[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



The Left/Dems trying to kill two Constitutionally guaranteed human rights with one stone; free speech and the right to keep & bear arms.

https://www.newsweek.com/lawmakers-propose-hate-speech-social-media-checks-gun-purchases-1200746
11/4/18

LAWMAKERS PROPOSE SOCIAL MEDIA HATE SPEECH CHECKS BEFORE GUN PURCHASES

Lawmakers in New York have begun drafting legislation that would require potential gun owners to have the past three years of their social media reviewed before they were granted permission to own a firearm.

Eric Adams, the president of Brooklyn Borough, and state Senator Kevin Palmer are currently writing the proposed legislation, which would give law enforcement authorities the power to check up to three years of an individual’s social media accounts and internet search history before they are allowed to buy a gun, WCBS Newsradio 880 reported. One of the main aims is to identify any hate speech shared by the users, as the politicians noted that such offensive comments are generally only discovered after mass shootings occur.

“A three-year review of a social media profile would give an easy profile of a person who is not suitable to hold and possess a firearm,” Adams explained, according to the WCBS report.

“If the police department is reviewing a gang assault, a robbery, some type of shooting, they go and do a social media profile investigation,” the borough president pointed out.

Palmer and Adams insist that such legislation is needed to curb gun violence, despite inevitable opposition from gun lobbyists as well as some who may be concerned about free speech.

cont.
>>
>>310345

Adams also pointed to last weekend’s massacre at the Pittsburg Tree of Life Synagogue, in which 11 worshippers were killed and six others were injured. The attack was the deadliest to specifically target the Jewish community in U.S. history.
The Brooklyn leader emphasized that the shooter’s social media accounts would have raised serious alarm bells if such checks had been in place. Under existing laws in Pennsylvania, which would not be impacted by a New York policy shift, all the shooter’s weapons were bought legally, according to police.

“There would have been a clear indicator of the shooter in the Tree of Life shooting in Pittsburgh,” the Brooklyn politician said, according to Spectrum News NY 1. “The profile of a person who was mentally unstable of purchasing or possessing a firearm would have been flagged.”

Despite the claims of the powerful gun lobby, the National Rifle Association, and many politicians who often receive financial support from the organization, studies have consistently shown that stricter gun laws correlate with fewer firearm fatalities, CNBC reported earlier this year.

In fact, the rate of deaths by firearms in states where guns are only lightly regulated – such as Alabama, Alaska and Louisiana – is more than four times higher than those with some of the strictest laws, such as New York, Connecticut, Hawaii and Massachusetts.

END
>>
>>310345
>>310346
From a legal standpoint this is absolutley garbage and a huge infringement on 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendment rights.

>the rate of deaths by firearms in states where guns are only lightly regulated – such as Alabama, Alaska and Louisiana – is more than four times higher than those with some of the strictest laws, such as New York, Connecticut, Hawaii and Massachusetts.
Cherry picking. States like VT and NH also lightly regulate guns and also have lower "gun death rates" (which btw is a bogus statistic) than states like NY and CT

I look forward to this bill being DOA and going absolutely nowhere
>>
>>310359
> Cherry picking.

Indeed, crime has always been and continues to be a local issue.

The city of Detroit only makes up 7% of Michigan’s population yet accounts for 50% of the murders in the state.
>>
>>310359
I mean if you're not openly talking about killing bloggers on Facebook or twitter or gab, I don't see what the issue. Moreover, hate speech is not protected by the first amendment.
>>
>>310372
Amazing how you managed to reply to my post but not actually reply to anything my post was actually about
>>
>>310373
>I mean if you're not openly talking about killing bloggers on Facebook or twitter or gab, I don't see what the issue
The issue is that "hate speech" is a constantly shifting definition that's been used to describe what some consider "wrong think" arguments, like "I don't want to pay for other people's healthcare".
That aside, leaving discretion up to law enforcement to decide what constitutes "appropriate" social media behavior for being able to practice an enumerated constitutional right is fascist any way you put it.

