Comments by "nexus1g" (@nexus1g) on "ABC News" channel.

  1. He's playing with a Razer Naga. He's hoping to one day make it to Silver 2.
    73
  2. ​ @MintyLime703  If it's an automatic rifle, it's technically a machine gun. If it's a selective fire rifle, it's an assault rifle. The primary features of the German Sturmgewehr are what determine an assault rifle: shoulder fired rifle chambered for an Intermediate catridge (between pistol and full battle cartridge) with detachable box magazine and selective fire.
    25
  3. "Chilling sight of a lone gunman stalking the floors..." Dude's waddling around like he's there to pick up milk and eggs. Chilling is the last way I would describe it. And what do you idiots do? You show him on international news, giving him the attention he was seeking. Get ready for copycats.
    21
  4. HA! That butthurt closing.
    4
  5. Justice, I disagree. If a cop doesn't get strongly affected by shooting someone, I don't want them being a cop.
    4
  6. Adelphie, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition..." Life is a right. By saying you cannot defend it to the death is saying another person doesn't have a right to life.
    2
  7. Ralph, there's a few problems with your views. First of all, in some states, counties and municipalities you are required to tell an officer if you are carrying. You can lose your CCW otherwise. Second, the CCW shows up on your record when the officer pulls up your info on his computer, so even if you didn't tell him, he's going to know. I think you're just trolling though. I just wanted to make sure to respond to ensure others understand what's wrong with what you're saying.
    2
  8. I don't care who you are. I just suggest deleting the post where you claim to be an FBI agent.
    2
  9. Jayden, you don't even have the reading comprehension to understand the one, very simple thing I'm trying to tell you. If you get in trouble, it's on you. I tried to warn you.
    2
  10. Marq, working people (< $100,000 a year) may see anywhere between $50 to a few thousand extra a year. There is a small segment between about $82K-91K a year single file that will pay about $4,000 more. Everyone else will be paying less than they currently do. Companies won't put this additional money into expanding business because that's not smart. However, if they buy back stock and pay out higher dividends using this tax break, therefore raising their stock's price, they can make a new PO which will give them many times fold what the tax breaks themselves give, but the tax breaks are what make it more readily possible to accomplish. The spending won't change, but it will increase the national debt. It's anticipated that after 10 years, the growth spurred by this tax plan will create tax income greater than the interest that will be paid on that amount.
    2
  11. I have a feeling this title is about conditioning people for the inevitable acquittal, so it seeds the idea that he's still guilty and the jury just got it wrong. Yay! More rioting because "justice wasn't served!"
    2
  12. They're early for the 4th of July.
    2
  13. 5:43 What an edit. You like to call yourselves journalists right? Then act like it.
    2
  14. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! "*I* wanted to punch you in the face and man you up a little..." GOLD!
    1
  15. umamimamu, when you decide to carry a gun, you have a certain increased level of responsibility to others. This includes knowing how to handle an encounter with an officer. Philando didn't take that seriously and foolishly acted. I think this man should not be a cop because he clearly escalated the situation well beyond what was necessary, but in the end, it's Philando, not the officer that died, so it's those of us who carry like Philando to make sure that we're alive at the end of the day. We can't trust anyone else with that. You say these things in this order, clear and concise: 1. With your hands in plain view, preferably up and in front of you, and not in quick reaching distance of anything, say, "I am legally licensed to carry a gun." Accentuate the "legally licensed" part. Typically this will begin a dialogue with the officer asking if you have a gun on you and where it is. At no time talk with your hands, don't point to where it is, don't move your hands at all. 2. If the officer seems unsure of how to proceed, simply ask the officer, "How would you like to proceed?" If the officer still seems lost and concerned, offer to be handcuffed while sitting so he can feel safe in securing the weapon. Once the weapon is secure, ask for the officer's supervisor at that point. If he won't get his supervisor, make sure to file a complaint at the police HQ for where you're at. Things may not go as perfectly planned on the street. The cop may even confiscate your weapon or arrest you. You just have your day in court later. That's what you get when you have cops out there making $30,000 a year with minimal training (especially in *DE*escalation tactics) whose imaginations are filled to the brim with how much danger they're in out there, like the typical US citizen is some John Rambo in the woods, stalking police. Then you put these police in neighborhoods that are foreign to them and expect them to be effective. tsk. Well, anyway, be safe. Don't stop carrying because then you've given your safety over to those who just shot Philando, and are those people you can really trust to protect you?
