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

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 58 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


New board added: /xs/ - Extreme Sports

New board added: /pw/ - Professional Wrestling

Self-serve ads are available again! Check out our new advertising page here.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: biden.jpg (49 KB, 980x551)
49 KB
49 KB JPG
https://www.rt.com/usa/515558-joe-biden-gun-control-parkland/
>>
Doesn't that imply if not admit that government is at war with its people if anyone in the government other than the military have weapons of war also?

I mean they are but people cant see it.
>>
Post the full article Ivan.
>>
>>791194
no, your not the boss of me and no i dont fee l like it.
>>
>>791194
Are you telling me you have to read the article to figure out what he said without just reading the title?
>>
>>791192
Because they are. Dems want to confiscate guns so they can murder Americans.
>>791194
He released an EO chang, because Pooh Bear in china wants Americans disarmed so he can more easily invade.
>>
>>791187
>ok guies no moar AR 15

Okay now start going door to door and collect the few hundred million rifles that no one wants to give up. It’ll be fun. Good luck.
>>
>>791220
Oh fuck. Not you again.

>>791222
The Dem obsession with AR-15s is cringe as fuck but I don't know why you guys keep going on about confiscation squads sweeping the whole nation. That's not how any of this would work. Under his proposed legislation you would have to pay a $200 tax stamp and, if not, you would get in trouble IF you get caught. There are absolutely zero plans for any force to go door to door searching people's homes for ARs, anon. I think Biden's gun laws are dumb as fuck but a) I think its a big neo-lib virtue signal and it will never pass and b) I don't have to make shit up in order to disagree with him.
>>
>>791230
>why you guys keep going on about confiscation squads sweeping the whole nation
Because confiscation is the main purpose behind registration.

>That's not how any of this would work.
Thats exactly how it would work, hence why they keep pushing for registration.

> Under his proposed legislation you would have to pay a $200 tax stamp
So he wants to discriminate against the poor AND force registration? Lolno, keep dreaming.
>>
>>791207
Putin say you have to.
>>
>>791230
>Oh fuck. Not you again
Stay mad, Chang
>The Dem obsession with AR-15s is cringe as fuck but I don't know why you guys keep going on about confiscation squads sweeping the whole nation. That's not how any of this would work. Under his proposed legislation you would have to pay a $200 tax stamp and, if not, you would get in trouble IF you get caught. There are absolutely zero plans for any force to go door to door searching people's homes for ARs, anon. I think Biden's gun laws are dumb as fuck but a) I think its a big neo-lib virtue signal and it will never pass and b) I don't have to make shit up in order to disagree with him.
Because the goal of registration is confiscation. ALWAYS. See NZ, UK, and AUS. Dems want a registry so they can confiscate.
>>
>>791244
>Stay mad, Chang
Good morning, schizo-poster.

>Because the goal of registration is confiscation.
Yes, yes, we've all been through this bit before - Dems are satanic monsters that want to turn your children into slaves and slaughter the entire country, guns are a basic human right and evil communist ghosts live under your bed. We know the whole routine, dude.
>>
>>791233
>Because confiscation is the main purpose behind registration.
I can't really speak on your slippery slope.

>Thats exactly how it would work, hence why they keep pushing for registration.
Again, I can't really argue against your paranoid delusions. This "they're gonna take our guns ree ree FEMA death camps ree ree" bullshit has been floating around your delusional info-circle since Obama. Nobody's buying it.

>So he wants to discriminate against the poor AND force registration? Lolno, keep dreaming.
I said I didn't agree with the law like three times already. Can you read?
>>
>>791250
>Yes, yes, we've all been through this bit before - Dems are satanic monsters that want to turn your children into slaves and slaughter the entire country, guns are a basic human right and evil communist ghosts live under your bed. We know the whole routine, dude.
This, but unironically
>>791252
Anti gunners literally used registries for confiscation in NZ, Aus, and UK. What legitimate purpose would having a registry solve? Most guns used in crimes are stolen or straw purchased. More guns used in crimes are bought through a FFL and done with a background check than via a gun show.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf
>>
>>791256
>Anti-gunners
So you mean sensible people.
>>
>>791256
>This, but unironically
Yes. We know, schizo-poster.

>Anti gunners literally used registries for confiscation in NZ, Aus, and UK.
Firstly, the political landscapes of these three countries are completely different than the U.S. Not only are their politics much different but they run on an entirely different constitution that doesn't even protect the ownership of guns. You're comparing apples to oranges.

>What legitimate purpose would having a registry solve?
You say this as though politicians put through policies simply based on their usefulness. What are you, 12? Politicians put fourth things that are popular and appealing to the ideology of their base. What fucking use was a hundred miles of gigantic border wall going to do? NOTHING. It was done for the purpose of satisfying Trump's base and giving the illusion of progress. Whether or not it worked was almost irrelevant.

I'm sure a national registry would serve a very small, nominal good, of course. It might solve a handful of cases here and there but the biggest purpose it serves is to appeal to Democrats' pansy, pearl clutching base that knows nothing about guns and are afraid of them. A registry doesn't have to be statistically effective in stopping gun violence to be worth it for Democrats - their voter base liking a registry is all it takes for it to be worth it. People have been legislating based on fear for centuries, anon. Its simple and effective and keeps people loyal to their political party. I know you're schizophrenic and out of your fucking mind but I thought I'd spell this out just for anyone in the thread not familiar with the concept of politics.

No, Democrats aren't going to send death squads to your house. The fact that you think 80 year old, spineless, corporate Democrat shills actually give a fuck about their ideology enough to start a war and seize millions of guns speaks volumes about how delusional you are. They do what their donors tell them. That's it.
>>
>>791244
>Dems want a registry so they can confiscate
Yes, I've noticed registering and licensing vehicles results in widespread confiscations. The only reason vehicles are registered is so they can immediately be confiscated.

Unironically, you are exactly the kind of sicko who should not own guns and have them confiscated. You are living proof why we need common sense gun laws. Your paranoia and obvious mental instability shows you really need a shrink tuneup and quick.
>>
>>791263
>No, Democrats aren't going to send death squads to your house.
At least one person died from red flag laws in D.C.
>>
>>791262
No, I mean human rights deniers.
>>791263
>Firstly, the political landscapes of these three countries are completely different than the U.S. Not only are their politics much different but they run on an entirely different constitution that doesn't even protect the ownership of guns. You're comparing apples to oranges.
I'm comparing apples to apples because they have the exact same goals. Confiscation.
>You say this as though politicians put through policies simply based on their usefulness. What are you, 12? Politicians put fourth things that are popular and appealing to the ideology of their base.
Nope, they are doing this because they want confiscation
> What fucking use was a hundred miles of gigantic border wall going to do? NOTHING.
To reduce illegal immigration.
>I'm sure a national registry would serve a very small, nominal good, of course. It might solve a handful of cases here and there
How? How would a registry solve any cases?
>but the biggest purpose it serves is to appeal to Democrats' pansy, pearl clutching base that knows nothing about guns and are afraid of them. A registry doesn't have to be statistically effective in stopping gun violence to be worth it for Democrats - their voter base liking a registry is all it takes for it to be worth it. People have been legislating based on fear for centuries, anon. Its simple and effective and keeps people loyal to their political party. I know you're schizophrenic and out of your fucking mind but I thought I'd spell this out just for anyone in the thread not familiar with the concept of politics.
Nope, the registry is for confiscation and their voters are sheep who get lead by propaganda. Gun control is set by the 1% and the retards follow.
>No, Democrats aren't going to send death squads to your house.
Then why do they need a registry? Dems are the party that put Americans in concentration camps. If Biden had the choice, he would put Americans in death camps TODAY.
>>
>>791274
>At least one person died from red flag laws in D.C.
I have varying issues with red flag laws but, overall, the burden of proof is pretty massive to deem someone not mentally fit enough to handle their own affairs. The legal bar is set high for a very good reason and, so far, there has been no rash of normal, everyday people having their guns confiscated on a whim like delusional conservative gun nuts keep claiming. Regardless, red flag laws even in their worst interpretations are not equivalent to Democrats making guns illegal, confiscating millions of them nationwide and murdering the population. Not even close. I think its very telling that this weak false comparison was the only response you could come up with to my entire post. A judge deeming you not mentally fit to be your own guardian happens all the time. This is not equivalent to nationwide death squads, schizoposter.
>>
>>791273
>Yes, I've noticed registering and licensing vehicles results in widespread confiscations. The only reason vehicles are registered is so they can immediately be confiscated.
What purpose do you think a gun registry would do? How do you think it would solve anything? It won't it is to be used for confiscation. See NZ, AUS, and the UK.
>Unironically, you are exactly the kind of sicko who should not own guns and have them confiscated.
Because I advocate for human rights?
>You are living proof why we need common sense gun laws.
define "common sense gun laws"
>Your paranoia and obvious mental instability shows you really need a shrink tuneup and quick.
"anyone who disagrees with me politically is crazy and must be murdered by the state"
>>
>>791279
>I have varying issues with red flag laws but, overall, the burden of proof is pretty massive to deem someone not mentally fit enough to handle their own affairs.
there is literally zero burden of proof to get a red flag order. Please show me any sources that require any proof beyond random hearsay.
>>
Americans would be the quickest to adopt European Truck of Peace tactics. You burgerclaps just want to kill each other and just like life, you'll find a way.
>>
>>791281
>there is literally zero burden of proof to get a red flag order
You are objectively incorrect. I'm amazed how confidently you spew these lies.

>Please show me any sources that require any proof beyond random hearsay.
I can't post a link here but there's actually a very interesting article called "Firearms, Extreme Risk, and Legal Design" by the Duke Law department. I can't cite a specific law because they are different in ever state. In a lot of states, for example, only law enforcement can file petitions. In a few states a family member can petition the court themselves. Essentially what happens is that they file a petition and then have a hearing before a judge. You must give the judge compelling evidence that would reasonably lead him/her to believe that this individual presents a danger to themselves or other. This would require a combination of things like criminal/mental health history, recorded communications, social media posts, texts etc.,
Legally speaking, the burden of proof required to strip one of their autonomy is purposefully high. The notion that anybody can just file a red flag petition and there's no burden of proof for the judge to rule a person incompetent to own weapons is objectively, laughably fucking false. You have no idea what you're talking about.
>>
>>791278
>I'm comparing apples to apples because they have the exact same goals. Confiscation.
You're drawing comparisons between our country and countries whose political and legal systems you don't understand to get to the conclusion you want. You have no idea how the constitution of the UK or NZ works.