>Moreover, hate speech is not protected by the first amendment.
Hate speech is absolutely protected by the first amendment
>>
>>310385
SCOTUS has ruled what hate speech is. The definition hasn't changed. Whether it's protected speech or not has no bearing on whether its use should prohibit someone from buying a firearm.
>>
>>310389
>SCOTUS has ruled what hate speech is. The definition hasn't changed.
They've also effectively ruled that hate speech is constitutionally protected speech. But you knew that.

>Whether it's protected speech or not has no bearing on whether its use should prohibit someone from buying a firearm.
It is, because if it's protected speech it A)is legal and B) cannot be used to deny another one of your rights. This is how the KKK, while abhorrent, doesn't lose their right to assembly because they engage in public demonstrations of hate speech.

Restricted speech, as far as violence goes, must contain an actionable & credible threat.
>>
>>310375

Amazing how you managed to make two posts with correct English, when it's not your native language.
>>
>>310396
You're missing the point that adding usage of hate speech to the standard background check for gun ownership is not restricting your usage of hate speech.
>>
>>310373
>Moreover, hate speech is not protected by the first amendment.

Try again;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie
>>
>>310400
>You're missing the point that adding usage of hate speech to the standard background check for gun ownership is not restricting your usage of hate speech.
Depriving you of constitutional rights for exercising your freedom of speech in ways the government doesn't like is a violation of the First Amendment.
>>
>>310405
The government isn't depriving you of speech by adding usage of that speech to a background check for gun ownership. You are still perfectly free to shout out loud everything short of yelling fire in a crowded theater or creating a public nuisance.
>>
>>310400
> adding usage of hate speech to the standard background check for gun ownership is not restricting your usage of hate speech.

WTF is wrong with you? It's a violation of BOTH the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
>>
>>310410
No it isn't, the government is not telling you that you can't use hate speech, only that if you choose to use it then you might not be able to buy a gun anywhere else but a gun show or private craigslist deals.
>>
>>310411
>the government is not telling you that you can't use hate speech,
The government may not use the machinery of the state to punish or discourage speech it does not like. To do so is a violation of the First Amendment.
>>
>>310413
Nice try but the Feds already added mental health facebook posts to the gun background check. It's a small leap to add hate speech to the same restrictions.
>>
>>310418
>It's a small leap to add hate speech to the same restrictions.
No, it's not, because the First Amendment stands squarely in its way.

The government may involuntarily commit you to a mental institution if you are mentally ill. It is not, therefore, a "small step" to involuntarily imprisoning you for hate speech. It is a massive step that requires the demolition of about fifty years of First Amendment law.
>>
>>310421
I suppose it depends on if usage of hate speech is a mental illness. I'm willing to bet most experts would associate the two.
>>
>>310431
>I suppose it depends on if usage of hate speech is a mental illness.
It would be really nice if you could get courts to agree that everyone you don't like is mentally ill, but the current state of jurisprudence makes that rather unlikely.

>I'm willing to bet most experts would associate the two.
I look forwards to seeing this sentence in a Supreme Court brief.
>>
>>310345
killing ANTIFA terrorists is every Americans duty. When the revolution hits the streets, you commies will all get the bullet, and we have plenty of them for all of you silver spoon white privilege college commie socialist leeches. Hell, I'll give you TWO free bullets each just because I'm generous.
>>
>>310443
Okay
>>
>>310373
>bate.jpg
>>
>>310443
I'd love to see your revolution unite the streets of inner city Chicago against you. Oh they're better armed than you BTW.
>>
>>310443
Right wing terrorist
>>
>>310345
As a liberal who loves guns, hates the rich, and fears a police state and the oppression of free speech; I'm okay with this.
This is how you stop attention-seeking psychos.
>>
>>310345
>having any social media in 2018

Got rid of that shit almost 4 years ago and never looked back. Anyone with a brain could see that it was eventually going be used to as psych evaluations by the gubmint.
>>
>>310469
>He thinks the government doesn't know about 4chan
I hope you're posting from like 7 proxies anon
>>
>>310400
>You're missing the point that adding usage of hate speech to the standard background check for gun ownership is not restricting your usage of hate speech
That's explicitly what it's doing

>the government is not telling you that you can't use hate speech, only that if you choose to use it then you might not be able to buy a gun anywhere else but a gun show or private craigslist deals
Then that's the same as the government telling you that you can't use hate speech. Learn 2 law.

