be a force that will pose a real threat to our borders on the eastern flank of Europe. It is clear that what is at stake in Ukraine is, on the one hand, the security of Europe, but I also think that it is, in fact, the place of European countries in the world, in tomorrow's world, in the world that we are shaping today. And if the outcome in Ukraine were a Russian victory and a Ukrainian defeat, we often say that would be a Western defeat, I think that it would be, and is increasingly becoming, due to the American stance, something that would be a real European defeat. And this European defeat is something we would have to endure and absorb. So, Ukraine, of course, must be defended as such. And I think that defending Ukraine is also, in a way, about how we see ourselves and what we are willing to do to shape Europe as it needs to be in the future, and live in today's world. And you understand that, if that doesn't happen - to use an image that has already been used - we would become something like herbivores in a world of carnivores. And that's not a very comfortable position — being at the bottom of the food chain. So for that reason, we must remain extremely vigilant."

Anton Gerashchenko

66,283 просмотров • 1 год назад