>Nope, they are doing this because they want confiscation
Again, I can't speak to your paranoid delusions. I can only go off of historical, legal precedent and basic common knowledge of how our country work.

>To reduce illegal immigration.
Wrong again. Most illegal immigration comes through ports of entry and people overstaying their visas. The wall was a symbol for Trump's pro-nationalist agenda.

>How? How would a registry solve any cases?
Tracing to where a gun came from, in theory, would be helpful.

>Nope, the registry is for confiscation and their voters are sheep who get lead by propaganda. Gun control is set by the 1% and the retards follow.
I already acknowledged that you're out of your mind. I wasn't appealing to your logic. I was appealing to the logic of anybody that doesn't suffer from the same debilitating mental illness that you do.

>Dems are the party that put Americans in concentration camps.
I've already gone down this Japanese internment camp road with you and you're completely and utterly incapable of engaging with any reality in which Democrats aren't the boogeymen that haunt your every dream. Comparing a Democrat in 1945 with modern Democrats is fucking retarded. Google the overton window. You're politically illiterate.


>If Biden had the choice, he would put Americans in death camps TODAY.
Please. Seek psychiatric help. You're absolutely fucking unhinged.
>>
>>791279
>but, overall, the burden of proof is pretty massive to deem someone not mentally fit enough to handle their own affairs.
Except for the case of Gary Willis, the guy who got killed over the red flag law. He got into an argument with his cunt of a sister and she got back at him by going to a judge to get his guns taken away. He had no criminal history or mental health evaluation.

>The legal bar is set high for a very good reason
Wasn't there a retired cop who got his guns taken away in NJ because he snitched on bad cops and judges? I swear /news/ had a thread about him earlier.

>so far, there has been no rash of normal, everyday people having their guns confiscated on a whim like delusional conservative gun nuts keep claiming.
Gary Willis.
>>
>>791338
>European Truck of Peace tactics
Already happened with the far right gun nut Timothy McVeigh truck bombing the Murrow Federal Building in Oklahoma City killing hundreds. He was one of Trump's "very fine people."
>>
>>791492
You're deranged if you think Trump's "very fine people" included McVeigh.
>>
>>791437
Yeah there was a thread on that, former NYPD living in NJ.
https://www.nj.com/news/2020/01/nearly-200-people-have-had-their-guns-seized-in-nj-under-new-red-flag-law.html

>>791492
>Gun nut
>No guns used in bombing

>>791353
>Registry tracing where a gun came from
>Gun recovered from gang shooting
>Not registered
>Oh well, better luck next time
>Glad we threatened all those regular people with felonies if they didn't register every gun on the naughty guns list.
>>
>>791494
He was a rightwing white nationalist/supremacist gun nut so he exactly fits the definition.
>>
>>791511
Meds.

Now.
>>
From my cold dead hands, commie scum,
>>
>>791748
You won't have any hands left since you'll simply be a pool of chicken tendies/big mac/fry/pepperoni grease ;^)
>>
>>791501
>https://www.nj.com/news/2020/01/nearly-200-people-have-had-their-guns-seized-in-nj-under-new-red-flag-law.html
Thank you Anon.

So Anon who posted this >>791279 what do you have to say about that legal bar being set high to enforce red flag laws? And these are just two examples. There's a third guy in California who admittedly is a racist skinhead, but didn't commit any crimes besides shit-talking on the internet. No threats, no plans, no I'm going to minecraft all the hispanics, etc. He got his guns taken away for trolling on the internet under Cali's red flag law system. Basically it's illegal to be a /pol/tard in CA now.

Or we can talk about Jeffrey Scott Kirschenmann who FOLLOWED the law, still got his guns taken away and went to jail for registering his firearms like he was supposed to under the new CA law. Yeah how 'bout that high bar?
>>
>>791187
>Shithole country Today
Nice blog Ivan. Better report this.
>>
>>791273
>Yes, I've noticed registering and licensing vehicles results in widespread confiscations. The only reason vehicles are registered is so they can immediately be confiscated.
I mean anon they cant go around confiscating things without knowing that they exist. the whole point of a gun registry is to know exactly who has them and how many so that when they do go about confiscating said weapons they can spout about how many are left. why is that such a complicated concept for you?
>>
>>791353
>Wrong again. Most illegal immigration comes through ports of entry and people overstaying their visas. The wall was a symbol for Trump's pro-nationalist agenda.
the why are lefties so asshurt about the wall preventing people from crossing the border? The people you are referring to for over staying their visas are DOCUMENTED where as the vast amount of illegal immigrants who cross via the border are UNDOCUMENTED so there is no way to collect data on something that is unknown. what you just said was intentionally deceiving and retarded.
>>
>>791949
>the why are lefties so asshurt about the wall preventing people from crossing the border?
Because its a dumb, ineffective and expensive way to address the issue. I don't see why we should spend hundreds of billions of dollars to erect a symbolic monument to conservative nationalism. I want a method that's going to be the most effective, not the one that makes conservatives the most comfortable.

>The people you are referring to for over staying their visas are DOCUMENTED where as the vast amount of illegal immigrants who cross via the border are UNDOCUMENTED so there is no way to collect data on something that is unknown. what you just said was intentionally deceiving and retarded.
The argument is about how to prevent illegal immigration to our country, correct? So, if most of the people who are here illegally have come through legal ports of entry and overstayed their legal visas then how is putting a giant wall in the desert going to meaningfully prevent illegal immigration? It won't. The only reason the wall is so important to conservatives is the aesthetic. Its visually appealing and intuitively satisfying but, statistically, its disproportionately expensive in construction and maintenance in the context of its proposed benefits.

This isn't even including the fact that one of the primary reasons Trump cited for why we need the wall was illegal drug smuggling, sex trafficking and weapons smuggling. Guess where the majority of sex trafficking, drug smuggling and weapons smuggling occurs at? At legal ports of entry. How is a giant wall going to stop smuggling at legal ports of entry? It doesn't.
>>
>>791815
I haven't investigated the individual merits of the two cases you're citing. I don't know anything about them. Judicial discretion is, theoretically, always going to be imperfect. Even if I were to assume what you're saying is true it still wouldn't be a good argument against red flag laws. Our legislation against murder has arguably falsely imprisoned hundreds of thousands of people over the decades but that isn't an argument that murder laws are government overreach or that the bar for proving murder isn't set high. There are a lot of reasons people who shouldn't be targeted by certain laws are but in order to say that its because the laws aren't good you'd have to prove it. You would need to prove that the cons outweigh the pros and two cases of people who you've reported to be unjustly persecuted doesn't establish that - in my eyes, at least.
>>
>>791953
>The only reason the wall is so important to conservatives is the aesthetic.
The wall is important because contrary to what you believe it keeps out all of the undocumented illegals who have no other way to sneak into the US. Even if you are to believe that the majority of Illegal immigrants are here on expired visas (According to NPR its 62% vs 38% border crossers) it still cuts out that massive chunk (in this case 38%). As for the rest of that 62% you simply cut back on visas and deport the ones here illegally who once deported wont be able to cross back in. If anything the biggest problem with illegal immigration is that previously there was no effective way to prevent re-entry.
>>
>>791957
>Even if I were to assume what you're saying is true it still wouldn't be a good argument against red flag laws.
Here's a great argument against red flag laws: no due process. Much like the no-fly list, only worse because we're talking about an actual right - which funny enough people on the left (Obama, Hillary) have made the argument that "... If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous, by definition, to buy a gun." You don't have to break a law to be added to either list, you just have to be under suspicion - and good luck getting off of that list after you're added to it. Unlike the bullshit you've mentioned earlier, there is no high legal bar. No notification, no chance to defend yourself in court, no repercussions for the government if they take from the wrong innocent person. Where the hell are you getting this fantasy that the bar for red flag laws is high?
>>
>>791997
stop dude, you're killing him. Hes been btfo just let it go
>>
>>791979
>The wall is important because contrary to what you believe it keeps out all of the undocumented illegals who have no other way to sneak into the US.
Its not what I believe. Its immigration statistics that come from our own government.

>Even if you are to believe that the majority of Illegal immigrants are here on expired visas (According to NPR its 62% vs 38% border crossers) it still cuts out that massive chunk (in this case 38%
Yeah, if you're operating under the asinine assumption that a border wall is 100% effective against people crossing on foot. Again, I don't see how the cost to effectiveness ration is worth it. Why spend billions of dollars addressing the least effective way people illegally immigrate to the country when we could spend that money addressing the most effective way people do it? I don't understand.

>As for the rest of that 62% you simply cut back on visas and deport the ones here illegally who once deported wont be able to cross back in
I don't want to do that. Firstly, I believe its important to recognize international law in the context of asylum status. Secondly, I don't believe in nationalism. I don't want to cut down on VISAs. I believe it would represent a material harm to our economy. I don't see how that would be worth it.
>>
Wow he should do that
>>
>>792008
>Its not what I believe. Its immigration statistics that come from our own government.
yes and those statistics point out that 38% are still border crossers and presumably have no other way to get into the US

>Again, I don't see how the cost to effectiveness ration is worth it. Why spend billions of dollars addressing the least effective way people
becuase contrary to what you believe is the "the most effective way" this is the best option we have. The billions of dollars going into that wall is nothing compared to the trillions of dollars going to support illegal immigrants thanks to retards like who you are sympathetic to them.

>I don't want to do that.
that is what we are talking about though, "prevent illegal immigration to our country" just as you said. Just because you dont like it doesnt mean it isnt the best way to handle the problem.
>>
>>791997
>Here's a great argument against red flag laws: no due process.
Ok, that's just objectively false. There is due process. I don't know why you keep saying there isn't.

>You don't have to break a law to be added to either list, you just have to be under suspicion
False. Whoever files the petition has to provide actionable evidence to a judge that you are currently a threat to yourself or others.