>>310418
>Nice try but the Feds already added mental health facebook posts to the gun background check.
[citation needed]
>>
>>310476
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/16/senates-new-gun-law-reuses-old-ideas-and-stops-short-on-background-checks
>>
>>310431
>421 #
>I suppose it depends on if usage of hate speech is a mental illness.

Mental illness being used as an excuse to disenfranchise political opponents is an old and well worn tactic of authoritarian regimes on both ends of the political spectrum. Legitimizing this tactic to hinder gun rights or shitty facebook posts could easily come back to haunt the left in many unfortunate ways, and everyone could potentially suffer from that kind of creeping state authority.
>>
>>310474
The shit you post here will never be reviewed by the goverment unless you start posting violent threats.
>>
>>310478
Yeah that's not signed into law, it's a proposed but failed bill that was discharged in February

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4240/cosponsors?q=%7B%22party%22%3A%22all%22%7D
>>
>>310411
> the government is not telling you that you can't use hate speech

“Use one of these vaguely defined prohibited words and you’ll lose a Constitutionally guaranteed right!”

How is that not a violation of both the 1st and 2nd Amendments?
>>
>>310345
>Checking mental health I'd unconstitutional
Are you guys sure you're not a third world country? Because you look like mine but white
>>
>>310478
>>310485

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4240/text

Where's the part about sifting Facebook posts for mental health issues?
>>
>Freedom of Speech means Freedom from Consequences
Every
Single
Time
Lmfao
>>
>>310542
freedom of speech means freedom of consequences imposed by the state

it's cool if you don't believe this but it just indicates that you're a legally illiterate retard
>>
>>310542
> the government can strip you of your Constitutional human rights if you say a bad word
> what constitutes a bad word is undefined and open ended
> commie-pinko Democrats are totally cool with this

Every
Single
Time
WTF
>>
>>310345
Except they missed the part where most first-time shooters have nothing to suggest they'd do it.
>>
>>310532
> Checking mental health I'd unconstitutional

Random government apparatchiks with no medical training sifting thru shitposts on social media and stripping away inalienable human rights with the click of a mouse?

Yeah, that does sound like something a third-world country (or Europe) would do...
>>
>>310546
Nah if you have a history of being public about your dipshit political schizophrenia, you should be thrown into a mental asylum for the rest of your life, not rewarded with a gun. The only reason faggots like you are clutching your pearls is because you know you'd top the list.
>>
>>310553
>Random government apparatchiks
The FBI and ATF does the background checks. They are not 'random government apparatchiks'.
>>
>>310569
>The only reason faggots like you are clutching your pearls is because you know you'd top the list.
It's difficult to even fathom the kind of historical ignorance that could lead a person to believe that the political weaponization of mental illness diagnoses is something that could only be used against conservatives.

