[POLITICS] If Trump is Innocent, he should prove it

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 . . . 21 NEXT
 

Saelune:

Letting terrorists hold rallies is not a good plan.

But that's Trump's favourite way to get his ego fix.

Saelune:
So are you saying it is ok to respond to oppression with violence in general or just with guns? Is punching Nazis ok to you, or just shooting Nazis?

Are there actual Krauts at your door, looking to raid your home and take you or your loved ones? Guns, explosives, melee weapons, whatever works.

Being pro-gun clearly means being pro-violence. I hope you realize that. Being pro-gun means you advocate shooting people.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum. Being anti-gun means you're for minorities being defenseless at the hands of their oppressor, by that same leap. Wishing to protect yourself and having sufficient means to do so does not mean you are pro-violence. "Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft."

Saelune:
You realize a major point I often have to make is how a lot of people claim to be 'Not a Republican' but then say a bunch of Right-Wing Republican stuff?

You realize a major point I'm making is that a lot of what you say is incredibly Authoritarian, and has very creepy Fascist overtones? In your battle against your enemy, you are becoming that enemy.

That's my whole point here too. Libertarians are just Republicans who don't want to admit it.

Except for, you know, pretty much everything we disagree on, but at least we don't strawman each other. Except when it's funny.

Leg End is super Right-Wing, even more than you are.

Do you even read my posts?

I think people should have equal rights, as in people are treated equal based on their actions. A black person and a white person who do the same thing should be treated the same for it. I dont limit my opposition to gun rights to just the white gun nuts. I think gun restriction needs to be equally and thuroughly enforced.

Because only the Government having guns has worked out perfectly in the past, right? And people that the Government thinks it is cool to have guns. I still don't understand how you don't see that as a problem, considering your worldview. What are you going to fight Nazis with? Rocks?

Leg End:
Because only the Government having guns has worked out perfectly in the past, right?

Well, it's sometimes gone wrong, sure... but it's difficult to think of an example of a real-world scenario worse than the current status quo in the USA, with extreme ease-of-access to munitions and extraordinarily frequent school shootings.

Silvanus:

Well, it's sometimes gone wrong, sure... but it's difficult to think of an example of a real-world scenario worse than the current status quo in the USA, with extreme ease-of-access to munitions and extraordinarily frequent school shootings.

Considering our population total and the amount of them that are more or less standard incidents that happen to take place on school grounds? It's about right for the amount of nutcases that exist. The vast majority of them are run of the mill violent incidents that simply feature a school as a backdrop, or being related by being on legal school property, and in those same cases it's about on-par with the amount that would happen with other weapons one would perform these acts with. Gun control isn't going to stop the serious nuts from killing people. At best, you may change the tool. We should be glad that nobody has decided to take the time to make explosives and start bombing schools, which would probably be followed by many, many copycats that want the fame and attention that the media gives these scumbags.

In short, it is assigning blame to inanimate objects and thinking that attempting restriction on them is going to somehow change the behavior of psychopaths. UK effectively banned guns, and now everyone loves knives and assorted pointy items. If you want to actually have a change, you must address humanity. Spread some love, parent your kids, teach them the value of human life. You'll still have nutcases, but we'll at least be sure we're not making any.

On the note of government and gun control, I'm essentially pointing out that wanting only the government to have guns, yet saying that the same government is run by a tyrannical cheeto that hates everyone that isn't white, is absolutely insane.

Saelune:

Anyone who becomes racist cause people called them racist were always racist and are looking for an excuse.

I didn't say anyone became racist because they were called racists. I said some racists became Republicans because Republicans were called racist. Because when the Democratic Party gave up on Jim Crow, rather than say there's no party for racists in America, they played TV ads telling everyone that racists are Republican instead. It was a sleazy political tactic that hasn't stopped hurting people to this day.

Saelune:
It is really fucked up how vilified people who actually care about equal rights are.

It's not being vilified for caring about equal rights, it's being vilified for being either dishonest or misguided. You could just as easily say "it's messed up how vilified people who actually care about preventing kids from having autism are" but we know what anti-vaxxers are vilified, don't we? Good intentions without truth leads to villainous results.

Lil devils x:

It isn't that they "weren't real democrats" it is that The people switched parties and platforms. The southern Democrats switched to being Republicans and changed the platform is the issue. The 1950's Republican Platform was pro immigrant, Pro welfare,Higher minimum wage, Pro Union, and equal pay. That is currently the Democrat platform, while republicans now oppose all of those things. It is now the Republicans passing the bills to re segregate schools, not Democrats. The reality is that even though the parties switched, the same geographical regions that promoted racism in the past are still much of the ones doing so today, and they used to be Democrat and are now Republican. It isn't about the "party name" as it is about the people and local custom.

This goes in to more detail about when and how this happened:
https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south

This still isn't true. The party switch myth is just a myth, and you're welcome to move beyond the historical fiction propogated in articles like this. The official party platforms of every election are available for the entire 20th century. Take a day off from your database of news articles and read some primary sources. The Republican Party is not anti-immigrant now, nor is it anti-welfare now. Higher minimum wage is entirely relative to circumstance and both the laws and the economy are very different now, Republicans weren't pro-Union in the 50s (the unions were basically Democrat machines), and if by equal pay you mean between men and women, the reason that changed is because it's already illegal to pay women less than men for the same work and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.

kevenzo:

No, Republicans have destroyed their public image by their own hands because of their extreme religious beliefs and a selfish want to be the one calling the shots. America should be a United Country were we work out our differences together and not destroy each other in a us vs them scenario.

Years and years of RWing hate radio with hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity constantly spreading lies against socialism, diversity, environment, activists, Feminism, Soros and the Democratic party have divided us as a country greatly. Even when the Democratic party tries to work with the other side the Repubs do everything in their power to impede any bill or idea that has to do with anything above. The Dems do have some blame in dividing the Country sure, but if you look past the propaganda and lies they generally want to improve the general wellbeing of everyone in the Country. They want to give a voice to the people who never really had a chance to speak before, but Rwingers and some Libertarians want to blow it out of proportion and say "Omg, Forced Diversity" "Oh Great more Feminism" etc

Political division in America didn't begin with 90s talk radio. The Democratic Party had a couple centuries of sowing division for political expedience before Rush Limbaugh hit the radio. To this day, the Democrat M.O. is always to put forth terrible bills that would hurt millions or deny people basic rights in order to make headlines about Republicans voting against women or the environment. My personal favorite scam was the "no fly, no buy" bill, a hypothetical effort to keep people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns; the Republicans voted it down because it a) denied people a constitutional right without due process, b) was unenforceable without disseminating the FBI watch list to gun purchase background checks, and thus c)could be abused by terrorists to check if they're on the FBI watch list just be casually going to a gun store, and finally d) would have been struck down by the courts with the very first lawsuit from someone denied a gun with no criminal history. Of course, that correct perspective didn't stop the headlines of "GOP blocks bill to stop terrorists from buying guns" and the claim that congress is hostage to the gun lobby. Environmental bills are the same thing, they don't care about the problem, they just care about the people who will vote for them, so they write deliberately insane bills with titles that claim to be good for the environment so that they can demonize the GOP for voting them down. Ask yourself, of the Democratic Presidential Primary candidates, how many would allow increased nuclear energy deployment to fight climate change? The answer, to my knowledge, is 3. Because it's more important to make it look like Republicans hate the environment than it is to actually solve problems.

Republicans don't want to destroy the environment, don't hate women, aren't white supremacists, etc. But it's politically expedient for Democrats if you think they are. The tiny bit of division sown by people like Sean Hannity pales in comparison to the machine of the Democratic Party.

Leg End:
Gun control isn't going to stop the serious nuts from killing people.

It is going to make killing harder however, and a lot of shootings aren't by serious people, they are by angry boys who've got a very convenient way to attack multiple people sitting in their parent's closet. In Western nations that restrict guns, you do not see a proportional amount of other murders committed without them. Yes, you might see more knife crime, not always to the same extent, and not with the same (yearly, proportional) amount of deaths and injuries.

Leg End:

Saelune:
So are you saying it is ok to respond to oppression with violence in general or just with guns? Is punching Nazis ok to you, or just shooting Nazis?

Are there actual Krauts at your door, looking to raid your home and take you or your loved ones? Guns, explosives, melee weapons, whatever works.