    1
  16. Ralph, did you read anything of my post beyond the first sentence?
    1
  17. Ralph, the dead have zero rights. Have your day in court.
    1
  18. Jayden, you know that impersonating an FBI agent online is a federal offense that comes with a lengthy penitentiary time, right? And the real FBI can and will find you.
    1
  19. And Josh is still silver.
    1
  20. Pump-action shotguns are now heavy weapons. lol
    1
  21. You'll what?
    1
  22.  @z42O  You didn't actually read the comment, did you?
    1
  23.  @Incomudro1963  Not for me. Not even close.
    1
  24. bravosix, because why should we tax them more?
    1
  25. bravo, the middle class gets taxed about 25%. The top get taxed about 40%. How is that nothing by comparison?
    1
  26. bravo, the first $418K is taxed 29%. It takes 450K to be in the top 1%. The marginal beyond that for Federal is 39.6%.
    1
  27. This will be a different story in a few years if the progressive left have anything to do with it. "Wife and children killed. The mother of two shot two of the four intruders dead, but ran out of ammunition as she only had 10-round magazines per Federal law. Unfortunately, she was unable to reload prior to being set upon by the intruders. We have the 911 tape. We warn you this is graphic and may be disturbing to some viewers."
    1
  28. ALL research on the matter has shown that voter ID laws have no statistical significance on voter turnout at all, regardless of any given identity. There was one paper from the body of research that showed otherwise, and has since been lambasted and proven wrong. Democrats are the "Party of Science" only as long as the science agrees with their agenda.
    1
  29.  @TimTams_64  1. He was being chased by Rosenbaum and the others. 2. What does it matter if it's a military weapon or not? I mean, it's not, but more importantly, it doesn't matter. 3. He probably had the most legal right to be there with a military weapon of those involved since he is, and was at the time, part of the militia per USC Title 10 Sec 246.
    1
  30.  @RHINOSAUR  1. He's part of the militia per Title 10 Sec 246 of the USC. In seeking to prevent damage to innocent people from open rebellion, he was carrying out his civic duty. 2. The argument is that the gun did not cross state lines, and even if it did, see Argument 1. 3. See Argument 1. As Psaki said, federal law overrides state law. 4. Neither castle doctrine nor stand your ground laws apply here because Rittenhouse attempted to flee from Rosenbaum until Rosenbaum reached him and grabbed him. This would, if there were such a law on Wisconsin books, even reasonably satisfy a duty to flee law on the books. 5. None of that matters. Self defense is moment to moment. On legal technicality, it doesn't matter if Kyle posted that he was chomping at the bit to shoot every rioter out there. What matters is whether or not a reasonable person would believe that they were about to receive grievous bodily injury at the time the defendant shot. The first question is was Rosenbaum using force to stop a violent incident incited by Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse was running from Rosenbaum, so I don't see how that could be the case. If it's determined that Rosenbaum was shot in self defense, that means that Grosskreutz nor Huber were within legal authority to use violence to stop or disarm Rittenhouse. Since they were not lawful in inciting that violence against Rittenhouse, the claim of self defense stands here as well.
    1
  31.  @TimTams_64  Rosenbaum was the first person that Rittenhouse shot. Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse, he threw an object at Rittenhouse, he caught up with Rittenhouse, then Rosenbaum grabbed him/his gun. Any reasonable person that would believe that such a person would be about to, at the very least, cause grievous bodily injury at that point. That means that he was justified in shooting Rosenbaum in self defense. That means that the others who were attacking him were not justified in their aggression, and the use of deadly force on Huber and Grosskreutz was warranted.
    1
  32.  @TimTams_64  "Yes because he was carrying a weapon and aiming at people" There is zero evidence of him pointing the weapon at anyone before Rosenbaum attacked him. "what part of this are you not getting?" I'm starting to get the idea that you're not arguing in good faith, because either 1. you're a low-life troll or 2. you have no idea of the facts surrounding the case.