>and good luck getting off of that list after you're added to it
There is no "list". It is a temporary order filed by a judge that either expires if the petitioner doesn't provide compelling enough evidence to extend it. You actually have no idea how this works. As I said, in some states, only law enforcement can file the petition.

>Unlike the bullshit you've mentioned earlier, there is no high legal bar.
There is. I've already communicated this earlier in the thread. You either didn't read it or you just ignored all together.

>no chance to defend yourself in court
You have no idea what you're talking about. Even in cases where the order is filed ex parte a hearing is filed shortly after to provide the respondent to defend themselves and petition for the order to be revoked. How is it you're so confident about a subject you know nothing about? Is this the dunning kruger I'm always hearing about?

>Where the hell are you getting this fantasy that the bar for red flag laws is high?
Reality? Legal precedent? I'm sorry, I don't really care about your feelings about red flag laws. There just isn't any data at all to suggest that ERPOs are being unjustly ordered on "innocent" people at all. You've been factually incorrect about 80% of the things you've claimed in this post so I doubt your conclusion is based on any kind of logic either.
>>
>>792014
>yes and those statistics point out that 38% are still border crossers and presumably have no other way to get into the US
I'd love to see a source on them having no other way to cross. Also, "they are still border crossers" doesn't counter my point at all. This is a complete non-sequitur. If it turned out that 70% of child molester gain access to a school through the front door but 30% of them gained access through an underground tunnel, what logical sense would it make to invest hundreds of billions of dollars into building and maintaining a wall in the tunnel and ignoring the front door?

>becuase contrary to what you believe is the "the most effective way" this is the best option we have.
No, it isn't. If most people are coming in through legal ports of entry and overstaying visas why are we investing hundreds of billions into a wall?

>The billions of dollars going into that wall is nothing compared to the trillions of dollars going to support illegal immigrants thanks to retards like who you are sympathetic to them.
It has nothing to do with sympathy. You're just factually incorrect. Also, illegal immigrants represent a net economic benefit to our economy. The claim that we spend "trillions" of dollars to support them is objectively, economically false. You just made it up.

>Just because you dont like it doesnt mean it isnt the best way to handle the problem.
No, I don't like it because you're massively inflating the problem to justify an irrational response. I don't give a shit about nationalism. I give a shit about the people who live in this country. If sufficient data came out that suggested opening our borders completely would provide a net economic benefit to the people of this country I'd advocate for it. I'm not going to advocate for policies that will hurt us for the same of some irrational commitment to the concept of nationalism or ethnic/cultural hegemony or whatever weird reason you have for despising immigration.
>>
>>792021
>I'd love to see a source on them having no other way to cross. Also, "they are still border crossers" doesn't counter my point at all.
Youre absolutely retarded you dont need statistics to tell you that said border crossers would only take that route if they were able to do literally ANY other route. You dont think they would take the easier route via a VISA like the others did if they could?

>No, it isn't. If most people are coming in through legal ports of entry and overstaying visas why are we investing hundreds of billions into a wall?
because once said people are deported for violating their expired visas there has to be a way to keep them out. you keep ignoring that fact.

>You just made it up
ooookay then nice argument

>I don't give a shit about nationalism. I give a shit about the people who live in this country.
thats a conflict of interest there retard. we live in a time where everyone is struggling to get a job and we cant even provide for the people here legal or not illegal but "muh net gain for the economy" doesnt mean shit if it isnt helping anyone here regardless who they are. Even then just because you are physically here doesnt mean that you are obliged to do as you please and benefit from resources you have no part in.
>>
>>792021
>It has nothing to do with sympathy. You're just factually incorrect. Also, illegal immigrants represent a net economic benefit to our economy. The claim that we spend "trillions" of dollars to support them is objectively, economically false. You just made it up.
by the way a quick check says the cost of the wall is about 21 billion dollars for the entire project. the costs of supporting illegal immigrants in the US is anywhere from 60-110 billion dollars per year with an offset of 12 billion dollars made from taxes off of them.
>>
>>792026
>Youre absolutely retarded you dont need statistics to tell you that said border crossers would only take that route if they were able to do literally ANY other route.
Yeah, I base my opinions off statistics and data, not just really strongly feeling like I'm right. I don't really know how to argue with your feelings.

>because once said people are deported for violating their expired visas there has to be a way to keep them out. you keep ignoring that fact.
There already is a way. Current immigration law imposes a 10 year ban on people who overstay their VISAs.

>ooookay then nice argument
Yes. "You made this shit up and you're factually incorrect" is a pretty nice argument.

>thats a conflict of interest there retard.
No it isn't. I don't care about the "nation". I care about its people.

>we live in a time where everyone is struggling to get a job and we cant even provide for the people here legal or not illegal but "muh net gain for the economy" doesnt mean shit if it isnt helping anyone here regardless who they are.
Firstly, before COVID we had record employment rates. Secondly, wages struggling to keep up with cost of living prices has nothing to do with illegal immigration. Immigrants are disproportionately employed in key industries like healthcare, hospitality and construction which results in lower product costs for Americans. You're economically illiterate, anon. Please. Stick to your appeals to emotion because you're dreadfully unequipped to talk economics.

>Even then just because you are physically here doesnt mean that you are obliged to do as you please and benefit from resources you have no part in.
Again, I don't really give a shit about your emotional arguments. I go off of economic data and the economic data shows that presence of immigrants drives up the demand for goods and services, employs more American citizens and produces a net economic benefit to our country.
>>
>>792029
>the costs of supporting illegal immigrants in the US is anywhere from 60-110 billion dollars per year with an offset of 12 billion dollars made from taxes off of them
Taxes are not the only way we benefit from immigrants. You see, when an immigrant moves here they need food, water, vehicles, clothes, goods and services etc., For every immigrant that moves here there is a construction company who needs to build them a house, a grocery store that sells them food and a department store that sells them clothes and household items. All of this money goes into our economy, creates new jobs and strengthens product demand in key industries. This is how we measure the economic benefit of a population, anon, not just tax dollars. The way you've presented this data is purposefully misleading and incomplete.
>>
>>792015
>Ok, that's just objectively false. There is due process.
OK THAT is just objectively false. The judge who gave the order did so overnight, without any notification to Willis and not even enough time for him to obtain legal counsel. He was NOT in the middle of committing a crime, in fact he had NO CRIMINAL RECORD at all. Explain to me how he had due process.

>False. Whoever files the petition has to provide actionable evidence to a judge that you are currently a threat to yourself or others.
False. The order was brought over by his sister, likely over an argument. From his niece
>Michelle said her uncle “likes to speak his mind,” but she described him as harmless. “I’m just dumbfounded right now,” she said. “My uncle wouldn’t hurt anybody.”

> It is a temporary order filed by a judge that either expires if the petitioner doesn't provide compelling enough evidence to extend it.
Tell that to John Marchisotto, a retired NYPD cop living in New Jersey who had his firearms taken away because he reported on bad cops and judges. Snitches get stitches as they say.

>There is. I've already communicated this earlier in the thread. You either didn't read it or you just ignored all together.
Just like you've ignored every fucking example I've given.

>Even in cases where the order is filed ex parte a hearing is filed shortly after to provide the respondent to defend themselves and petition for the order to be revoked.
Who then have to pay to fight that battle in court, as was the case for Kevin Morgan in Florida after his ex-wife got his guns taken away during their divorce. He was able to get his back after spending about 5 grand and he still had the divorce to look forward to.

Too bad he wasn't a cop, like a police officer in Colorado. https://apnews.com/article/d57f8e59979f367ff6b7d7557aef5386

... comment too long.
>>
>>792031
>I go off of economic data and the economic data shows
nothing because not once have you ever shown anything either

>There already is a way. Current immigration law imposes a 10 year ban on people who overstay their VISAs.
yes because no one who was ever banned and deported tried to sneak back in via the border

>No it isn't. I don't care about the "nation". I care about its people.
its "people" is its nation and the citizens who are part of it not the entire world.

>Secondly, wages struggling to keep up with cost of living prices has nothing to do with illegal immigration.
wrongo buddy. the reason low income housing and rent is so fucking high these days is directly caused by illegal immigration. they create this high demand in low income areas fucking people over who currently live there. The entire state of California is the largest sanctuary state in the US with the highest pop of illegal immigrants and is seeing huge gentrification because of it.
>>
>>792032
>Taxes are not the only way we benefit from immigrants. You see, when an immigrant moves here they need food, water, vehicles, clothes, goods and services etc., For every immigrant that moves here there is a construction company who needs to build them a house, a grocery store that sells them food and a department store that sells them clothes and household items. All of this money goes into our economy, creates new jobs and strengthens product demand in key industries. This is how we measure the economic benefit of a population, anon, not just tax dollars. The way you've presented this data is purposefully misleading and incomplete.
people who dont have fucking money cant contribute to the economy in any meaningful way especially when they are reliant on aid. also said people are mostly illiterate and uneducated and can only provide the most basic of services which are disappearing fast these days. Im not saying that we have to stop ALL immigrants from coming here but it doesnt mean we should or are even able to support the millions of illegals who have been a burden on us for decades.
>>
>>792039
Gotta love how they're somehow simultaneously stealing our jobs and doing nothing but steal financial aid at the same time.
>>
>>792054
It's not impossible to do both. Patrice O'neal told a story how when he was a dumb kid with no game he accidentally got his mom caught when some welfare reps knocked on their door and asked if his mom was at work.
>>
>>792061
So she lied about having a job then? Because if she was "stealing a job" she would've just gotten fired for not showing up.
>>
>>792065
She was working a job and collecting unemployment at the same time. Just figure I'd chime in that it's possible. I'm not getting into the immigration argument you two are having in a guns thread.
>>
>>792054
>agree to get paid under the table way less than other workers who are citizens
>also collect welfare because technically you appear to be unemployed
It's really not that difficult.
>>
>>792039
>people who dont have fucking money cant contribute to the economy in any meaningful way
But they do. Its an economic fact. If they didn't buy food and shelter they couldn't survive. Now you're just folding your arms and pouting "No" because you have no counter to statistical facts.

>also said people are mostly illiterate and uneducated and can only provide the most basic of services which are disappearing fast these days
Ok but they're not. Our service economy has been steadily growing for the past 40 years. You have absolutely zero fucking idea what you're talking about. You're just making shit up.