Being pro-gun clearly means being pro-violence. I hope you realize that. Being pro-gun means you advocate shooting people.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum. Being anti-gun means you're for minorities being defenseless at the hands of their oppressor, by that same leap. Wishing to protect yourself and having sufficient means to do so does not mean you are pro-violence. "Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft."

Saelune:
You realize a major point I often have to make is how a lot of people claim to be 'Not a Republican' but then say a bunch of Right-Wing Republican stuff?

You realize a major point I'm making is that a lot of what you say is incredibly Authoritarian, and has very creepy Fascist overtones? In your battle against your enemy, you are becoming that enemy.

That's my whole point here too. Libertarians are just Republicans who don't want to admit it.

Except for, you know, pretty much everything we disagree on, but at least we don't strawman each other. Except when it's funny.

Leg End is super Right-Wing, even more than you are.

Do you even read my posts?

I think people should have equal rights, as in people are treated equal based on their actions. A black person and a white person who do the same thing should be treated the same for it. I dont limit my opposition to gun rights to just the white gun nuts. I think gun restriction needs to be equally and thuroughly enforced.

Because only the Government having guns has worked out perfectly in the past, right? And people that the Government thinks it is cool to have guns. I still don't understand how you don't see that as a problem, considering your worldview. What are you going to fight Nazis with? Rocks?

Im white. But immigrants do have ICE to deal with, and they are absolutely equivocal to Nazis at their door.

You are the one promoting violence and division here. That is your talk of guns and 2nd amendments. You talk of supporting the freedom to shoot the police, to shoot the government. That is what YOU are advocating. And you call me violent. I don't see you putting your guns where your mouth is.

To people with privilage, equality feels like oppression. Trump is authoritarian. He claims any criticism of him is equal to treason. Giving a fuck about other people is not fascist. Donald Trump is a fascist, Mitch McConnel is a fascist. Neo Nazis are fascist. If you think I am a fascist, you dont know what a fascist is. But then the Right also thinks being opposed to fascism means you're a communist, so I am not surprised you dont know what a fascist is.

Not enough for you to ever oppose them.

You are super Right-Wing. You are one of the leading Right-Wingers on this site. Behind perhaps CM156, but not by much, but he atleast is honest about being pro-Trump.

The rest of the world proves gun-nuts are wrong. Bombs are illegal, and it works out. Whats nice is when someone uses a bomb in their evil, no one doubts they are evil...unless they are pro-Trump anyways.

I want to take the guns out of the hands of Nazis. You dont. I want people who own guns to be trustable with that responsibility. Gun nuts objectively oppose measures to keep guns out of bad people's hands. I actually do not oppose people owning guns, I just oppose most of the people who worship guns to own them, because they are often far too fanatical. Anyone who joins a crown-wearing gun cult is not someone who deserves a gun.

tstorm823:

Saelune:

Anyone who becomes racist cause people called them racist were always racist and are looking for an excuse.

I didn't say anyone became racist because they were called racists. I said some racists became Republicans because Republicans were called racist. Because when the Democratic Party gave up on Jim Crow, rather than say there's no party for racists in America, they played TV ads telling everyone that racists are Republican instead. It was a sleazy political tactic that hasn't stopped hurting people to this day.

Saelune:
It is really fucked up how vilified people who actually care about equal rights are.

It's not being vilified for caring about equal rights, it's being vilified for being either dishonest or misguided. You could just as easily say "it's messed up how vilified people who actually care about preventing kids from having autism are" but we know what anti-vaxxers are vilified, don't we? Good intentions without truth leads to villainous results.

Lil devils x:

It isn't that they "weren't real democrats" it is that The people switched parties and platforms. The southern Democrats switched to being Republicans and changed the platform is the issue. The 1950's Republican Platform was pro immigrant, Pro welfare,Higher minimum wage, Pro Union, and equal pay. That is currently the Democrat platform, while republicans now oppose all of those things. It is now the Republicans passing the bills to re segregate schools, not Democrats. The reality is that even though the parties switched, the same geographical regions that promoted racism in the past are still much of the ones doing so today, and they used to be Democrat and are now Republican. It isn't about the "party name" as it is about the people and local custom.

This goes in to more detail about when and how this happened:
https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south

This still isn't true. The party switch myth is just a myth, and you're welcome to move beyond the historical fiction propogated in articles like this. The official party platforms of every election are available for the entire 20th century. Take a day off from your database of news articles and read some primary sources. The Republican Party is not anti-immigrant now, nor is it anti-welfare now. Higher minimum wage is entirely relative to circumstance and both the laws and the economy are very different now, Republicans weren't pro-Union in the 50s (the unions were basically Democrat machines), and if by equal pay you mean between men and women, the reason that changed is because it's already illegal to pay women less than men for the same work and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.

kevenzo:

No, Republicans have destroyed their public image by their own hands because of their extreme religious beliefs and a selfish want to be the one calling the shots. America should be a United Country were we work out our differences together and not destroy each other in a us vs them scenario.

Years and years of RWing hate radio with hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity constantly spreading lies against socialism, diversity, environment, activists, Feminism, Soros and the Democratic party have divided us as a country greatly. Even when the Democratic party tries to work with the other side the Repubs do everything in their power to impede any bill or idea that has to do with anything above. The Dems do have some blame in dividing the Country sure, but if you look past the propaganda and lies they generally want to improve the general wellbeing of everyone in the Country. They want to give a voice to the people who never really had a chance to speak before, but Rwingers and some Libertarians want to blow it out of proportion and say "Omg, Forced Diversity" "Oh Great more Feminism" etc

Political division in America didn't begin with 90s talk radio. The Democratic Party had a couple centuries of sowing division for political expedience before Rush Limbaugh hit the radio. To this day, the Democrat M.O. is always to put forth terrible bills that would hurt millions or deny people basic rights in order to make headlines about Republicans voting against women or the environment. My personal favorite scam was the "no fly, no buy" bill, a hypothetical effort to keep people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns; the Republicans voted it down because it a) denied people a constitutional right without due process, b) was unenforceable without disseminating the FBI watch list to gun purchase background checks, and thus c)could be abused by terrorists to check if they're on the FBI watch list just be casually going to a gun store, and finally d) would have been struck down by the courts with the very first lawsuit from someone denied a gun with no criminal history. Of course, that correct perspective didn't stop the headlines of "GOP blocks bill to stop terrorists from buying guns" and the claim that congress is hostage to the gun lobby. Environmental bills are the same thing, they don't care about the problem, they just care about the people who will vote for them, so they write deliberately insane bills with titles that claim to be good for the environment so that they can demonize the GOP for voting them down. Ask yourself, of the Democratic Presidential Primary candidates, how many would allow increased nuclear energy deployment to fight climate change? The answer, to my knowledge, is 3. Because it's more important to make it look like Republicans hate the environment than it is to actually solve problems.

Republicans don't want to destroy the environment, don't hate women, aren't white supremacists, etc. But it's politically expedient for Democrats if you think they are. The tiny bit of division sown by people like Sean Hannity pales in comparison to the machine of the Democratic Party.

So you're saying that racists became Republicans because Republicans were racist?

You are dishonest or misguided. Not sure which though. Either you are intentionally lying, or you are incredibly misinformed on most everything. Asita already thoroughly proved how wrong most of what you say is, and you continue to spread misinformation.

You saying the switch is a myth is already a big fat falsehood you are propagating. And the Republican Party BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION is anti-immigrant. Its one of their main political platforms. It is also incredibly anti-welfare. Again, THEY ARE PROUD OF THESE THINGS!

You are objectively wrong on numerous accounts and you need to either check your facts or stop saying blatantly untrue things.

CITATION NEEDED FOR ALL THE THINGS YOU SAY!

Thaluikhain:

It is going to make killing harder however

Is it?

and a lot of shootings aren't by serious people, they are by angry boys who've got a very convenient way to attack multiple people sitting in their parent's closet.

Are we still talking specifically about School related shootings, or shootings as a whole? Because if we're talking in general, the number of shootings committed by angry punks with their parent's guns is utterly dwarfed by the amount that are committed by other angry punks in gang shootings that got their guns off of someone in the streets. We're focusing on the means instead of focusing on actually fixing the illness that plagues us. School shootings are a relatively recent phenomenon in the US, and is one that goes against the statistics of the United States having violent crime ultimately going down. If you actually want to solve the problem, have the media stop romanticizing and giving eternal life to murderers, and stop glorification of gang life.