>They are not 'random government apparatchiks.'
Everybody who works in a bureaucracy is an apparatchik.
>>
So how does it work if you do not have social media?
>>
>>310345
dont use real name on sites like gab, avoid facebook like the plague, and use tails linux plus blocking all cookies and do your dirty searches (porn, anything involving the word for a color or name of a religion, price checking the gun you want) there. now what is on your history they would find in the last 3 years op? why did you leave behind history to find. sorry but if imma gonna do something that would legally stop a gun purchase i wouldnt leave evidence existing and damn sure wouldnt be in NY, or any other blue voting hell hole state... come to red states. tn will let you get a lifetime gun carry permit, and will allow me to buy guns all day with a 15 minute fbi background check that doesnt giuve to shits if i called some asshat out on facebook for being a liberal mook that rioted and looted. also who fucking cares if i called him an asshat. that wont legally block a gun sale, on the other hand threatening to kill someone can be legal grounds to actually prevent a sale even with out your new bills getting signed
>>
>>310484
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.
>>
>>310569
>spot the commie
>>
>>310572
Use it against liberals too. I don't care. These people need help, not a 24/7 feeding tube of Fox News and Infowars.
>>
>>310409
It's depriving you of your second amendment rights for using your first amendment rights. Hate speech is legal and not a crime so it cannot be used to deprive you of your other rights.
>>
>>310345
>granted permission
>allowed to
That's not how rights work.
>>
>>310456
AntiFa and Chicago gangs are two different groups of people.
I just don't see them working well together unless AntiFa is on its knees giving head to BGD.
Ownership does not automatically confer mastery of a weapon or tool.
Lots, most I should say, gangsters, cops, support MOS, and buy it and put it in a safe and forget about it gun owners, are poor marksmen.

Dang what a run on sentence.
>>
>>310345
>Literally the first thing they do when they get elected is attack the second amendment.
It's like they're trying to prove Trump right or something.
>>
>>310400
But it does infringe on your first and second amendment rights you fucking retard.
Literally why live in America if the constitution offends you, snowflake?
>>
>>310462
>and fears a police state
Yet for some reason loves enabling it.
>>
>>310579
Clear anti social behaviour, no guns for you
>>
>>310541
That's an entirely different bill than the one in the OP you mouth breather

>>310542
>Freedom of Speech means Freedom from Consequences
It does actually: Freedom from consequences imposed by the state for engaging in free speech
This includes consequences hat might make it harder for you to buy a firearm
Thank you for following the bouncing ball, have a nice day

>>310569
>Nah if you have a history of being public about your dipshit political schizophrenia, you should be thrown into a mental asylum for the rest of your life
Can't wait for all of the "kill whitey, white men must die, men are scum" ess jay double-you pee oh cees to get thrown into mental asylums for the rest of their lives
>>
>>310456
Chicago is not nearly as armed as, say, rural Tennessee. In terms of guns-per-capita. Chicago has a crime problem - black on black crime. Sure, they have guns. But they are not politically active. I lived in Chicago for 10 years, then Memphis for 20 years (fyi: Choose Chicago over Memphis if you ever have to)

The only thing that mobilizes chicago blacks away from shooting each other is when the media starts spouting bullshit about how white people are killing blacks in droves (and don't even try to argue this, you know damn fucking well blacks are killing blacks at 10x the rate that whites are). When the revolution comes, those media outlets will be the first to get burned down for inciting and dividing instead of simply informing.

Guns don't come with pre-dispositions. Their will only exists as the will of the person holding them. Chicago's guns may as well not even exist because the people holding them don't care about politics as long as their welfare checks keep coming.
>>
>>310571
> > Random government apparatchiks
> The FBI and ATF does the background checks.

And they’re just random government apparatchiks running a search of arrest databases, they’re not trained psychologists and even if they somehow were, we’d needs thousands of them sifting thru bazillions of shitposts on social media, as Facebook alone has over 2 BILLION daily users.

So this “social media background check” would consist of nothing more than a computer program simply looking for key words (such as “Trump”, “freedom”, “Republican”…) and automatically deleting the inalienable human rights of Americans.

The Dems already tried this shit by demanding that Americans be striped of their Constitutional rights via the no-fly list, another wholly arbitrary star chamber of random government apparatchiks, where those listed receive no explanation for how they got on the list and have no way to get themselves off it.

This is just another example of the Left/Dems trying to do an end-run around the Constitution.
>>
>>310579
>So how does it work if you do not have social media?