>but it doesnt mean we should or are even able to support the millions of illegals who have been a burden on us for decades.
Ok but we don't support them. They represent a net economic benefit to our economy. Do you know what net benefit means? It means they add money. I'm sorry, anon, I really can't argue with your feelings. Reality doesn't agree with you no matter how much you really WANT to believe that immigrants drain "trillions" of dollars from our economy. Its just objectively false. You live in a delusion.
>>
>>791957
This the most jewie sounding person I've ever encountered on this board. He must be some kind of fed.
>>
>>792085
Round up 20 Americans, just 20, strong enough and willing to pick fruit and vegetables 14 hours/day for minimum wage in 100+ F heat while living in a leaking trailer in the middle of nowhere with a porta potty for a bathroom and irrigation ditches to wash in. Find me another 20 willing to roof houses 14 hours/day for minimum wage in 100F heat or freezing temperatures. Find me another 20 willing to wash dishes 14 hours/day. Face it, Americans today don't have the right stuff to do the raunchy work required nowadays. This isn't the fucking 19th century anymore and even then it was 1st generation immigrants doing a lot of the shit work. Grow up and look around you or in a mirror if your mum allows you to have one in her basement, lol!
>>
>>792036
>nothing because not once have you ever shown anything either
I could look up the fucking hundred page economic reports if you like, I just assumed we weren't having a structured, citation based debate because you rattled off all of your bullshit without showing data either.

>yes because no one who was ever banned and deported tried to sneak back in via the border
It doesn't matter whether they tried or not. If they get caught they get arrested, imprisoned or sent back. You said that there must be some way to stop them from coming back and there already is. End of point.

>its "people" is its nation and the citizens who are part of it not the entire world.
I disagree. This "nation" is built of a massive, diverse population of people who traveled from all across the world to live here, work here, and build this country into what it is today. I'm not dedicated to the concept or construct of a nation. I'm dedicated to the material well being for the large majority of the people who live here in this country and the data definitively fucking proves that immigration is good for the people of this country. I'm not going to advocate for positions that hurt the people who live in this country to preserve some abstract concept of a "nation". That makes no sense.

>the reason low income housing and rent is so fucking high these days is directly caused by illegal immigration
Incorrect. The mass tech boom in densely populated coastal cities in combination with the stagnation of wages is why cost of living is so high. Texas has one of the highest population of immigrants yet its rural areas are among the most affordable places in the country. It has way more to do with population density and wages then the number of immigrants.

>they create this high demand in low income areas fucking people over who currently live there
They don't. There's no data to support this. You just made it up because it seemed intuitive. You have no idea what you're talking about.
>>
>>792101
I could care less about the pained groans of a degenerate nazi-poster. This isn't stormfront, comrade. Your groiping will not be accepted with open asshole here.
>>
>>792085
>also collect welfare because technically you appear to be unemployed
Illegals cannot collect US government assistance even though many with TINS pay income tax and social security. That's another rightwing echo chamber myth you bit hook, line and sinker. Now, if you mean a child spawned on US soil from illegal parents, since they are Constitutionally a US citizen are eligible for US govt. benefits. Surely being a pro-life sturmdrumpfer you couldn't oppose that, right?
>>
>>791187
Why didn’t gun laws work in Chicago? Do democrats even care about black lives?
>>
I think every US citizen should be obligated to own a gun. Because guns keep people safe and never become the go-to solution for minor quibbles. Look how well ubiquitous gun ownership worked in Pennsylvania. If only we could get that ethic spread across the entire country all of the gun control problems would be solved.

3USCWE
>>
>>792102
>Round up 20 Americans, just 20, strong enough and willing to pick fruit and vegetables 14 hours/day for minimum wage in 100+ F heat
Sounds like my first job at 14, only I didn't have to live in a trailer and could only work 8 hours at most. Fucking government laws.
>>
>>792102
>Find me another 20 willing to roof houses 14 hours/day for minimum wage in 100F heat or freezing temperatures
Glad to know you want to fucking exploit your roofer so fucking bad you piece of shit
Fuck you for wanting to keep undocumented people around so you can exploit them you faggot
You are no different from the massive tech companies that do the same thing, use and throw out visa workers for cheap labor
You people did the same thing to China for so long and now it's coming to bite you back in the ass because all these cheap workers you exploited are taking everything they learned and making the same crap back in China

You're a piece of shit and I'll gladly pay my roofer well for a good job you faggot
>>
>>792121
>I think every US citizen should be obligated to own a gun
This. It needs to be mandatory.
>>
>>792157
>knows nothing about construction
There are serious time contraints in certain phases of contruction, of which roofing is one. There may be weather impacts in the near future that necessitate it being completed no matter what. Other phases and the entire project can be delayed considerably until the roof is covered. Your misunderstanding of the building process thinking it's exploitation is exactly why pussfag Americans still sucking their thumbs and hanging onto mum's skirts can't and won't do the job. Same goes for vegetable/fruit picking. There's a relatively short time window between harvesting a ripe crop and having it rot in the fields that demands busting your ass. Face it, you and the rest of the soft, weak, pasty white lazy asses can't cut the mustard sturmdrumpfer.
>>
>>792102
>just allow me to exploit American workers like I do illegal workers
Its an interesting argument.

>>792227
>nooooo just let me treat my employees like absolute shit! ur soft if u disagree!
The argument is less interesting the second time you hear it.
>>
>>792100
>Ok but they're not. Our service economy has been steadily growing for the past 40 years. You have absolutely zero fucking idea what you're talking about. You're just making shit up.
in case youve been under a rock our service industry just got blown the fuck out and a lot of those jobs will not be coming back due to changing times.
>>
>>792285
I remember when this was said in the early 2000s
>>
>>792102
And Britain didn’t do the same with it’s imperialism all over the world?
>>
>>791187
I would vote for dems if they didn't keep doing this retarded gun grabbing shit and running ex-CIA agent candidates.
>>
>>792297
Anon, we weren't talking about Britain at all. Go post a thread about Brits starving and lacking basic staples due to Brexit if you want to get your rocks off to bongs.
>>
>>792227
>B-but its justified having undocumented persons around because I need someone to exploit for roofing I can pay minimum wage to work 14 hours a day in 100° weather
Fuck yourself anon
>>
>>792289
I also remember when Obama said it. Don't worry, in 4 years a Republican will come along and cut taxes and add liquidity to the economy leading to regrowth and then democrats will kvetch about it and do the opposite
>>
>>792311
>Minimum wage
Less than minimum wage, that's why illegals are so popular - they don't have any labour rights.
>>
>>791953
>dumb, ineffective and expensive way to address the issue

Thought you were talking about gun control for a second there.
>>
>>791953
>I don't see why we should spend hundreds of billions of dollars to erect a symbolic monument to conservative nationalism.
The people who work on the border, that being USBP and DHS both want the wall. Construction of the wall started under Bush Sr and every single president has dumped money into it, including Obama.

Your resistance to the wall is based on nothing more than Trumps advocacy of the wall. Its purely emotional.
>>
>>792329
>Don't worry, in 4 years a Republican will come along and cut taxes and add liquidity to the economy leading to regrowth
Too bad once Obama got Bush's disaster fixed he had the same GDP growth rate as Trump pre-Trump virus (after Trump virus ofc it went to Great Depression levels because Trump sat around with his thumb up his butt) w/o raising taxes or giving your friendly neighborhood megacorporations $trillions on a gold platter.

Too bad you don't know American history and that the greatest period of growth in the US occured in the 50's when the top tax rate was 90%. Know why? Corporations invest in expansion to offset some of those taxes in deductions. Know something else? Turns out the extra taxes could be used to develop the US infrastructure which is only fair since the corporations get the most benefit from it. Know something else? Trickle down is an abject failure which is why a Democrat always has to come in and spend 4 years cleaning up the economic mess Republicants leave behind from Hoover's Great Depression to now, the Orange Slime's Great Depression.
>>
>>792309
Re read his post. Any one that uses “mum” when referring to a mother is a Brit. Just like when they say bollocks, arse, defence, torch instead of flashlight. Why do Brits argue about US immigration policy? They exploited every colony they set up.
>>
>>791187
One good reason to never vote Democrat. Anyone who supports the Second Amendment and votes for a Democrat is out of touch with reality.
>>
>>792388
so you vote for the deathcult instead ?
>>
>>792403
Not that anon but if you vote for an anti-gun candidate, you are not pro-gun.
>in before trump said this on twitter
>>
>>792377
>US occured in the 50's when the top tax rate was 90%
Because America was the only industrialized country on the planet that wasnt a bomb-crater, dipshit.

>Know something else? Trickle down is an abject failure
Know something else? There is no such thing as trickle down.
>>
>>791230
>Under his proposed legislation you would have to pay a $200 tax stamp and, if not, you would get in trouble IF you get caught.
So a tax on poor people, just like the O-care mandate
>>
>>791250
>Dems are satanic monsters that want to turn your children into slaves and slaughter the entire country, guns are a basic human right and evil communist ghosts live under your bed