Owning guns is a privilege. It is about time the US acknowledges that. People have to prove they are capable of using a gun responsibly. Not even most cops have done that though.

The thing about shootings, is who ever gets a second chance? We cant go on their gun history, cause usually they have just one instance...and are dead by the end of it, usually by their own gun. I don't trust most people with a gun, hell, I don't trust most people with kids or a car. It should not be easier to get a gun than to get a driver's license.

Saelune:
Im white. But immigrants do have ICE to deal with, and they are absolutely equivocal to Nazis at their door.

So illegally entering and residing in a country and being forced to leave is the same as being hunted for being Jewish and stuck in an oven? Absolutely the same thing.

You are the one promoting violence and division here. That is your talk of guns and 2nd amendments. You talk of supporting the freedom to shoot the police, to shoot the government. That is what YOU are advocating. And you call me violent.

You advocate punching Nazis and 'Nazis', I advocate maintaining a strong arsenal in the hands of The People with which to deter and, in the worst case scenario, use against tyrannical threats both foreign and domestic.

I don't see you putting your guns where your mouth is.

...Not sure if you understand how that sounds. it's funny though.

To people with privilage, equality feels like oppression.

Feel like this applies nicely to Affirmative Action.

Trump is authoritarian.

One of the few things we can actually agree upon, to different degrees. He does have some authoritarian tendencies.

He claims any criticism of him is equal to treason.

Don't think I've seen this.

Giving a fuck about other people is not fascist. Donald Trump is a fascist, Mitch McConnel is a fascist. Neo Nazis are fascist. If you think I am a fascist, you dont know what a fascist is.

I know that you would love to silence your opposition, which is kind of a big thing with both Fascism and every Communist state.

But then the Right also thinks being opposed to fascism means you're a communist, so I am not surprised you dont know what a fascist is.

And you think that people who like guns are all Right-Wingers, so what does that actually say about your knowledge of the American Right? Or Communism for that matter. Even Marx understood that the Proletariat need to be armed in order to start the Revolution. What were those words again...?
"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary."

Not enough for you to ever oppose them.

This meaning the Republican bit? i've opposed them more than my fair share, and will do so again when they start moving in to be the fabled "Party of Bad Ideas".

You are super Right-Wing. You are one of the leading Right-Wingers on this site. Behind perhaps CM156, but not by much, but he atleast is honest about being pro-Trump.

Can you please explain how I'm Right-Wing? Yeah, I love guns. I want border security and people to come in legally. These are not exclusively Right-Wing things.

The rest of the world proves gun-nuts are wrong. Bombs are illegal, and it works out.

image

I want to take the guns out of the hands of Nazis.

No, you apparently want to make sure only the Nazi US Government has them. Do you really not see the problem with only the Government having guns, and at the same time you're complaining that the US is run by Hitler's reincarnation?

I want people who own guns to be trustable with that responsibility.

So you trust a supposedly Nazi occupied government with guns?

Gun nuts objectively oppose measures to keep guns out of bad people's hands. I actually do not oppose people owning guns, I just oppose most of the people who worship guns to own them, because they are often far too fanatical. Anyone who joins a crown-wearing gun cult is not someone who deserves a gun.

So what do you think of these guys?image

Saelune:
Owning guns is a privilege. It is about time the US acknowledges that. People have to prove they are capable of using a gun responsibly.

Speaking freely is a privilege. It is about time that the US acknowledges that. People have to prove they're capable of speaking responsibly.

The thing about shootings, is who ever gets a second chance? We cant go on their gun history, cause usually they have just one instance...and are dead by the end of it, usually by their own gun.

I dunno. Those gang shootings seem to have a lot of repeat offenders. Not like they even got their guns legally, but still.

I don't trust most people with a gun, hell, I don't trust most people with kids or a car. It should not be easier to get a gun than to get a driver's license.

This is, again, one of those things we oddly agree on in certain respects. I don't understand how anyone against Guns sees absolutely nothing wrong with Cars being such a common thing, and don't even bat an eye at the death statistics. But, you know, convenience over the almost 40k a year dead in the US because people can't ride bikes or take a bus.

Leg End:

Saelune:
Im white. But immigrants do have ICE to deal with, and they are absolutely equivocal to Nazis at their door.

So illegally entering and residing in a country and being forced to leave is the same as being hunted for being Jewish and stuck in an oven? Absolutely the same thing.

You are the one promoting violence and division here. That is your talk of guns and 2nd amendments. You talk of supporting the freedom to shoot the police, to shoot the government. That is what YOU are advocating. And you call me violent.

You advocate punching Nazis and 'Nazis', I advocate maintaining a strong arsenal in the hands of The People with which to deter and, in the worst case scenario, use against tyrannical threats both foreign and domestic.

I don't see you putting your guns where your mouth is.

...Not sure if you understand how that sounds. it's funny though.

To people with privilage, equality feels like oppression.

Feel like this applies nicely to Affirmative Action.

Trump is authoritarian.

One of the few things we can actually agree upon, to different degrees. He does have some authoritarian tendencies.

He claims any criticism of him is equal to treason.

Don't think I've seen this.

Giving a fuck about other people is not fascist. Donald Trump is a fascist, Mitch McConnel is a fascist. Neo Nazis are fascist. If you think I am a fascist, you dont know what a fascist is.

I know that you would love to silence your opposition, which is kind of a big thing with both Fascism and every Communist state.

But then the Right also thinks being opposed to fascism means you're a communist, so I am not surprised you dont know what a fascist is.

And you think that people who like guns are all Right-Wingers, so what does that actually say about your knowledge of the American Right? Or Communism for that matter. Even Marx understood that the Proletariat need to be armed in order to start the Revolution. What were those words again...?
"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary."

Not enough for you to ever oppose them.

This meaning the Republican bit? i've opposed them more than my fair share, and will do so again when they start moving in to be the fabled "Party of Bad Ideas".

You are super Right-Wing. You are one of the leading Right-Wingers on this site. Behind perhaps CM156, but not by much, but he atleast is honest about being pro-Trump.

Can you please explain how I'm Right-Wing? Yeah, I love guns. I want border security and people to come in legally. These are not exclusively Right-Wing things.

The rest of the world proves gun-nuts are wrong. Bombs are illegal, and it works out.

image

I want to take the guns out of the hands of Nazis.

No, you apparently want to make sure only the Nazi US Government has them. Do you really not see the problem with only the Government having guns, and at the same time you're complaining that the US is run by Hitler's reincarnation?

I want people who own guns to be trustable with that responsibility.

So you trust a supposedly Nazi occupied government with guns?

Gun nuts objectively oppose measures to keep guns out of bad people's hands. I actually do not oppose people owning guns, I just oppose most of the people who worship guns to own them, because they are often far too fanatical. Anyone who joins a crown-wearing gun cult is not someone who deserves a gun.

So what do you think of these guys?image

Its how it starts. You should not be ok with ICE. ICE is evil and a stepping stone to Secret Police. We already have internment camps.

You advocate owning guns to use against the government. That is what you advocate by supporting the 2nd Amendment the way you do. Do not lie and say otherwise. If you are going to support that, admit it.

Ok, that phrasing was honestly an accident. And for the record, I was advocating being true to the beliefs you claim, not advocating suicide.

We wouldnt need affirmative action if bigots stopped being in control of hiring practices.

We disagree on whether we are willing to support his authoritarianism though. Trump is worthy of no support whatsoever. Any is too much.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/23/trump-not-understanding-treason-names-people-he-thinks-committed-capital-crime/?noredirect=on

My 'opposition' here being Nazis and fascists you mean. This is a common tactic of the Right, to try to defang teh severety of this so called 'opposition' to phrase it as if merely disagreeing with me is what we're talking about when we're actually talking about people who want to commit genocide against blacks, jews and LGBT people. It is intentionally manipulative and misleading and you know it.

People who choose gun rights over human rights are Right-Wingers. I trust ObsidianJones to not make that mistake. I dont trust anyone in the NRA.

If now is not the time to oppose them, then you are on their side and that makes you wrong.

Those things together along with the above point makes you Right-Wing. Your constant defense and support of the Right is why you are Right-Wing. That you dont admit this is even more problematic than you being Right-Wing.

You're going to have to elaborate on this picture. I am guessing he is some sort of bomber?

I want rules and laws to keep guns out of bad people's hands. This includes most of the police too.

I trusted the Obama Administration. Trump is a terrorist and his government is evil and corrupt.