Obviously you must be lying about that, which automatically puts you in the precrime database and thus no guns for you....
>>
>>310793
>That's an entirely different bill than the one in the OP you mouth breather

Yeah, no shit retard but the anon up-thread mentioned _another_ similar earlier bill (House Bill 4240) that called for “mental health background checks” via social media.
>>
>>310456
>I'd love to see your revolution unite the streets of inner city Chicago against you

LOL! The Hard Right literally dreams of the day when Leftists/blacks/homos/etc. rise up in rebellion.

watch.out.nazis.jpg
>>
>>310373
Yes it is moshi...but you knew that. Soon ...
>>
fuck guns
>>
>>310345
I lost my social media in a server crash.
>>
>>310456
So I don't want a war, I want peace, but let's get it straight:
In the event of a war, cities become complete death traps, there's too many people, and too little space to grow sustainable amounts of food. A siege, cutting off the supply of food coming in, and breaking core things, such as electricity, sewers, water, would put a city into an absolute state of chaos and disease, there would be killings over drinking water, looting for food, and then every opportunist would roam, unless it was very heavily policed, and even then, the situation would get so dire it'd be a lost cause unless they could get water running again.

If you had 14/88 factions that wanted Chicago to be wiped out, they'd simply take out the water supply and power lines, bonus points for sewers. That's it, it's game over unless extreme policing went on, and the residents would have to be cooperative so that repairs could be done, and given the crime rate, it's most likely not going to happen.

Work smarter, not harder. Just because you've got "The biggest gat in the hood" doesn't mean you'll win if you never see your enemy, who just cut off your food, water, gas, and electricity, and the only thing in your yard is weeds.
>>
>>310881
>the day when Leftists/blacks/homos/etc. rise up in rebellion.
you mean like all the other times they already have, and won every single time?
>>
>>310373
"Hate speech" isn't a thing and that meme needs to die. It just means "speech I particularly disagree with". All this shit is just trying to circumvent that fact by supplying a convenient brush, you can slap a coat of "illegal speechcrime" onto whatever you want. And of course as was inevitable, the definition has become more and more loose. Soon, calling your political opponent a fucking idiot will be "hate speech".

No shit, Sherlocks. If I hate something or somebody, I'm going to say so. Period. In fact, particularly then. That being said (illegally?) it is a fact that it is not "free speech" because as you would know had you paid attention in school, that only applies to speaking against the government. How many goddamn times must this be explained. Every time somebody makes this error, it reveals that they are new to political anything and grievously uninformed.

Incidentally, I am really opposed to pretty much all the bullshit being labelled as "hate speech". But if the KKK wants to stand around screaming about how Jews did 9/11 and homos are going to burn in hell with negroes who stole their bikes, I don't care. Let them. If anything, it gives them an outlet. If you actually listen to most of these jackoffs rather than trying to Orwell them into silence, it's not very interesting or intelligent and is ALWAYS extremely old, repetitive crap everyone under 30 has heard a billion times. I miss when people just laughed at Americans who thought they were Nazis. They're still just as silly and laughable, except now they have the edgelord "hate speech" label which makes them seem like some serious threat instead of comedic villains in the Blues Brothers (accurate portrayal).

tldr if your society has to silence its dregs with legal repercussions for no-no talk, you're cancerous cunts who deserve to have your mouths bolted shut as well.
>>
>>310373
I find this comment to be hateful against my belief in the freedom of speech. In the interest of remaining consistent in your belief that hate speech not be protected speech, I insist that you turn yourself in to the authorities at once.
>>
All those retards trying to fight a race war or some bullshit brought this upon themselves. If you play stupid games you can expect to win stupid prizes.
>>
>>310569
>that's a nice authoritarian government you have there...
>it'd be a shame if your politically aligned party were to...
>not be in charge of it
>>
>>315281
>you mean like all the other times they already have, and won every single time?
[citation needed]
>>
>>315425
>free speech only applies to shit said against the government
And you're saying he didn't pay attention in school.
>>
>>310569
>The only reason you people are against losing your freedom is because you'd be locked away for the rest of your life in a terrible place where you have less rights than a convicted criminal
Hope this is bait

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sluggish_schizophrenia
>>
>>310401
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie
you know they were allowed to march right? it doesn't stop being hate speech just because they marched in chicago instead.
>>
>>310373
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xGekzN6EuM&t=439s
>>
>>310569
>Nah if you have a history of being public about your dipshit political schizophrenia, you should be thrown into a mental asylum for the rest of your life

>Hate Speech: Noun
>Speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or DISABILITY.