It's no secret they are modeling their party after the CCP
>>
>>792384
I'm an Americunt and I use British words like mum, lad and arse just to make you redneck cracker inbreds seethe.
>>
>>792427
Do you think Jamal and Deshuan are going to fork over a nickle for their stamp? I’m in a Midwest college city and the vast majority of shooters caught are too young to legally own a handgun.
>>
>>792436
>I'm an Americunt and I use British words
Cunt being the operative word
>>
>>792388
I'm a Progressive who hunts with firearms and I support sensible gun control. There's a lot of Democrats and intelligent Republicans who are the same. In fact the majority of Americans support it. A smaller majority of Americans even support making possession or sale of assault rifles illegal as well. You're on the wrong side of history, gun nut. Go join a well regulated militia of mercenaries in swahililand where you can blow away women and children to your hearts content - the US doesn't want or need your "kind."
>>
>>792447
>I'm a Progressive who hunts with firearms and I support sensible gun control
Sure you do.
>>
>>792447
>I'm a Progressive who hunts with firearms and I support sensible gun control.
shut the fuck up and stop lying
>>
>>792447
>I'm a Progressive who hunts with firearms
That’s as ridiculous as a Catholic that supports abortion
>>
>>792551
Ok I can get the other people mocking him for the "Sensible gun control" bit but anon are progressives not supposed to go hunting or something?
>>
>>792553
Progressives vs Conservative
Conservative chooses to go vegetarian, makes individual choice. Progressive chooses to go vegetarian, “everyone should be vegetarian, the meat industry is terrible and we need to ban meat processing”. Conservative decides to buy an electric car, does so. Progressive goes electric, “internal combustion engines are bad, they need to be outlawed”. Conservative decides not to be a gun owner, makes a personal decision, progressive, “guns are bad, no one needs a gun, we need to ban the public from having them. Only the government is responsible enough to have guns”. It’s like this one from a few years ago.
BERKELEY, Calif. - A self-proclaimed "vegan runner" from Berkeley, California received backlash on Saturday after asking neighbors to close their windows when cooking meat because the smells were 'overpowering and offensive.'
"always hard for me this time of year when the weather starts warming up."
"Several nights a week I'm out running around dinnertime and when people have their windows open I can smell what they are cooking," the request said. "I've noticed a sharp uptick recently in smells of folks cooking meat and it can be quite overpowering."
"Quite honestly the odor is offensive and I'm hoping our community can have some empathy for its #plantbased neighbors by closing their windows if they are cooking meat and only putting vegetables on their bbq," the runner added.
Conservatives just want to be left alone and have choices, it seems progressives want to dictate what one can or cannot do.
And the sensible gun control is based on Bloomberg’s common sense gun control. Which basically says if you don’t agree with these policies that infringe on Constitutional rights, you are lacking common sense.
>>
>>791273
"Yes, I've noticed registering and licensing vehicles results in widespread confiscations. The only reason vehicles are registered is so they can immediately be confiscated."

Funny thing is, that's exactly what happens. They charge you a recurring fee and tax for the privilege of owning a car, if you fail to comply then men with guns take you to jail and impound your car.
>>
>>792449
>>792457
>>792551
What do you want me to go to /k/ and post my .22 rifle, .223 rifle, 30.06 rifle, 12 gauge and 20 gauge? Will you promise to whack off to them? They are fine guns.
>>
>>792649
Is your .223 one of those scary ghost gun fully semiautomatic capable of firing a detachable 30 round clip in half a second? Kevin Deleon. One of the buffoons wanting to ban ars. These are the people progressive voters put into office.
>>
>>792636
What a long, rambling list of retarded strawmen. Not only are half of these ridiculous, hyperbolic strawmen, its also a false dichotomy. Conservatives absolutely believe in forcing people to do what they want - whether it be banning people who they disagree with culturally or religiously from having access to the same resources or institutions as them or banning people from doing things they morally disagree, like getting abortions. Also, the argument that a moral/ethical position is bad simply because you think it should be legislated for the general public is retarded. That's all law is - codified morality. You and me may have different opinions on the topic of whether or not its okay to murder or rape but its still illegal to do it because we as a society have deemed it damaging enough to legislate against it. I could poke more holes in your stupid argument but I don't think you'd have enough brain wrinkles to comprehend them. Conservatives DONT want to be left alone. They want control over our culture, economy and social norms. They've proven that time and time again.
>>
>>792655
>Conservatives DONT want to be left alone. They want control over our culture, economy and social norms. They've proven that time and time again.
I’ll give you another example. Most conservatives don’t give a flying fuck what two grown adults do in the privacy of their own home. The left has to make an over the top dramatic statement. You ever been to a gay pride parade? Would you take a child to it?
Conservatives are against people getting abortions because they feel it is against their religious and ethical beliefs. They are really against having no say so that they pay for them with their tax dollars.
>>
>>792649
>lists calibers instead of actual makes and models
hahahaha fucking nogunz
>>
>>792664
These people stick out more than glowies.
Absolutely unable to blend in with the mannerisms or speech of those they are attempting to Influence
Remember, the Left knows best, knows better than you, and aren't afraid to force you to do what they think is best
>>
>>792649
Even if you are, you have to appreciate the irony of a gun owner who votes for anti-gun politicians.
>B-but I'm not a single issue voter
You're also not pro-gun.
>>
>>792662
Gaslighting - the post!
>>
>>792652
No. I'm a hunter. Those penis substitutes are worthless for hunting. Bolt action - far more accurate and the only thing necessary for hunting.
>>
>>792664
>>792665
I'm not on /k/ you whacko gun nuts, why would I list makes and models. Go try again to learn how to breakdown and clean your penis substitute. Oh, you failed again because you have the attention span of a 3 yo.
>>
>>792677
ok, retard
>>
>>792677
>Guiz I totally own guns. I'm so down with the 2A.
>Go try again to learn how to breakdown and clean your penis substitute.
kek
>>
>>792662
>Most conservatives don’t give a flying fuck what two grown adults do in the privacy of their own home.
They absolutely do. Conservatives never shut the fuck up about degeneracy and the degradation of the modern family and social cohesion. They advocate against things like allowing gay and trans people to adopt children - an activity that takes place in the privacy of two grown adults' homes. Additionally, this point is irrelevant. I don't want to have to keep my life and my behavior secreted in the privacy of my own home because living publicly makes conservatives uncomfortable. That's the whole contradictory, illogical conservative ethos - the insistence that everyone's free to do what they want so long as all the things they disagree with are hidden away from the public and done in secret.

>The left has to make an over the top dramatic statement.
And conservatives don't? You ever seen a Trump rally before? Lets be honest - you don't give a shit about dramatic statements. You just don't like it when people you disagree with do it.

>You ever been to a gay pride parade?
Yes.

>Would you take a child to it?
My child knows gay people exist. I wouldn't take a kid to most street fairs for many reasons that has nothing to do with people being gay.

>Conservatives are against people getting abortions because they feel it is against their religious and ethical beliefs.
So much so that they want to ban people who don't agree with their religious and ethical beliefs from doing it - completely debunking this asinine claim that conservatives advocate for leaving people alone. They don't.

>They are really against having no say so that they pay for them with their tax dollars.
I don't think tax dollars should be used for the purpose of satisfying each individual tax payer's moral convictions. That defeats the point of societal responsibility. We do it for the greater good. If it serves you but damages society then we ought to tell you to go fuck yourself.
>>
>>792676
>>792677
The best thing is that hunting is not protected by the second amendment. You can't list makes and models because you don't own any and were too lazy to google any.
>>792721
>I base my view of half the country around a vocal minority
>How dare anyone associate me with the vocal minority of my own party
>>
>>792649
This is a bad larp and you need to leave talking about guns to people who know what they are doing
>>
>>792735
>I base my view of half the country around a vocal minority
>How dare anyone associate me with the vocal minority of my own party

I have a hard time believing this is the best strawman you could come up with. Try again, anon. This was pathetic.
>>
>>792744
>I base my view of half the country around a vocal minority
Conservatives who believe in the traditional family unit, are against abortion and the legitimacy of trans people are the vast, vast majority, anon. This isn't even a controversial opinion. Based on polling data this is like a widely accepted and well known fact. Either you're genuinely so fucking dumb you have no idea what you're talking about or you're pretending like you're dumb to avoid reality.
>>
>>792721
Conservatives don’t like your degenerate crap because you have to do shit like March down the streets with giant dildos shoved up your ass while jacking each other off. And to you, that’s ok but you have a problem with someone wearing a God bless America shirt because you’re offended by that because you’re an atheist?
>>
>>792721
>They advocate against things like allowing gay and trans people to adopt children - an activity that takes place in the privacy of two grown adults' homes.
>2 adults plus a child
>I wonder what the issue is
It's not like there's been any recent news about 8 year olds being pressured to change genders when they can't even spell it. Oh hi Texas, how's the winter?
>>
>>792764
Spoiler alert but if your issue is 2 adults and a child I hate to inform you what happens when someone has children.
>>
>>792447
>>792649
>>792677
>I'm a Progressive who hunts with firearms and I support sensible gun control.
>What do you want me to go to /k/ and post my .22 rifle, .223 rifle, 30.06 rifle, 12 gauge and 20 gauge? Will you promise to whack off to them?
>Go try again to learn how to breakdown and clean your penis substitute.

You tried so hard and got so far. But in the end...
>>
>>792765
Nice try slick. You know damn well what I was implying. Here let me be specific and see you weasel your way out of this.
>an activity that takes place in the privacy of two grown adults' homes.
>an activity that also involves a child
>so NOT an activity that takes place only in the privacy of two grown adult's home.
If two grown adults want to stick explosive dildos up their asses I couldn't give a flying fuck. Involving children into your degenerate fetish is where I draw the line. See unlike you I believe there's still a chance that child can grow up to be a credit to society if they're not being forced to cut their dick off before they hit puberty.
>>
>>792770
Thousands of gay couples adopt every year without issue, just shut up and admit your scared of something you don't understand.

Hell, do you even have any idea how much shit actually goes into adopting? Adoptive parents have to basically undergo a full evaluation to make sure nothing will happen to their wards, the process can take literal years before the child is officially added to the household. If anything bads gonna happen to that kid you'll be DAMN sure the social workers will find that shit out beforehand.
>>
>>792771
Yeah that worked for these guys.
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/gay-conn-couple-accused-rape-face-trial-article-1.1310010
>>
>>792774
>If I site a one example, that means it's the rule not the exception
>>
>>792770
>If two grown adults want to stick explosive dildos up their asses I couldn't give a flying fuck. Involving children into your degenerate fetish is where I draw the line.
So firstly, its already illegal to sexually abuse your child. Secondly, there is zero evidence to suggest that children of gay or trans parents produce children with any more negative outcomes than straight parents so basically what you're advocating for is limiting the rights of other people to adopt and start families because you personally disagree with their completely legal lifestyle choices. This is a classic conservative "feels" argument. You've managed, in your own words, to completely validate my argument that conservative absolutely want to limit the personal rights of people they disagree with and frequently, vocally, advocate for the opposite position of leaving people alone.