I think they talked a bigger game than they were willing to play. What do you think of them?

Leg End:

Saelune:
Owning guns is a privilege. It is about time the US acknowledges that. People have to prove they are capable of using a gun responsibly.

Speaking freely is a privilege. It is about time that the US acknowledges that. People have to prove they're capable of speaking responsibly.

The thing about shootings, is who ever gets a second chance? We cant go on their gun history, cause usually they have just one instance...and are dead by the end of it, usually by their own gun.

I dunno. Those gang shootings seem to have a lot of repeat offenders. Not like they even got their guns legally, but still.

I don't trust most people with a gun, hell, I don't trust most people with kids or a car. It should not be easier to get a gun than to get a driver's license.

This is, again, one of those things we oddly agree on in certain respects. I don't understand how anyone against Guns sees absolutely nothing wrong with Cars being such a common thing, and don't even bat an eye at the death statistics. But, you know, convenience over the almost 40k a year dead in the US because people can't ride bikes or take a bus.

Trump makes a good case for it, that's for sure. Criticizing the government is what free speech is supposed to be about, not slinging ethnic slurs and Nazi rhetoric.

Not like you're going to stop them with your 'guns for everyone' views.

There is probably not as big a discrepency as you think. But cars atleast serve a non-violent purpose. I would not be against better driving regulations, but when cars are used properly, people dont die. When guns are used properly, people die. (And improperly too)

Saelune:
Its how it starts. You should not be ok with ICE. ICE is evil and a stepping stone to Secret Police. We already have internment camps.

So, what kind of immigration enforcement are you thinking of?

You advocate owning guns to use against the government. That is what you advocate by supporting the 2nd Amendment the way you do. Do not lie and say otherwise. If you are going to support that, admit it.

"Threats Foreign and Domestic" is explicitly referring to a tyrannical government. That's the exact thing I was saying, and is a common phrase against people that seem to think guns are just for hunting or if the Crown invades.

Ok, that phrasing was honestly an accident. And for the record, I was advocating being true to the beliefs you claim, not advocating suicide.

Oh I know. Just wondered if you had caught it beforehand. Wouldn't be the first time that someone told me to do a Kurt Cobain.

We wouldnt need affirmative action if bigots stopped being in control of hiring practices.

Or maybe the only bigotry is the AA itself? I sure as shit don't want to be hired just because I'm a spic.

We disagree on whether we are willing to support his authoritarianism though. Trump is worthy of no support whatsoever. Any is too much.

Have I not bitched about his restrictive actions?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/23/trump-not-understanding-treason-names-people-he-thinks-committed-capital-crime/?noredirect=on

Paywall, can't read.

My 'opposition' here being Nazis and fascists you mean. This is a common tactic of the Right, to try to defang teh severety of this so called 'opposition' to phrase it as if merely disagreeing with me is what we're talking about when we're actually talking about people who want to commit genocide against blacks, jews and LGBT people.

The problem is that you include Nazis, 'Nazis', Right-Wingers, and all the way at the end of the pole, Libertarians that think Affirmative Action is stupid, guns are neato, and that a person can say whatever stupid opinions they want, as long as it stays an opinion and doesn't delve into action, unlike Antifa's SOP. If we shot people for stupid opinions, there wouldn't be a self-identifying Communist left in the country, and I still see those hammer and sickle flags flying proudly, despite being heavily associated with some of the worst ills of humanity.

It is intentionally manipulative and misleading and you know it.

See the above about your trail of thought and how you want to affect the average joe. You see me as Right-Wing and want to take my property and my means to protect myself against people that would infringe upon my rights, and the rights of my family. How is that different from the people you see as wanting to do the same? Because you say you campaign for rights? That's a lie and you know it. The moment a LGBT Latino comes up and says he wants his firearms to ensure his rights and those of his family are protected from those in power that see the Government as the ultimate authority on such, you have a problem with it. Should I have firearms or not? Speak truthfully.

People who choose gun rights over human rights are Right-Wingers.

It is a human right to defend oneself. Or do you disagree?

I trust ObsidianJones to not make that mistake.

Pretty sure despite supporting restrictions, he supports private ownership and doesn't agree with your level of restrictions.

I dont trust anyone in the NRA.

The NRA are in bed with manufacturers and bend the knee on our rights when it suits them or profit margins. GOA is where it's at.

If now is not the time to oppose them, then you are on their side and that makes you wrong.

Considering they're having a stroke on if to actually back Donald at all and are playing grab-ass, and the Dems are currently on the political equivalent of a temper tantrum? I think everything is working itself out.

Those things together along with the above point makes you Right-Wing. Your constant defense and support of the Right is why you are Right-Wing. That you dont admit this is even more problematic than you being Right-Wing.

Damn, it's almost like the American Left-Wing has become so bad, it has caused people that previously identified as Democrats to leave the party and take up their own political posture, which also includes having conversations with the other major political party of the United States in order to understand our fellow countrymen and have an open dialogue.image

...Nah, I'm just a closet Republican.

You're going to have to elaborate on this picture. I am guessing he is some sort of bomber?

Timothy McVeigh, one of two key perpetrators of the Oklahoma City Bombing.

I want rules and laws to keep guns out of bad people's hands. This includes most of the police too.

So, who gets guns, besides the highest elites of the US Government, which is arguably even worse?

I trusted the Obama Administration. Trump is a terrorist and his government is evil and corrupt.

So how bout them drone strikes?

I think they talked a bigger game than they were willing to play. What do you think of them?

Very mixed opinions on ideology, but they made a display and effectively stated that Black voters would not be restricted from voting, or face intimidation, nor would they stand for such happening. On that, I absolutely support them. Kind of sad that you supported their disarmament, which came shortly after that display. Gun Control is racist as fuck, and I think you're speaking from an extreme position of Privilege because you're not Black or Latino, yet you're criticizing us for wanting to be able to goddamn vote, and make sure no one stops us. And you wonder why I hate the Democrats so much.

Trump makes a good case for it, that's for sure. Criticizing the government is what free speech is supposed to be about, not slinging ethnic slurs and Nazi rhetoric.

Which is why the First Amendment is outdated and why the founding fathers could not have possibly seen the speed at which we could express ourselves and exchange dialogue.

Not like you're going to stop them with your 'guns for everyone' views.

Not easy for Tyrone to shoot up the hood when everyone down the block is a standing army in of themselves, or when he would get lit up in the liquor store he's trying to rob and the locals turn him into a paste. Predators understand only one thing, and I'd prefer for everyone to have the teaching tools required to give them that lesson. See how often those gangbanging assholes are going to light a place up when they have targets that shoot back, and the neighborhood doesn't put up with that shit anymore.

There is probably not as big a discrepency as you think. But cars atleast serve a non-violent purpose. I would not be against better driving regulations, but when cars are used properly, people dont die.

Even used properly, traffic collisions happen. We've just accepted that giant hunks of metal going at high-speed are acceptable to have around.

When guns are used properly, people die. (And improperly too)

Yet I can brandish a firearm and de-escalate a situation or ensure I'm armed to protect me, mine, and my shit, whereas I can't exactly use a minivan to protect my family, especially since I can't carry one on my hip and skedaddle out of a situation. Out of a choice between a vehicle that contributes to the obesity epidemic and can casually splatter someone on the ground, and the tool I can use to ensure me and my family are protected and I actually have to be a dumbass with or have to have intent (whereas a vehicle I can play off as an accident because we've become desensitized to vehicle deaths), I know which one I want to have on me at all times.

Leg End:

Considering our population total and the amount of them that are more or less standard incidents that happen to take place on school grounds? It's about right for the amount of nutcases that exist.

How do you come to this conclusion? Make a per-capita comparison to almost any other comparably-sized population data set, and the USA comes out absolutely dismally.

It has over 50 times as many as the rest of the G7 combined. No, population size does not account for this: the EU, with a significantly larger population, experiences significantly less.

Are we to believe there are just more nut cases in the USA for some reason, to a massive degree? Or are we to look at policy, and the lobbyists spending millions upon millions on ensuring it goes their way?

Silvanus:

How do you come to this conclusion? Make a per-capita comparison to almost any other comparably-sized population data set, and the USA comes out absolutely dismally.

Again, are we talking about major shootings, or anything falling under that umbrella, which includes single discharges on school property and apparently multiple homicide cases where one of the murders took place on school property? And are we going as far as to include Everytown logic which includes Cops discharging their firearms on the same property?