You just attacked and insulted people with mental illness, which is a disability. You are attacking their first amendment rights and saying that they be imprisoned in an asylum. What you said could literally be called hate speech, do you agree that you should be locked up for life for saying mean things?
>>
If you are right wing and you're not currently making lists of the addresses of local liberal leaders in government and ngo orgs, you're not doing your job. We're going to need them.
>>
>>315722
Only people who disagree with him ideologically will be classified as "mentally ill." You know how it is.
>>
fuck racists and fuck guns
>>
>>316610
>fuck racists and fuck guns
You'll fuck anything, won't change?
>>
>>310345
ive had death threats since i was 11
>>
>>310474
just dont post bad stuff, and use duckduckgo as a precaution
>>
>>316678
You wouldn't happen to be an ass hole?
>>
>>316682
Just search a ton of gay porn and accuse anyone of denying you of homophobia and support the murder of homosexuals
>>
>>316610
Also fuck niggers and janitors
>>
Holy fuck, the laws these people are proposing right now. Who in their right mind would actually vote for anyone supporting this kind of legislation? Where do they get the nerve, and why aren't they being publicly ridiculed?
>>
>>316685
oh no, im just eccentric but harmless, and ppl want to be mean to me sometimes
>>
>>315201
fuck you buddy
>>
>>315201
fuck jews
>>
>>310409
>you can say whatever you want
>but if you say something we don't like, you can no longer use any government services, apply for credit, have a driver's license, etc.
Why are you so eager to give your rights away for nothing. Trust me, coming from a third world shithole inhabitant, the government's definition of what you can and can't say can shift spectacularly fast. You don't want them holding that power over you.
Today they're coming for the white supremacists and gun owners, tomorrow your question of "why am I being taxed for half my income? I can't afford food now", that march you attended at your liberal arts college or that retweet/like on Twitterface is warranting a visit from local law enforcement.
Hell, it's already happening in England and China.
>>
>>316768
shut the fuck up
>>
>>317490
Too real, Nigel Wang Chan?
>>
>>316768
Not everything is covered under a right to speech.
Making it clear that you hope to commit or facilitate an act of violence with intent against someone is considered hate speech.
It's an ethical grey area because one wants to set a precedent for speech as free as possible, but often different freedoms are mutually incompatible. IE freedom to extend your fist ends at my face.

>"why am I being taxed for half my income? I can't afford food now"
Here in the US, folks who complain about taxes are almost never the ones worried about where their next meal is coming from.
>>
>>317503
>Making it clear that you hope to commit or facilitate an act of violence with intent against someone
That's already covered by the law somewhere else.
>Here in the US, folks who complain about taxes are almost never the ones worried about where their next meal is coming from.
So you're just waiting until the middle class is completely obliterated and the wage gap (not the feminist kind, the real kind) between the upper crust and the lower masses is untenable?
That wasn't the point anyway, I'm not a fucking commie. It was just to illustrate that any criticism towards the government, no matter how dumb or justified it seems, WILL get the steel-toed boot treatment if you let the government do it.
>>
>>317506
>So you're just waiting until the middle class is completely obliterated
Rampant corporatism is what obliterates the middle class. Social programs that facilitate social mobility for the working class is what grows the middle class. Trickle down economics always has prevented the growth of middle classes in countries worldwide because it's a scam. The wealthy horde wealth, the middle and working class spend it. At least in the past we would question whether any man could be worthy of owning private property in the hundreds of millions of dollars but we'd accept that at least the wealthiest tended to do a lot of good work. Nowadays scamming poor people is multibillion dollar business for bankers.
>>
>>310373
The internet is full of people that want to fuck you over for any number of justifications. Restricting access to constitutional rights based on shit you say on Social Media is a bad idea, especially now that digital witch hunts are so prevalent in the first world.
>>
fuck trump
>>
>>317503
>Making it clear that you hope to commit or facilitate an act of violence with intent against someone is considered hate speech.
That's not actually hate speech, because hate speech is A- again, protected speech, and B- depending on the wording of the statement it might actually be protected speech