>See unlike you I believe there's still a chance that child can grow up to be a credit to society if they're not being forced to cut their dick off before they hit puberty.
Children aren't undergoing sexual reassignment surgery. On top of having no factual basis to your argument now you're making shit up that doesn't happen to justify your bad argument.
>>
>>792776
>implying I only have one example
This shit is so prevalent that Netflix and HBO have shows for it. Look up "Transhood" documentary (Seriously don't do this if you're a normal person).
>>
>>792774
If I post an article about a straight couple raping their child could we start talking about the efficacy of banning straight people from adopting children?
>>
>>792780
>Secondly, there is zero evidence to suggest that children of gay or trans parents produce children with any more negative outcomes than straight parents
I'm looking at the evidence right now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxKAI3gIVRU
>>
>>792781
You'll pull up your dozen cherry picked examples from over the last 20 years and then proceed to ignore the thousands that have no issues.

Do you know what survivorship bias is btw?
>>
>>792784
The fact that you think this video is evidence says pretty much everything I need to know about your intelligence level. Its beyond unsurprising that YouTube videos are your main source for statistical analysis.

>>792781
Yeah, again, I don't get my data from cable entertainment. I'm talking about actual statistics. Do you have real statistics or is the movie you saw on HBO the best you got?
>>
>>792786
>Do you know what survivorship bias is btw?
About 40%?
>>
>>792786
Have it been possible for trans to adopt for 20 years?
>>
>>792786
You do the same thing for gun control.
>>
>>792946
2000? What would you need 1400 for? Getting Trump convicted is more important than your 800 dollar check
>>
>>792946
$2000?, we told you $1400 goyem. The $600 better be enough for you because you aren't getting that $20.00 we promised you.
>>
>>792954
>>792952
my lawyer will be in contact about that 2000 in student debt that you owe
>>
>>792946
It's being held up by repukelicants like always unless it's a mere $trillions to megacorporations then they all vote full speed ahead!
>>
>>793001
They are each a wing of the same bird. The Dems aren’t shy from taking and giving to mega corporations now.
>>
>>792388
>Anyone who votes for a Democrat is out of touch with reality.
This is true.
Also true: Anyone who votes for a Republican is out of touch with reality.
"Just throwing your vote away" has become the only reasonable option.
>>
>>792902
>You do the same thing for gun control
They absolutely do. I emailed Bloomberg’s every town for gun safety last year when they were trying to ban ARs in VA. I asked how they differentiate between a firearm being used to stop a rape, robbery, car jacking etc., and two gang bangers shooting it out over a drug deal. They count each as equal. They ignore the fact that actual crime goes down when the muggers, robbers, carjackers find out that they have a good chance of getting shot. The left cherry picks these instances and says oh my, gun crime is up 500% in the last 10 years. They fail to say that guns stopped, or the felon got shop while assaulting another. Remember that church shooting in TX? When the good guy shot the bad guy, they chalked it up to just anther case of gun violence.
>>
>>793203
Ask Moscow Mitch and the rest of the Republicants, bootlicker. I already got my $600 and since I was educated in a blue State I know $1400 added to it equals $2000. Biden will steamroll it through over the Republicants with reconciliation if they force him to.
>>
>>791220
what was it that Putin was saying years ago about American citizens should be keeping their arms in case the government start something on them
>>
remember weapons are never illegal, just undocumented
https://americanactionnews.com/politics/2021/02/17/biden-to-ban-use-of-term-illegal-alien-because-its-not-inclusive-enough/
>>
>>793226
>I already got my $600 and since I was educated in a blue State I know $1400 added to it equals $2000
Debunked damage control.

$200 was was explicitly promised by Biden. The $2000 was entirely separate from the $600 and was literally conditional on Georgia voters turning the state blue. Biden said this verbatim.
>>
>>793267
He tried to compromise with Republicants but even $1400 is too much for them since it's not $trillions to your friendly neighborhood megacorporations. Never fear, they'll be staring down the steam roller in the near future. He's just building political capital for those Dems running for Congress in 2022 where they can clearly show Republicants don't support the working middle class. Smart, politically savvy move, Biden is no fool.
>>
>>793327
>He tried to compromise with Republicants but
There's no butts. He lied, you believed it, now you want to blame Republicans because you're an NPC.

>Smart, politically savvy move, Biden is no fool.
Lmao, cope
>>
>>792946
Fuck off britard
>>
>>793334
Limbaugh is dead you homo
>>
>>793334
Suck my dick retard
>>
>>791273
They want a blanket ban on all firearms. That has always been the goal.
>>
>>793334
>Lmao, cope
You'll be coping as your dreams of taking back the Senate and House are dashed as the Democrats hammer over and over again to the middle class voters that the Republicants attempted to block their stimulus check because they only support giving $trillions to megacorporations. Your tears will be sweeter than they are even now, lol!
>>
>>793384
Nope, that's your rightwing echo chambers and the Orange Fool talking who equate all Dems to the @ 2% of the population who are female vegans. Your boogeyman has no wings, paranoiac.
>>
>>793398
Anon I don't believe in any of that shit. It's just obviously what they want, both democrats and republicans. I've already accepted that guns will be completely illegal in most countries, including America, 50 years from now. Gun laws always get stricter, they never get relaxed or repealed.
>>
>>793400
Based
>>
>>793384
This isn’t far off, the wealthy elite want a blanket ban on firearms for the public. The party connected will always be given access, as will their private security services. They don’t necessarily want to ban firearms, they want to ban them from you. Try to get a carry permit in NYFC, or parts of Cali. The Sherrif of the county Apple is hq’d just got caught in a bribe to give Apple’s corporate security ccw permits. Look at Mike Bloomberg, runs every town for gun safety, wants to ban guns, yet travels with bodyguards carrying fully automatic H&K sub machine guns. Another case of one set of laws for thee, another set of rules for me.
>>
>>791192
In the real world it takes weapons from the rich who use them to abuse the poor.
>>
Thanks Russian Bot
>>
>>791187
He knows that he can't completely take everything if people still have guns.

Ask yourself - If antifa got people to set fires to apartment buildings, farmlands, shoot trump supporters, what makes you think these same people won't start an argument and shoot some people for a baggy of drugs?
he's also doing this >>796114 (crashing gas, overt and obvious stock market manipulation) At the same time and threatening to take weapons to distract.
His son is a foreign oil exec, whos also intertwined with chinese bux https://nypost.com/article/hunter-biden-china-timeline-business-ties/
Then you have these articles recruiting people for PR jobs all over the place lately
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/2021/02/08/job-opportunity-how-become-public-relations-specialist/4314691001/

Keep in mind - if Biden is indicted for treason, and you're an american working for one of these firms spreading misinformation, so will you be et al. Just food for though.
>>
>>793392
The same megacorporations that worked to spread leftist propaganda and overwhelmingly supported Biden over Trump? The same mega corporations that want unlimited immigration and want guns to be illegal?
Yeah I guess Democrat voters are dumb enough to believe that voting blue is somehow voting against the mega corporations.
>>791273
Did the current Vice President say she wants to confiscate cars? Because she did say she wants to confiscate guns. I don't think Biden wants to go that far but he's like 80 years old, so there's a good chance Harris will become President and she does want gun confiscation
>>
>>791273
>he's never had his car impounded for being too poor

Privileged fucking https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/2021/02/08/job-opportunity-how-become-public-relations-specialist/4314691001/
shill.
>>
>>791348
>You are objectively incorrect. I'm amazed how confidently you spew these lies.
show me a statute telling otherwise. There is zero burden of proof in red flag laws.
>I can't post a link here
So there is no burden of proof. There is no evidence required. All the cops need to do is say they wasn't to deny someone their rights and it is rubber stamped, stop lying.
>>
>>791353
>You're drawing comparisons between our country and countries whose political and legal systems you don't understand to get to the conclusion you want. You have no idea how the constitution of the UK or NZ works.
They have gun grabbers in office and so do we. A registration will be used for confiscation. That's why dems want one. That is the goal.
>Again, I can't speak to your paranoid delusions. I can only go off of historical, legal precedent and basic common knowledge of how our country work.
And historic precedent is that NZ, AUS, and UK used registries for confiscation.
>Wrong again. Most illegal immigration comes through ports of entry and people overstaying their visas. The wall was a symbol for Trump's pro-nationalist agenda.
Reducing illegal immigration by 40% reduces illegal immigration. You wouldn't discount a cancer treatment because it "only works in 40% of cases"
>Tracing to where a gun came from, in theory, would be helpful.
HOW? elaborate. How would that be helpful?
>I already acknowledged that you're out of your mind. I wasn't appealing to your logic. I was appealing to the logic of anybody that doesn't suffer from the same debilitating mental illness that you do.
"anyone who disagrees with me is insane!" We have seen multiple nations use a registry for confiscation, you faggot.
>I've already gone down this Japanese internment camp road with you and you're completely and utterly incapable of engaging with any reality in which Democrats aren't the boogeymen that haunt your every dream. Comparing a Democrat in 1945 with modern Democrats is fucking retarded. Google the overton window. You're politically illiterate.
Dems today are more authoritarian than dems of the 1940s.
>Please. Seek psychiatric help. You're absolutely fucking unhinged.
"anyone against my agenda is mentally ill, reee"
>>
>>793230
Good advice considering how dems cannot be trusted
>>
>>796340
>show me a statute telling otherwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_law
Before you cry "muh wikipedia" all of the legal citations are at the bottom of the page. Here, I'll even cite the actual congressional bill for you.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/744/text

>There is zero burden of proof in red flag laws.
I really have no other way to engage with this other than to call you a liar. This is a lie. There is absolutely a burden of proof. I don't know why you keep repeating this lie.

>There is no evidence required. All the cops need to do is say they wasn't to deny someone their rights and it is rubber stamped
You're either purposefully lying or you have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe both.
>>
>>796347
because a $2m "PR" (Read:shills as indicated by more posters than in the past 3 months) campaign is nothing compared to the potential profits to be made if Bidens market manipulation works without anyone noticing.
>>
OP can't continue posting because he was the perp in the LA gun shop shooting who went batshit because he tried to by his 100th firearm but the proprietor told him he had been red flagged due to his insane gun nutzi rantings.

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-56144794
>>
>>796301
>overwhelmingly supported Biden over Trump?
You dig your own grave with that one cultist. Trump and Moscow Mitch gave corporations everything they could want: $trillions in permanent tax cuts, elimination of worker, consumer and environmental protections so they could happily continue scorching the earth and American people unabated. Yet they supported Biden because they recognised Trump was an utter disaster for America economically, domestically and internationally.