Are we to believe there are just more nut cases in the USA for some reason, to a massive degree?

Pretty sure everyone just believes that anyway.

Saelune:

So you're saying that racists became Republicans because Republicans were racist?

Once again, no. Racists became Republicans not because Republicans were racist, but because Democrats claimed Republicans were racist because racism was undesirable. It's not terribly far off what Lil Devils is saying, but the myth of the party flip is easily disproved just by by looking at the order of events.

What is true? There are racists in the American South. The racists in the South used to vote overwhelmingly Democrat, and now they vote mostly Republican.

What isn't true? The racists didn't switch parties. It took decades for the south to become Republican, especially at the state and local level where racism can get people elected. It took that long because you needed generations to die off for it to happen. Click around these maps, you'll see the south was solidly blue through to 1960. Then there are 3 elections where the south doesn't go to Democrats. The first was Lyndon Johnson vs Barry Goldwater, I'll get back to that. The second, the south went to George Wallace (Democrat, died a registered Democrat, his son eventually registered Republican, good example of the generations needing to change entirely) as a 3rd party candidate promising "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." The third, 1972, was Nixon's reelection, and he won every state but Massachusetts. Then 1976, the South went blue again, and even up until Clinton's election in 1992, the south hadn't become a Republican stronghold. It really did require an entire generation dying and being replaced for the south to vote republican, and the presidential vote flipping happened before state and local elections moved. Check this map of that 1992 congressional election. You'll need a key for the shading: red is Republican and blue is Democrat, light colors means the district was held by the incumbent party, dark colors means the district changed parties. People tell this narrative of the Republican Southern Strategy in the 60s that flipped the south red, but there's a map from 1992 showing just a few Republican gains into a region that was still overwhelmingly holding blue.

What else isn't true? The Republican Party didn't court the south using racism. Very much the opposite happened. The Republican Platform in 1964 had this to say about race: "We pledge continued opposition to discrimination based on race, creed, national origin or sex. We recognize that the elimination of any such discrimination is a matter of heart, conscience, and education, as well as of equal rights under law." The year that people point to Republicans flipping the south, the platform pledged a dedication to ending racial discrimination as a matter of conscience. Let's talk about what the hell happened in 1964. Lyndon Johnson vs Barry Goldwater.

To help you understand the character of these men, I've pulled a couple tepid defenses of each of them. First is a Snopes article from recent years, fact-checking whether Johnson said of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "I?ll Have Those N*****s Voting Democratic for 200 Years", and Snopes lets you know right away that there isn't evidence he actually said that. But if you read beyond the headline, you'll find he did tell a chauffeur that "As long as you are black, and you?re gonna be black till the day you die, no one?s gonna call you by your goddamn name. So no matter what you are called, n*****, you just let it roll off your back like water, and you?ll make it. Just pretend you?re a goddamn piece of furniture." So yeah, super racist. On the flip side, here's a New Yorker piece from the early 2000s giving retrospective on Barry Goldwater. A lot of it is about the 1964 election and Civil Rights Act the same year:

Most of the twenty-seven senators who voted against the Civil Rights Act were Southern segregationists. Goldwater was not a segregationist, nor was he any kind of racist. He was, in fact, a lifelong opponent of racial discrimination. At the beginning of his political career, as a city councilman, he had led the fight to end segregation in the Phoenix public schools; his first staff assistant when he went to the Senate, as Perlstein tells us, was a black woman; he was a member of the N.A.A.C.P. Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act because he believed, as a conservative, that the federal government did not have the power to compel states to conform to its idea of racial equality, or to dictate to individuals whom they must associate with.

The decision tormented him. Before the vote, he asked for advice from a political ally and speechwriter for his campaign, William Rehnquist, then a Phoenix attorney. Rehnquist assured him that the bill was unconstitutional. Goldwater sought a second opinion from another member of his brain trust, Robert Bork, then a law professor at Yale. Bork wrote a seventy-five-page concurrence. It was with a heavy heart (to borrow a phrase of L.B.J.'s) that Goldwater cast his vote on civil rights. He was, Perlstein says, "a shaken man afraid he was signing his political death warrant, convinced that the Constitution offered him no other honorable choice.

So why, you may ask, does history remember a verifiable bigot as a civil rights champion while his opponent, the civil rights advocate, goes down in history as the start of the racist right, to be followed by the supposed Southern Strategy of Nixon (who didn't win the South in the election that strategy was supposedly a part of), and to be demonized to this day as the forefather of modern Republican bigotry? Because the Democrats, in specific Lyndon Johnson, wanted history written that way. Johnson was the successor of the assassinated Kennedy, he had no chance of losing that election. But in addition to being a hateful bigot, he was also an incredibly sleazy political opportunist. That article fails to make this precise claim about the racial part of the election, but it says of the war aspect "Goldwater is remembered as a man who proposed using nuclear weapons in Vietnam because that is how Lyndon Johnson wished him to be remembered." Well I'm telling you Goldwater is remembered for being a segregationist because that is how Lyndon Johnson wished him to be remembered.

He most famously had the ad "Daisy", but he also had KKK for Goldwater. Now this is very important: those ads were from before the supposed party flip, and way way before the actual geographical realignment that took until the new millennium to happen. Barry Goldwater was not aligning himself with racists, Lyndon Johnson was aligning him with racists. The Republican Party was never the party of segregation, the Republican Party was never the party of the KKK, the Republicans weren't asking for racists to become Republicans. The Democrats were the ones aligning racism with Republicans because racism is politically suicidal. Republicans don't want racists, it's the Democrats who want Republicans to be racist, and for 55 years they've been working to stain the Republican Party with that label.

You saying the switch is a myth is already a big fat falsehood you are propagating. And the Republican Party BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION is anti-immigrant. Its one of their main political platforms. It is also incredibly anti-welfare. Again, THEY ARE PROUD OF THESE THINGS!

You are objectively wrong on numerous accounts and you need to either check your facts or stop saying blatantly untrue things.

CITATION NEEDED FOR ALL THE THINGS YOU SAY!

You want to accuse me of being wrong, not checking facts, having no citation? Then you find me one Republican in the history of the GOP who was ever "anti-immigrant". Literally one ever. That was actually the biggest difference that caused the Know-Nothing Party to fail where the Republican Party rose, the Know-Nothing Party was nativist and Republicans are not. Even your nemesis Donald Trump is for immigration, but just for orderly, managed immigration rather than the world's biggest game of Red Rover.

Republicans are not anti-welfare in the way you're thinking, they're anti-welfare that wastes money and ruins people's lives. Hell, the concept of Universal Basic Income in America has largely been discussed on the right side of the spectrum, at least before the last couple years. It's not coincidence that the Democratic Candidate making UBI his central issue is the one making nice with Ben Shapiro. Republicans are absolutely for social support systems, the problem is when those support systems are 50% micromanaging people out of making their own decisions and 50% giving incentives to fail. There's something very wrong with a system that says "oh, you're poor and unemployed? Well, we will support you if looking for work, but we'll take that support away if you manage to succeed, and we'll pay people twice as much as we give you to make sure you don't waste that money."

tstorm823:

You want to accuse me of being wrong, not checking facts, having no citation? Then you find me one Republican in the history of the GOP who was ever "anti-immigrant". Literally one ever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policy_of_Donald_Trump

Next you're going to claim no Republican President was ever named 'Bush'.

Now, you owe me a ton of citations.

Seriously, you're just objetively wrong about Republicans.

Leg End:

Saelune:
Its how it starts. You should not be ok with ICE. ICE is evil and a stepping stone to Secret Police. We already have internment camps.

So, what kind of immigration enforcement are you thinking of?

You advocate owning guns to use against the government. That is what you advocate by supporting the 2nd Amendment the way you do. Do not lie and say otherwise. If you are going to support that, admit it.

"Threats Foreign and Domestic" is explicitly referring to a tyrannical government. That's the exact thing I was saying, and is a common phrase against people that seem to think guns are just for hunting or if the Crown invades.

Ok, that phrasing was honestly an accident. And for the record, I was advocating being true to the beliefs you claim, not advocating suicide.

Oh I know. Just wondered if you had caught it beforehand. Wouldn't be the first time that someone told me to do a Kurt Cobain.

We wouldnt need affirmative action if bigots stopped being in control of hiring practices.

