this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2026
469 points (96.4% liked)
Political Weirdos
1338 readers
4 users here now
A community dedicated to the weirdest people involved in politics.
- Focus on weird behaviors and beliefs
- Follow Iemmy.world TOS
- Don’t be a jerk
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It is never an accident when you pick up a gun in a political argument.
If you pick up a gun and don't clear it. You are negligent.
If you point a gun at someone. You are negligent.
If you are not taking any safety precautions when handling a firearm. You are negligent.
100% this here. If you're negligent with a firearm you're responsible.
Not in Texas apparently.
Reminds me of back in the 1950's and before when getting black out drunk and running over someone was an "accident".
Back when drunk driving was just boys will be boys.
Glad those times are gone
I phrased is like this as I know that in some situations it might be needed to pick up a gun to defend yourself from harm.
However, no political argument should ever devolve into the need for guns.
Yeah but it's not an accident
Suddenly the right will be very pro second amendment watch.
Oh of course, it's one of their guys with the gun this time.
You're right.
Luckily there's no article supplied so you can't see that the argument and the gunshot are non-contemporaneous.
I find it baffling when I go through a chain of comments with people complaining that the source is missing which provides context, but they don't link the source.
"Don't trust what people say happened if they don't have a source. You can trust what I say happened without a source."
Sorry I saw there was a link added but I didn't see that it's not the same one I originally read. The posted one has a lot more writer bias in it but also seems to have a firmer timeline of events.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyk917xy8no