Unlike Trump and his cult, Boards of Directors are not stupid and don't make decisions on muh "feel good 30,000+ lies Dear Leader spews." They knew 4 more years of Trump would be a potentially unrecoverable disaster.
>>
>>796347
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_law
>Before you cry "muh wikipedia" all of the legal citations are at the bottom of the page. Here, I'll even cite the actual congressional bill for you.
>
>https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/744/text
Where does any of that say there is any burden of evidence on the state to take guns? There is none. Not a shred.
>I really have no other way to engage with this other than to call you a liar. This is a lie. There is absolutely a burden of proof. I don't know why you keep repeating this lie.
You have not shown that there is one.
>You're either purposefully lying or you have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe both.
You haven't shown it to be wrong. There is ZERO burden of proof to get someones guns confiscate (and possibly get them murdered) via red flag law.
>>
>it's ok for government agents to attack innocent citizens with tanks and grenades and military grade rifles
>but it would be a crime against humanity for civilians to be armed in the least capacity
>>
>>796360
>Where does any of that say there is any burden of evidence on the state to take guns? There is none. Not a shred.
It states it in the fucking congressional bill you illiterate monkey.

>You have not shown that there is one.
That's because you can't read.

>You haven't shown it to be wrong.
Yes I have. There are easily a dozen legal citations in the wiki that states the exact process for filing a petition and presenting your case to a judge.

>There is ZERO burden of proof to get someones guns confiscate (and possibly get them murdered) via red flag law.
I honestly don't know if you're trolling me.
>>
>>796372
>It states it in the fucking congressional bill you illiterate monkey.
Paste the section of the text that says it then retard
>That's because you can't read.
because you haven't posted proof
>Yes I have. There are easily a dozen legal citations in the wiki that states the exact process for filing a petition and presenting your case to a judge.
having to petition the court to get your guns back does not mean they had a shred of evidence to take them from you in the first place. That is disgusting and violates due process.
>I honestly don't know if you're trolling me.
No, the issue is you are a retard who thinks guilty until proven innocent is fine.
>>
>>796347
>argue this bullshit a week ago
>come back a week later
>this faggot here
I love how you COMPLETELY ignored my examples with Gary Willis and how there WAS NO FUCKING PROOF GIVEN before a judged signed his red flag order over-fucking-night because Willis's stupid cunt of a sister got butthurt arguing with him and got him killed.

Fucking love it how everything I said you just stick your fingers in your ears and say "lalala it didn't happen."
>>
>>796375
>Paste the section of the text that says it then retard
Not only do I have to give you proof I have to read it for you too?

"(C) BURDEN OF PROOF.—At any hearing conducted under subparagraph (A), the State or petitioner shall have the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent poses an imminent, particularized, and substantial risk of unlawfully using a firearm to cause death or serious physical injury to himself or herself or to another person."

(1) GENERALIZED CONCERNS INSUFFICIENT.—A generalized concern related to any hazards posed by firearm ownership or use generally shall not constitute sufficient basis for the issuance or renewal of an extreme risk protection order under this section.

>because you haven't posted proof
I have, you just don't know how to read. Either that or you just aren't even looking at any of the legal documents I cited.

>having to petition the court to get your guns back does not mean they had a shred of evidence to take them from you in the first place.
This is only in the case of ex-parte hearings. In every other case the respondent has the right to challenge the petition in court, in person. You would've known this if you knew how to read.

>No, the issue is you are a retard who thinks guilty until proven innocent is fine
You keep saying words that I'm 100% positive you don't know the meaning of. The literal legal text says the burden of proof is on the state or petitioner to provide evidence. Without evidence there is no order. Its clearly cited in the legal text and demonstrated in the hundreds of emergency protection order court cases. You live in a fucking delusion, child.
>>
>>796377
>I love how you COMPLETELY ignored my examples with Gary Willis and how there WAS NO FUCKING PROOF GIVEN
Prove it. I've provided my citations. You provide yours. I'd love to look over the evidence of the case. You don't expect me to just take your word for it, do you?

>Fucking love it how everything I said you just stick your fingers in your ears and say "lalala it didn't happen."
You've yet to substantiate a single one of your claims.
>>
>>796391
Y'know what, here

>>792035

Fucking read it and reply this time you stupid motherfucker. Fuck these god damn kids I'm sick of this shit.
>>
>>796395
>A judge denied Holmes’ petition because she didn’t have legal standing to file it.
The article you cited me was about a guy who never had his guns taken away because the judge denied the petition due to lack of evidence - exactly like I said. How fucking dumb are you that the evidence you provide me to prove there is no burden of proof for red flag laws is a story about a guy WHO DIDN'T HAVE HIS GUNS TAKEN AWAY BECAUSE THE PETITIONER DIDN'T MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF. Holy fucking shit, anon.
>>
>>796400
Yeah had nothing to do with him being a cop. I guess it just sucks to be those other four examples I gave.
>>
Does this include the police?
>>
>>796389
>"(C) BURDEN OF PROOF.—At any hearing conducted under subparagraph (A), the State or petitioner shall have the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent poses an imminent, particularized, and substantial risk of unlawfully using a firearm to cause death or serious physical injury to himself or herself or to another person."
"clear and convincing" without letting someone cross examine, without a jury, and not being "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a shit standard. That is basically fucking nothing. Imagine applying this to ban someone of speech or to say someone can't be a jew? It's a fucking joke and disgusting that you would think that is remotely acceptable. Do you have proof that every jurisdiction hits even this low standard?
>I have, you just don't know how to read. Either that or you just aren't even looking at any of the legal documents I cited.
You posted a wikipedia link
>This is only in the case of ex-parte hearings. In every other case the respondent has the right to challenge the petition in court, in person. You would've known this if you knew how to read.
Before their guns are taken? And is that true in every jurisdiction? And what of the punishment for people filing false reports?
>You keep saying words that I'm 100% positive you don't know the meaning of. The literal legal text says the burden of proof is on the state or petitioner to provide evidence. Without evidence there is no order. Its clearly cited in the legal text and demonstrated in the hundreds of emergency protection order court cases. You live in a fucking delusion, child.
It is no fucking burden of proof. Clear and convincing evidence is not reasonable to strip someone of their basic human rights. It is not reasonable to strip someone of their liberty. This is an end around around due process to take someone's rights away. It is disgusting and corrupt.
>>
>>796406
>Yeah had nothing to do with him being a cop.
Not only is this goalpost shifting but you have absolutely zero evidence that the only reason the petition wasn't granted is because he was a cop. You just pulled that out of your ass because you got BTFO'd by your own fucking citation. In an argument about whether or not there's a burden of proof for red flag laws your evidence that burden of proof didn't exist was a story about a guy who never had his guns taken away because there wasn't enough evidence to grant the petition. This is absolutely embarrassing for you.

>I guess it just sucks to be those other four examples I gave.
You didn't cite any other cases. All you did was say they existed. Do you have any citation to the actual court cases? I'd love to read more citations that say the opposite of what you say they do.
>>
>>796410
>"clear and convincing" without letting someone cross examine, without a jury, and not being "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a shit standard
I knew you would do this. I knew you would shift your goalpost from "There is no burden of proof" to "I don't like this burden of proof". What a weasely, dishonest little dipshit you are.

>That is basically fucking nothing
It isn't. We use this standard in literally every legal case that isn't a jury trial.

>You posted a wikipedia link
Which has cited sources at the bottom, like I said.

>Before their guns are taken?
Yes

>And is that true in every jurisdiction?
You would know the answers to all of these questions if you had read the fucking link I cited, anon.

>And what of the punishment for people filing false reports?
You don't know what the criminal punishment is for lying in court?

>It is no fucking burden of proof.
Yes it is, you just don't like the burden of proof. That's a completely different argument than saying a burden of proof doesn't exist. It absolutely does exist - as proven by the article that was cited to me about a guy who didn't have his guns taken away because the burden of proof wasn't met.

> It is not reasonable to strip someone of their liberty. This is an end around around due process to take someone's rights away. It is disgusting and corrupt.
As I suspected, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and base your opinions solely on your feelings. Every time I BTFO you, you shift your goalposts back a bit and use morally loaded language to cover up the fact that you've done zero research on this topic. I'm done with you, anon. You're the personification of bad faith.
>>
>>796416
>I knew you would do this. I knew you would shift your goalpost from "There is no burden of proof" to "I don't like this burden of proof". What a weasely, dishonest little dipshit you are.
Clean and convincing with an anti gun judge who is against heller and no jury is pretty much no burden of proof.
>It isn't. We use this standard in literally every legal case that isn't a jury trial.
why are you stripping someone of their basic human rights without a jury trial?
>Which has cited sources at the bottom, like I said.
then post the sources
>Yes
In what jurisdictions?
>You would know the answers to all of these questions if you had read the fucking link I cited, anon.
you are the one making the claim that it occurs in every jurisdiction. Prove it.
>You don't know what the criminal punishment is for lying in court?
have they ever prosecuted it? Women lie in court about rape all the time and they are almost never prosecuted for lying under oath about rape.
>Yes it is, you just don't like the burden of proof. That's a completely different argument than saying a burden of proof doesn't exist. It absolutely does exist - as proven by the article that was cited to me about a guy who didn't have his guns taken away because the burden of proof wasn't met.
There isn't one. Clear and convincing to an anti gun judge who doesn't believe in heller is literally just a rubber stamp.
>As I suspected, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and base your opinions solely on your feelings. Every time I BTFO you, you shift your goalposts back a bit and use morally loaded language to cover up the fact that you've done zero research on this topic. I'm done with you, anon. You're the personification of bad faith.
You have done no such thing chang, you have argued that someone should be able to have their rights stripped from them by anti gun judges based on hearsay. That is fucking bullshit. Red flag laws exist to deny people their rights without due process.
>>
>>791230
You can't tax a right outlined in the Constitution.
>>
Reminder, that the 1% fund the anti gun shills
These Are the Roughly 200 Businesses Whose Leaders Are Backing Gun Control Initiatives
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2021/02/21/these-are-the-roughly-200-businesses-whose-leaders-are-backing-gun-control-initia-n2585088
>>
>>796559
Don't forget lobbyists donated several times more to Democrats, Biden specifically, in 2020, than the competition. Almost like some sort of well-funded cabal.
>>
>>796565
They along with most other people opposed Trump at any cost. I don't know why you're surprised.
>>
>>796559
nice blog
>>
>>796566
>the 1% and people who followed their propaganda are anti trump
I don't think you are helping your case
>>
“Guns don't kill people, people kill people” is correct but never a reason/excuse not to control guns.
Because guns are always used by people especially those who love guns,and gun control is practically the control of gun (ab)users.
This is also true for the regulation of all other implements.
Don’t give immature people dangerous things