Or maybe the only bigotry is the AA itself? I sure as shit don't want to be hired just because I'm a spic.

We disagree on whether we are willing to support his authoritarianism though. Trump is worthy of no support whatsoever. Any is too much.

Have I not bitched about his restrictive actions?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/23/trump-not-understanding-treason-names-people-he-thinks-committed-capital-crime/?noredirect=on

Paywall, can't read.

My 'opposition' here being Nazis and fascists you mean. This is a common tactic of the Right, to try to defang teh severety of this so called 'opposition' to phrase it as if merely disagreeing with me is what we're talking about when we're actually talking about people who want to commit genocide against blacks, jews and LGBT people.

The problem is that you include Nazis, 'Nazis', Right-Wingers, and all the way at the end of the pole, Libertarians that think Affirmative Action is stupid, guns are neato, and that a person can say whatever stupid opinions they want, as long as it stays an opinion and doesn't delve into action, unlike Antifa's SOP. If we shot people for stupid opinions, there wouldn't be a self-identifying Communist left in the country, and I still see those hammer and sickle flags flying proudly, despite being heavily associated with some of the worst ills of humanity.

It is intentionally manipulative and misleading and you know it.

See the above about your trail of thought and how you want to affect the average joe. You see me as Right-Wing and want to take my property and my means to protect myself against people that would infringe upon my rights, and the rights of my family. How is that different from the people you see as wanting to do the same? Because you say you campaign for rights? That's a lie and you know it. The moment a LGBT Latino comes up and says he wants his firearms to ensure his rights and those of his family are protected from those in power that see the Government as the ultimate authority on such, you have a problem with it. Should I have firearms or not? Speak truthfully.

People who choose gun rights over human rights are Right-Wingers.

It is a human right to defend oneself. Or do you disagree?

I trust ObsidianJones to not make that mistake.

Pretty sure despite supporting restrictions, he supports private ownership and doesn't agree with your level of restrictions.

I dont trust anyone in the NRA.

The NRA are in bed with manufacturers and bend the knee on our rights when it suits them or profit margins. GOA is where it's at.

If now is not the time to oppose them, then you are on their side and that makes you wrong.

Considering they're having a stroke on if to actually back Donald at all and are playing grab-ass, and the Dems are currently on the political equivalent of a temper tantrum? I think everything is working itself out.

Those things together along with the above point makes you Right-Wing. Your constant defense and support of the Right is why you are Right-Wing. That you dont admit this is even more problematic than you being Right-Wing.

Damn, it's almost like the American Left-Wing has become so bad, it has caused people that previously identified as Democrats to leave the party and take up their own political posture, which also includes having conversations with the other major political party of the United States in order to understand our fellow countrymen and have an open dialogue.image

...Nah, I'm just a closet Republican.

You're going to have to elaborate on this picture. I am guessing he is some sort of bomber?

Timothy McVeigh, one of two key perpetrators of the Oklahoma City Bombing.

I want rules and laws to keep guns out of bad people's hands. This includes most of the police too.

So, who gets guns, besides the highest elites of the US Government, which is arguably even worse?

I trusted the Obama Administration. Trump is a terrorist and his government is evil and corrupt.

So how bout them drone strikes?

I think they talked a bigger game than they were willing to play. What do you think of them?

Very mixed opinions on ideology, but they made a display and effectively stated that Black voters would not be restricted from voting, or face intimidation, nor would they stand for such happening. On that, I absolutely support them. Kind of sad that you supported their disarmament, which came shortly after that display. Gun Control is racist as fuck, and I think you're speaking from an extreme position of Privilege because you're not Black or Latino, yet you're criticizing us for wanting to be able to goddamn vote, and make sure no one stops us. And you wonder why I hate the Democrats so much.

Trump makes a good case for it, that's for sure. Criticizing the government is what free speech is supposed to be about, not slinging ethnic slurs and Nazi rhetoric.

Which is why the First Amendment is outdated and why the founding fathers could not have possibly seen the speed at which we could express ourselves and exchange dialogue.

Not like you're going to stop them with your 'guns for everyone' views.

Not easy for Tyrone to shoot up the hood when everyone down the block is a standing army in of themselves, or when he would get lit up in the liquor store he's trying to rob and the locals turn him into a paste. Predators understand only one thing, and I'd prefer for everyone to have the teaching tools required to give them that lesson. See how often those gangbanging assholes are going to light a place up when they have targets that shoot back, and the neighborhood doesn't put up with that shit anymore.

There is probably not as big a discrepency as you think. But cars atleast serve a non-violent purpose. I would not be against better driving regulations, but when cars are used properly, people dont die.

Even used properly, traffic collisions happen. We've just accepted that giant hunks of metal going at high-speed are acceptable to have around.

When guns are used properly, people die. (And improperly too)

Yet I can brandish a firearm and de-escalate a situation or ensure I'm armed to protect me, mine, and my shit, whereas I can't exactly use a minivan to protect my family, especially since I can't carry one on my hip and skedaddle out of a situation. Out of a choice between a vehicle that contributes to the obesity epidemic and can casually splatter someone on the ground, and the tool I can use to ensure me and my family are protected and I actually have to be a dumbass with or have to have intent (whereas a vehicle I can play off as an accident because we've become desensitized to vehicle deaths), I know which one I want to have on me at all times.

One that views immigrants as humans, humans who want a better life.

So you admit you are in favor of using guns to use against the government?

Yeah no, bigotry is rampant, and it is bigoted to claim otherwise.

Not enough to actually oppose him though, clearly.

Then look it up yourself. Trump treason youtube. Its not hard.

People who refuse to oppose Nazis are endorsing Nazis. Republicans should make it a conceted effort to remove all Nazi influence and support from their group. Nazis should not be in favor of your policies. Right-Wingers vastly overblow the number of communists that exist while ignoring the amount of people who would agree with Hitler. And the Confederate Flag is something actually abundandly celebrated in the US, which is bad.

Can you prove you wont use your guns poorly? So far, I doubt it. And if you do use your guns poorly, you should be punished, fairly, (and I think fairly for gun abuse should be a severe punisment).

Defend oneself within reason. But the way you are wanting to word it you could use to justify using nuclear bombs. I dont think that is a good weapon to use against a mugger.

And I disagree with most of his views on guns. I atleast trust he isnt going to use guns to kill innocent people though, but he actually has proven to be pro-equal rights.

Both the NRA and gun manufacturers need to be held accountable, along with many others.

Most Republican politicians support Trump, and anyone who hasnt turned on him by now is too far gone. Democrats afraid to impeach Trump are also fools.

Republicans have proven to be unwilling to compromise or 'have a dialogue'. We did our part, and you refuse to acknowledge that. We tried to hug our bully, and got beat up for it, and now you're telling us we never even tried. Thats BS.

Lets compare bombings to JUST school shootings, eh? Whats nice is I doubt anyone was defending the guy advocating that he had a right to bomb ownership.

People who prove sane, reasonable, and unbigoted.

Even Bernie would be drone striking foreigners. It is not good, but it comes with the Presidency. No Rpeublican has taken the efforts Obama has to reduce US soldier casualties though. Trump only made it worse. But hey, I guess it means Memorial Day wont be ending any year soon.

I support equal rights. Black people should never feel the need to arm up, and that is a failing on racist white people, mostly men.

No law should ever be absolute. No way any document could ever stand the test of all of human history and future.

More people with guns means more people shooting them. It is absurd to think everyone with a gun would mean less violence. It just means every shooting will be exponentionally exassperated. Lot less deaths by swords since we stopped all carrying swords.

Not really. People are stupid, irresponsible and easily distracted. Ofcourse there is also the problem at the corporate level and bad safety checks.

That line of thinking is absurd, and evidence of why YOU should not have a gun.

Saelune:

tstorm823:

You want to accuse me of being wrong, not checking facts, having no citation? Then you find me one Republican in the history of the GOP who was ever "anti-immigrant". Literally one ever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policy_of_Donald_Trump

Next you're going to claim no Republican President was ever named 'Bush'.

Now, you owe me a ton of citations.

Seriously, you're just objetively wrong about Republicans.

Oh God, what kind of anti-immigrant monster would "allow record immigration levels to subside to more moderate historical averages." You have to be some sort of radical isolationist to want historical average immigration into the country with the historically highest level of immigration on the planet.

tstorm823:

Saelune:

tstorm823:

You want to accuse me of being wrong, not checking facts, having no citation? Then you find me one Republican in the history of the GOP who was ever "anti-immigrant". Literally one ever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policy_of_Donald_Trump

Next you're going to claim no Republican President was ever named 'Bush'.