Example:
"Kill all cops"- protected speech.
"kill all cops on the 500 block of 44th st on *specific date* at *specific* time- not protected, because it is specific, credible and actionable.
>>
>>310345
Even if the jews eventually get brought to justice. This country is going to crumble upon itself with this kind of insanity.

Violating natural law, free will, and even treating their own worse than others. As if they were slaves and abandoning all higher principles to whore themselves out over money and security that was never there.
>>
>>317510
These people also forget, you can get guns off the street like anything else. So all they would do if this was actually enforceable is make it where no one will REALLY see it coming because there isn't going to be documentation about it.
>>
>>310409
>isn't depriving you

They do and have been. Book burnings and witch hunts were a thing. Hell even recently trump went out to try to stop a book about him that got published criticizing him. You have no free speech because YOU won't stand up for it. Even now, your words show your surrender and self-defeat. They ARE depriving you of free speech and have been doing so very slowly over the course of generations. Like taking 8 years to peel off a small piece of onion. The onion being your TRUE freedom to speech. Justify it in your head, keep it there. It's ultimately not beneficial.
>>
guns are NOT for conservative poltards
>>
>>317503
>Making it clear that you hope to commit or facilitate an act of violence with intent against someone is considered hate speech.

It's not hate speech. It's a death threat and already not protected by the 1st amendment. People that support the notion of "hate speech" mean it as covering an enormous range of non-violent speech.
>>
This is depriving people of their civil rights without due process.
>>
>>310409
It is by definition forcing you to choose between exercising your first amendment rights OR your second amendment rights.
If you use hate speech (1st amendment) you can't have guns (2nd amendment).
The bill of rights is set up to allow you ALL your rights without having to choose between them.
>>
>>310411
>muh gun show loophole

Literally bought a gun at a gun show this weekend and had to sit there for 15 minutes while they did my background check. You know nothing and are une faguette
>>
>>322793
Lmao we only do that to people who look sketchy or sound stupid
>>
>>323179
Sounds like it violates the 4th amendment as well
>>
Good, ban all guns, america is clearly too childish to have them.
>>
>>322793
they don't have to, they probably thought you looked like a school shooter
>>
>>322793
>Literally bought a gun at a gun show this weekend and had to sit there for 15 minutes while they did my background check.
Wow they most have really dug deep into your history and performed a thoughtful in depth analysis of your criminal, mental and medical history.
When your background check is 15 minutes long you can be sure they must have left no stone unturned in their pursuit of the truth
>>
>>310345
And since left-wing fucks consider any social media presence which is conservative to be 'hate speech', the only people who will be allowed to buy guns will be card-carrying SJW commie scum.
>>
One more reason not to be on social media, especially Facebook.

At some point if it's too weird for someone to have zero hits when google I might get a WordPress account and do a blog on something tame like /out/ or /ck/, I favour something like a published blog or photo album (Flickr) versus something with a higher user interaction -- that could be troublesome in that no matter how careful you are, your family and friends could screw things up.
>>
>>310359
>I look forward to this bill being DOA and going absolutely nowhere

Thank god for President Trump!

I wonder how Ginsberg is doing? Someone should also send the squat monster Obama brought in a golden ticket to a Candy Factory.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.