"Emotions Self-Responsibility Theory"
>>
>>796574
Guns don't kill people. BLM members do. More people are punched/kicked to death each year than are murdered by AR-15s.
>>
>>791948
Who says they’re being taken to begin with? That’s the point. No one’s taking your cars, except for thieves and cops. And that’s only if you fuck up one way or another
>>
>>791997
Due process is present. It comes after your guns are taken. Shits normal. Do you complain when you get jailed on suspicion of committing a crime? You get due process in the form of a trial, though that comes after your ass gets locked up. Or your guns taken. Taking guns, just like taking someone’s freedom is one thing, retaining it is another. And retention won’t happen without a trial either case.
>>
>>796574
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws"

Any laws that are made and followed, will only be followed by people with no intention to be criminals. Its a counter productive measure. They ignore handgun related violence which accounts for 99% of the recorded deaths and focus on "assault weapons" while calling for common sense gun laws? Common sense means going after the thing cause the most harm, handguns.
>>
>>792029
Question is if that 21 billion dollars will amount to anything given that people can just sneak in through the door instead.
>>
>>793068
> When the good guy shot the bad guy, they chalked it up to just anther case of gun violence.
...because the bad guy killed 2 people? What, gun crime isn’t up “500%”? Whether some crooks get stopped or not says nothing about the fact people are getting shot more and more. Even if they deserve to get shot.
>>
>>796582
If anything laws give the authorities the power to punish lawbreakers. Whether people follow them or not, if they don’t they get rekt. Banning handguns seems like a stretch since Heller says weapons in common use cannot be banned. Since handguns are used the most in gun caused crimes or killings, banning them would violate the common use clause. Assault weapons are not as commonly used, in peacetime and in crime, so it’s certainly fair game
>>
>>796580
NZ, UK, and Aus all used a registry for confiscation.
>>796581
>Due process is present. It comes after your guns are taken.
So then it isn't present because you are denying someone of their property and liberty without giving them their day in court first.
>Shits normal. Do you complain when you get jailed on suspicion of committing a crime?
gun owners under red flag laws are accused of no crimes.
>You get due process in the form of a trial, though that comes after your ass gets locked up. Or your guns taken. Taking guns, just like taking someone’s freedom is one thing, retaining it is another. And retention won’t happen without a trial either case.
You don't get a trial under red flag laws. There is no jury. You just have the government deny you your rights and potentially murder you with no evidence
>>
>>796591
>Assault weapons are not as commonly used, in peacetime and in crime, so it’s certainly fair game
"assault weapons" are almost never, ever used in crimes and if they are weapons of war as you claim (and allude to with the in peacetime shit) then that would mean the miller decision says the 2nd amendment explicitly protects them, because the miller decision says only guns that could be used for doing militia things are protected, hence short barreled shotguns are not.
But try to ban ARs, you are getting BTFO on that in California as we speak and 5 of the 6 conservative scotus members have pretty much outright said they don't believe an awb is constitutional.
>>
>>796594
>NZ, UK, and Aus all used a registry for confiscation
Good this this is the US of A
> So then it isn't present because you are denying someone of their property and liberty without giving them their day in court first.
First? Who said anything about giving it first? You’re guaranteed due process, no one said it has to come firsthand. People get jailed all the time - whether they STAY jailed is up to a judge. Same for guns seized by red flags. Though it seems the laws currently state there must be valid reason to apply red flag laws in the first place on somebody, it’s moot.

> gun owners under red flag laws are accused of no crimes.
Indeed, it’s a suspicion of grave danger instead. As the law demands

>You don't get a trial under red flag laws. There is no jury
Must there be juries? Are there NO trials whatsoever? Guess you never heard of bench trials before huh?
>>
>>796597
By peacetime I meant “in any state of affairs other than doing crime” which is why I followed it up with “crime”. Whether the courts regard assault weapons as necessary for a militia is beyond me. But I do say that they exist and were invented as weapons of war. In any case, if a ban were made, it would likely be according to whether guns are in common use, or not, which assault weapons don’t seem to be. Handguns seem like they’re here to stay, and that’s fine by me. Though this says nothing towards general gun control, forget bans.
>>
Shut the border to importation of more gangsters for the 1%ers gang.
>>
>>796620
>By peacetime I meant “in any state of affairs other than doing crime” which is why I followed it up with “crime”.
Tons of people use ARs for recreation/hunting and home defense. Plus once again, miller.
>Whether the courts regard assault weapons as necessary for a militia is beyond me. But I do say that they exist and were invented as weapons of war.
Literally every hunting rifle was invented to be a weapon of war. 9mm was too.
> In any case, if a ban were made, it would likely be according to whether guns are in common use, or not, which assault weapons don’t seem to be.
Based on what ?
>Handguns seem like they’re here to stay, and that’s fine by me. Though this says nothing towards general gun control, forget bans.
General gun control is also intolerable.
>>
>>796616
>Good this this is the US of A
Doesn't change the fact dems will use if for confiscation.
>First? Who said anything about giving it first? You’re guaranteed due process, no one said it has to come firsthand. People get jailed all the time - whether they STAY jailed is up to a judge. Same for guns seized by red flags.
Imagine applying this shit to religion for freedom of expression and banning someone from being Jewish until a trial. That's disgusting.
>Though it seems the laws currently state there must be valid reason to apply red flag laws in the first place on somebody, it’s moot.
Nope. Red flag laws do not require valid reasoning, only hearsay and lies.
>Indeed, it’s a suspicion of grave danger instead. As the law demands
Which means the law is unconstitutional.
>Must there be juries? Are there NO trials whatsoever? Guess you never heard of bench trials before huh?
There needs to be a jury if you are depriving someone of their basic human rights as protected by the constitution.
>>
>>796620
>Common use
Millions in circulation, is this common use enough for you
>Handguns are fine
A vast majority of crimes are committed with handguns. Can you make an attempt to learn about a subject before trying to ban it? Many states already have more restrictions on buying and carrying handguns and they're not working. Maybe if you addressed the reasons people committed crimes you could actually do something about it.
>>
>>796722
>>796723
How much is Sturm, Ruger & Co paying you to shill here?
>>
>>796728
Zero. Why would I need to be paid to defend my basic human rights? The 1% on the other hand pay people to shill anti gun stuff.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2021/02/21/these-are-the-roughly-200-businesses-whose-leaders-are-backing-gun-control-initia-n2585088
>>
>>796766
>Zero
So you do it for free?
>basic human rights
Who are the ad wizards who came up with that one? You are shilling for a gun company's products, not saving the world.
> The 1% on the other hand pay people to shill anti gun stuff.
The 1% make the guns.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethmacbride/2018/11/25/americas-gun-business-is-28b-the-gun-violence-business-is-bigger/
>>
>>796768
>The 1% are trying to destroy their own cash cow
I'm sure there are rich people in the industry, that doesn't mean that people should not be able to defend themselves. Did you read that article where it says most of that revenue is from defense contracts? Or the part where it says we can't solve it because it's complex and emotional? What about the part that talked about the program in Boston that works with people at risk of gun violence and sees results?
>>
>>796768
How are the founding fathers "ad wizards"? Anti gunners have more money and spend more money than gun advocates. The 1% are trying to deny people their human rights. Bloomberg is worth like $60 billion by himself. Why would someone go into guns to get rich when so many gun companies go bankrupt? And if you want to decrease nra donations that is easy, stop trying to ban guns and people will stop donating, faggot
>>
>>796777
Once again gun nutzis spew a false narrative about no gun control groups' spending vs. gun control groups' spending.

>Yet while the debate has generated millions of dollars in campaign contributions and lobbying on both sides, gun rights advocates have sharply outspent groups advocating gun control.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/02/15/gun-rights-lobby-outspends-gun-control-advocates-by-a-wide-margin.html

Now, tbs, the NRA was far outspent in the VA races because the criminal grifter executives had emptied their Treasury of $tens of millions to their own pockets so they only had $400,000 to spend. Go figure, gun nutzis are suckers and easy marks just like magat cultists. Fools, every one of them.

>Everytown for Gun Safety, a group co-founded by presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg, raises its most money ever in 2018.
>A source says Bloomberg donated $38 million as part of Everytown's combined $106 million haul last year. The total represents nearly double what it raises in 2017.
>The NRA, by comparison, raises more than $350 million last year, although its revenue growth is at a slower 12%.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/11/26/bloomberg-vs-nra-huge-donation-lifts-gun-safety-groups-revenue.html
>>
>>791230
Taxing will keep the poor minorities from getting ahold of those guns. How progressive of biden.
>>
>>796783
Most people here debating you are not fans of the NRA. When the NRA dies and people start donating to organizations that actually care about the 2nd Amendment and win court cases, you'll wish for that boogeyman to come back.
>>
>>796783
Oh look, nigel has come back to defend the billionaires who are trying to take our guns. Makes sense, he gave up his guns to his monarch and wants people an ocean away to do the same.
Serially Nigel, give it up. We know you are British. Why do you care?
>>
>>796798
In what schizo paranoid delusion of yours do I appear to be British, you loony?
>>
>>796838
You use the same words in all your posts nigel, get a new script written by a native English speaker and not one of your retarded bong friends.
>>
>>796839
t. prime candidate for red flag laws due to severe paranoid schizophrenia.
>>
>>796859
>anyone who outs someone for being a bong needs to have their human rights denied
Cool story, nigel
>>
>>792102
So your argument for immigration is that we need fresh slaves to feed the capitalist appetite of modern society, rather than paying fair wages in good working conditions?
>>
Who cares? He is not the actual president. We don't actually have to obey any of the laws passed during his tenure.





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.