Now, you owe me a ton of citations.

Seriously, you're just objetively wrong about Republicans.

Oh God, what kind of anti-immigrant monster would "allow record immigration levels to subside to more moderate historical averages." You have to be some sort of radical isolationist to want historical average immigration into the country with the historically highest level of immigration on the planet.

I cant force you to believe facts. You intentionally reject truth.

Saelune:
One that views immigrants as humans, humans who want a better life.

Great. And I want those same humans to respect our laws and come in legally once we reform our system. Come in illegally, you shouldn't be surprised when you're kicked out.

So you admit you are in favor of using guns to use against the government?

If said government goes Tyrannical, yes. If the government has a problem with that, there should be some concerns about said government.

Yeah no, bigotry is rampant, and it is bigoted to claim otherwise.

In general? Sure. Just some people don't think it is bigotry. I hope you understand what I'm saying here.

Not enough to actually oppose him though, clearly.

I oppose his actions just as I would a Democrat doing the same things and worse, probably in 2020/2024. Hell, I opposed Obama hardcore.

Then look it up yourself. Trump treason youtube. Its not hard.

Can't be bothered when the same sources have been doing the same for ages. I admittedly don't care at this point because it has become a buzzword, and I'm even in on the throwing of the word casually. See: My opinion on Reagan.

People who refuse to oppose Nazis are endorsing Nazis.

Or they're just considered a joke because the most of them who consider Hitler an icon forget that he basically killed off a generation of White people. Can I say the same about Democrats refusing to oppose Communists?

Republicans should make it a conceted effort to remove all Nazi influence and support from their group.

See above.

Nazis should not be in favor of your policies.

See above again. Nazis are also against Trump. Which ones are you gonna listen to?

Right-Wingers vastly overblow the number of communists that exist while ignoring the amount of people who would agree with Hitler.

So you're ignoring the Hammer and Sickle and AnCom flags at protests because there are clearly not enough of them, but will call attention to Swastikas because there are clearly enough of them to be concerned about?

And the Confederate Flag is something actually abundandly celebrated in the US, which is bad.

Meh. Southerners get their flag to try and stick it to the North.

Can you prove you wont use your guns poorly? So far, I doubt it.

Define "Poorly" and define "Not Poorly". Considering you think that aiming for legs or arms in very casual situations is an acceptable use of a firearm, I would not say you have a good opinion on what constitutes "poor use" of a gun.

And if you do use your guns poorly, you should be punished, fairly, (and I think fairly for gun abuse should be a severe punisment).

We already have laws on the books for doing stupid things with guns, particularly relating to getting people killed.

Defend oneself within reason. But the way you are wanting to word it you could use to justify using nuclear bombs. I dont think that is a good weapon to use against a mugger.

That is a very poor choice of weapon for a mugger, yes. A very important aspect of firearms usage is to be aware of your surroundings, and to know what is behind what you are aiming at. Aiming for limbs instead of center mass increases the chance to miss, ricochet, and so on. I've explained that to you several times in the past.

And I disagree with most of his views on guns. I atleast trust he isnt going to use guns to kill innocent people though, but he actually has proven to be pro-equal rights.

But you are presumably not trusting of me to not go and shoot innocent people? Why?

Both the NRA and gun manufacturers need to be held accountable, along with many others.

Accountable? You're not talking about having them eat lawsuits for idiots that murder people with the products of arms manufacturers, are you?

Most Republican politicians support Trump,

Not really. So many are just wishy washy or are trying to look like they're not against him and toe the line to save their ass.

Democrats afraid to impeach Trump are also fools.

They aren't gunning for it because they know they can't, unlike the rest of their party. The best chance the Dems have is to put forward an actually good candidate. In short, not Hillary. 2016 was an election where so many people just hated both candidates and didn't even bother voting.

Republicans have proven to be unwilling to compromise or 'have a dialogue'. We did our part, and you refuse to acknowledge that.

I refuse to because the Dems are just as bullheaded on their own subjects.

We tried to hug our bully, and got beat up for it, and now you're telling us we never even tried. Thats BS.

No, you both tried to knife each other in the back. Reasonable people largely moved on from the Dems because they were so tired of what culminated in 2016.

Lets compare bombings to JUST school shootings, eh? Whats nice is I doubt anyone was defending the guy advocating that he had a right to bomb ownership.

Actually there are those that do defend such a right, and I'm one of em. He blew up a lot of innocent people, and did so while wiping his ass with the law. Prime example of how those with murder in their hearts will do whatever they want or need to in order to carry out their will.

People who prove sane, reasonable, and unbigoted.

Your definition of "unbigoted" does not hold weight with me.

Even Bernie would be drone striking foreigners. It is not good, but it comes with the Presidency.

And you just accept that?

No Rpeublican has taken the efforts Obama has to reduce US soldier casualties though. Trump only made it worse. But hey, I guess it means Memorial Day wont be ending any year soon.

Who pulled us out of Syria?

I support equal rights. Black people should never feel the need to arm up, and that is a failing on racist white people, mostly men.

So, totally ignoring Black/Latino relations, huh?

No law should ever be absolute. No way any document could ever stand the test of all of human history and future.

If I wrote "All Humans are Equal" on a piece of paper, does time invalidate that?

More people with guns means more people shooting them. It is absurd to think everyone with a gun would mean less violence. It just means every shooting will be exponentionally exassperated. Lot less deaths by swords since we stopped all carrying swords.

We moved on to firearms and now we shoot each other. Difference is, firearms are easier and cheaper to gain access to than swords ever were, so now it's not just Knight/Officer Limpdick and Criminal Jackass who have arms. Hard targets work.

Not really. People are stupid, irresponsible and easily distracted. Ofcourse there is also the problem at the corporate level and bad safety checks.

And somehow despite that admission, you're not for restricting cars as much as you are guns.

That line of thinking is absurd, and evidence of why YOU should not have a gun.

And that's why I don't vote Democrat. I'm not being disarmed so my and my family's safety is left up to racist cops, the racist fucks down the street that hate spics, steal our mail, and previously vandalized this property, and the dickheads that have regularly threatened to kill us and have demonstrated the capability to do so. You're absolutely privileged and don't actually care about people that have very real reasons on why they will fight tooth and nail to keep themselves armed. That exact thinking is what made me turn on the Democratic party and flipped them the bird on the way out the door. You're White, I'm Latino, so how about you stop trying to silence my voice and disarm me when I say I need my guns to protect myself? Or does that not matter when I voted for Trump and hate the Democrats that don't give a fuck about me? The Dems only give a fuck about us when we're useful, and disown us the moment their pets actually bark. You're not doing anything to help that perception.

tstorm823:
Republicans don't want to destroy the environment, don't hate women, aren't white supremacists, etc.

Perhaps not, but they're great defenders of people being able to destroy the environment, hate women, and be white supremacists.

Leg End:

Saelune:
snip

snip

Take it as you will. But with the GOP at the power, eventually a gun won't be good enough.

Agema:

Perhaps not, but they're great defenders of people being able to destroy the environment, hate women, and be white supremacists.

Unless you want to murder people, Republicans opinions of the second two are largely irrelevant. I can't make people not able to hate women.

If you want to talk about destroying the environment, it's going to go to the old debate between conservationists who want to conserve nature's resources for the benefit of mankind into the future (the right wing environmentalism) vs preservationists who view humanity as a stain and want to guard nature from human influence entirely (what most environmentalists are like now). As it turns out, the right-wing environmentalists created every good environmental policy ever passed while the left wing environmentalists did literal terrorism, propagandized the world against nuclear power, and founded PETA.

tstorm823:

Agema:

Perhaps not, but they're great defenders of people being able to destroy the environment, hate women, and be white supremacists.

Unless you want to murder people, Republicans opinions of the second two are largely irrelevant. I can't make people not able to hate women.

If you want to talk about destroying the environment, it's going to go to the old debate between conservationists who want to conserve nature's resources for the benefit of mankind into the future (the right wing environmentalism) vs preservationists who view humanity as a stain and want to guard nature from human influence entirely (what most environmentalists are like now). As it turns out, the right-wing environmentalists created every good environmental policy ever passed while the left wing environmentalists did literal terrorism, propagandized the world against nuclear power, and founded PETA.