    1
  33. What happened in the cabin: Pilot, "Hey, I never noticed this button before..."
    1
  34. PeeJay, if you're a single person making less than $9,520 a year, you get to keep $50 more of your paycheck. So... what?
    1
  35. And that's the kind of attitude that caused this man to be homeless in the first place. Someone said the same thing when he took to manufacturing drugs. Someone said the same thing when he took to selling drugs. Perhaps you should reconsider your personal beliefs and try to have more forethought and a broader consideration for how your actions affect others.
    1
  36. Are we not going to talk about that guy's hair?
    1
  37. My biggest mistake was putting a slice of cheese on the heater and cranking up the heat to see if it would melt when I was about 13. I learned not to do stupid crap because mom gets mads.
    1
  38.  @makavelithedon9738  A republic is also known as an indirect or representative democracy, and we are actually a constitutional republic.
    1
  39. Even then, US Code Title 10 Sec 246 could be used as a defense against that since he was responding to an instance of rebellion.
    1
  40. Charles Manson Unplugged! I've been waiting forever to hear him in acoustic.
    1
  41.  @springbloom5940  Stormtroopers were from World War I, not II, so no Stormtroopers would have been issued a rifle from 1944. Furthermore, the primary weapon of Stormtroopers was the MP 18, a submachine gun, not the K98. The K98 was simply called a Gewehr 98 (lit. rifle 98). All other rifles leading up to the Sturmgewehr were simply designated "Gewehr" (save for one) regardless of who they went to. The Gewehr 41, Gewehr 71 and Gewehr 88 all preceded the Gewehr 98. The two exceptions to this convention are the Tankgewehr (or T-Gewehr) which was an anti-tank rifle and, of course, the Sturmgewehr.
    1
  42. ​ @springbloom5940  What you said was pretty straight forward and very wrong. You're merely making an ill substantiated claim against my reading comprehension when both of your fundamental points were demonstrably false: 1. Stormtroopers didn't exist in 1944 when the rifle was adopted, so it wouldn't have been named "Sturmgeweher" because it was intended to be issued to "Sturmtruppen." You: "It was called a 'sturmgewehr', because it was intended for 'storm troopers'." 2. The naming convention up to that point had nothing to do with who the arm was designed to be issued to, but were instead generic descriptors like "Gewehr" or "Maschinenpistole," and it'd been that way for 100 years prior. You: "German rifles were named for the troops they were designated for." Now tell me what I got wrong.
    1
  43.  @mizzury54  And the authoritarian clown interested in using governments to attack innocent people responds.
    1
  44. ​ @springbloom5940  I'm quite sure if you actually had the ability to prove me wrong, you'd be all over that. Instead, you're just being a jackass, not admitting you're wrong nor actually giving any substantiation to your claim.
    1
  45.  @springbloom5940  What a clever way to try to get out of your responsibility to prove your points. You shirk responsibility often?
    1
  46. ​ @springbloom5940  Why? To support why it didn't faze me that you would call my reading comprehension into question. It's what providing substantiation to claims looks like. I'm giving you an example of how to actually make a cohesive and valid argument. A lesson you're very slow to learn.
    1
  47.  @springbloom5940  "And yes, the name is 100% propaganda." You've yet to prove that. The two points you brought up in support of it were proven to be false. In the absence of further proof, you're merely talking out of your ass.
    1
  48.  @springbloom5940  You need to explain why it's a strawman. Like I said, you have no idea how to make a valid and substantive argument.
    1
  49.  @springbloom5940  If it were untrue, I'd agree it was bullshit, but it's a fact regardless, and you fulfilling the basic requirements of intellectual discourse shouldn't be a matter of quid pro quo anyway.
    1
  50.  @springbloom5940  What? Because I type like I talk, so that leads to comma-spliced, run-on sentences? Right. When I'm writing a doctoral dissertation, I'll worry about having impeccable grammar more than when I'm making replies on YouTube towards a person with whom I have no hope of being an honest actor.
    1