No, back in the day people worked together to create good environmental policy, it wasn't 'the left vs the right' back then, most people didn't even know what the left or right was until the terms got popularised in the last ten years or so. It wasn't so divisive back then.

And the thing is, you can argue left vs right, but theres also progressive vs conservative. And a conservative means to conserve, which in this case is not environmental conservation, but simply conserving the way things are, conservative means opposition to change. The conservative doesn't want new policies that effect environment or any thing, they only want new policies when they return to the old ways. At a lot of times in history conservatives were in the right being the guys who said no to thins. But these days its a big time of change, new technology, finally waking up to things like gay rights and such, that the conservatives resisting change often want us to regress to bad old things. And one day they will be right again once this big era of change is settled. Heck, I feel every day conservatives become more reasonable, like how many aren't against gay marriage anymore. One day the progressives will have changed far enough and the conservatives will be right again.

Leg End:

Saelune:
One that views immigrants as humans, humans who want a better life.

Great. And I want those same humans to respect our laws and come in legally once we reform our system. Come in illegally, you shouldn't be surprised when you're kicked out.

So you admit you are in favor of using guns to use against the government?

If said government goes Tyrannical, yes. If the government has a problem with that, there should be some concerns about said government.

Yeah no, bigotry is rampant, and it is bigoted to claim otherwise.

In general? Sure. Just some people don't think it is bigotry. I hope you understand what I'm saying here.

Not enough to actually oppose him though, clearly.

I oppose his actions just as I would a Democrat doing the same things and worse, probably in 2020/2024. Hell, I opposed Obama hardcore.

Then look it up yourself. Trump treason youtube. Its not hard.

Can't be bothered when the same sources have been doing the same for ages. I admittedly don't care at this point because it has become a buzzword, and I'm even in on the throwing of the word casually. See: My opinion on Reagan.

People who refuse to oppose Nazis are endorsing Nazis.

Or they're just considered a joke because the most of them who consider Hitler an icon forget that he basically killed off a generation of White people. Can I say the same about Democrats refusing to oppose Communists?

Republicans should make it a conceted effort to remove all Nazi influence and support from their group.

See above.

Nazis should not be in favor of your policies.

See above again. Nazis are also against Trump. Which ones are you gonna listen to?

Right-Wingers vastly overblow the number of communists that exist while ignoring the amount of people who would agree with Hitler.

So you're ignoring the Hammer and Sickle and AnCom flags at protests because there are clearly not enough of them, but will call attention to Swastikas because there are clearly enough of them to be concerned about?

And the Confederate Flag is something actually abundandly celebrated in the US, which is bad.

Meh. Southerners get their flag to try and stick it to the North.

Can you prove you wont use your guns poorly? So far, I doubt it.

Define "Poorly" and define "Not Poorly". Considering you think that aiming for legs or arms in very casual situations is an acceptable use of a firearm, I would not say you have a good opinion on what constitutes "poor use" of a gun.

And if you do use your guns poorly, you should be punished, fairly, (and I think fairly for gun abuse should be a severe punisment).

We already have laws on the books for doing stupid things with guns, particularly relating to getting people killed.

Defend oneself within reason. But the way you are wanting to word it you could use to justify using nuclear bombs. I dont think that is a good weapon to use against a mugger.

That is a very poor choice of weapon for a mugger, yes. A very important aspect of firearms usage is to be aware of your surroundings, and to know what is behind what you are aiming at. Aiming for limbs instead of center mass increases the chance to miss, ricochet, and so on. I've explained that to you several times in the past.

And I disagree with most of his views on guns. I atleast trust he isnt going to use guns to kill innocent people though, but he actually has proven to be pro-equal rights.

But you are presumably not trusting of me to not go and shoot innocent people? Why?

Both the NRA and gun manufacturers need to be held accountable, along with many others.

Accountable? You're not talking about having them eat lawsuits for idiots that murder people with the products of arms manufacturers, are you?

Most Republican politicians support Trump,

Not really. So many are just wishy washy or are trying to look like they're not against him and toe the line to save their ass.

Democrats afraid to impeach Trump are also fools.

They aren't gunning for it because they know they can't, unlike the rest of their party. The best chance the Dems have is to put forward an actually good candidate. In short, not Hillary. 2016 was an election where so many people just hated both candidates and didn't even bother voting.

Republicans have proven to be unwilling to compromise or 'have a dialogue'. We did our part, and you refuse to acknowledge that.

I refuse to because the Dems are just as bullheaded on their own subjects.

We tried to hug our bully, and got beat up for it, and now you're telling us we never even tried. Thats BS.

No, you both tried to knife each other in the back. Reasonable people largely moved on from the Dems because they were so tired of what culminated in 2016.

Lets compare bombings to JUST school shootings, eh? Whats nice is I doubt anyone was defending the guy advocating that he had a right to bomb ownership.

Actually there are those that do defend such a right, and I'm one of em. He blew up a lot of innocent people, and did so while wiping his ass with the law. Prime example of how those with murder in their hearts will do whatever they want or need to in order to carry out their will.

People who prove sane, reasonable, and unbigoted.

Your definition of "unbigoted" does not hold weight with me.

Even Bernie would be drone striking foreigners. It is not good, but it comes with the Presidency.

And you just accept that?

No Rpeublican has taken the efforts Obama has to reduce US soldier casualties though. Trump only made it worse. But hey, I guess it means Memorial Day wont be ending any year soon.

Who pulled us out of Syria?

I support equal rights. Black people should never feel the need to arm up, and that is a failing on racist white people, mostly men.

So, totally ignoring Black/Latino relations, huh?

No law should ever be absolute. No way any document could ever stand the test of all of human history and future.

If I wrote "All Humans are Equal" on a piece of paper, does time invalidate that?

More people with guns means more people shooting them. It is absurd to think everyone with a gun would mean less violence. It just means every shooting will be exponentionally exassperated. Lot less deaths by swords since we stopped all carrying swords.

We moved on to firearms and now we shoot each other. Difference is, firearms are easier and cheaper to gain access to than swords ever were, so now it's not just Knight/Officer Limpdick and Criminal Jackass who have arms. Hard targets work.

Not really. People are stupid, irresponsible and easily distracted. Ofcourse there is also the problem at the corporate level and bad safety checks.

And somehow despite that admission, you're not for restricting cars as much as you are guns.

That line of thinking is absurd, and evidence of why YOU should not have a gun.

And that's why I don't vote Democrat. I'm not being disarmed so my and my family's safety is left up to racist cops, the racist fucks down the street that hate spics, steal our mail, and previously vandalized this property, and the dickheads that have regularly threatened to kill us and have demonstrated the capability to do so. You're absolutely privileged and don't actually care about people that have very real reasons on why they will fight tooth and nail to keep themselves armed. That exact thinking is what made me turn on the Democratic party and flipped them the bird on the way out the door. You're White, I'm Latino, so how about you stop trying to silence my voice and disarm me when I say I need my guns to protect myself? Or does that not matter when I voted for Trump and hate the Democrats that don't give a fuck about me? The Dems only give a fuck about us when we're useful, and disown us the moment their pets actually bark. You're not doing anything to help that perception.

We should make it easier for them to do it legally then, not harder.

So you endorse violence against the government if necessary. Remember that next time you decry left-wing violence.

Lots of bigots think their bigotry is perfectly ok. Lots of people claim to not be sexist while making sexist statements about Captain Marvel for example. Then they get mad when I point it out.

You are not doing a good job of opposing Trump.

Trump made it a buzzword.

Nazis are stupid, sure. Communists are not the same as Nazis. I know the Right wants to pretend otherwise, but that wont change that it was Nazis who wanted to commit ethnic genocide and not Communists.

Nazis think Trump is a White Supremacist. If they have any problem with him, is that he wont move to the next step of their desired 4th Reicht.

The Right sure do like to pretend the US is swarmed by rampant commie and Antifa riots when that is just not true.

People who support bigotry to spite the left are just bigots looking for an excuse. Anyone who supports the confederate flag is a racist.

That you think that is poorly is an example of your poor use of guns. But it does reinforce my point of guns being a tool of killing.

Because of your views on guns and human-rights.

If they are going to make gun laws too liberal, they are responsible.

If they didnt support Trump, he would not be President, and he would be in jail by now.

Pelosi is the problem here. My ability to defend her is at its limit. In the same breath she calls Trump a problem, but wont go through with impeachment. She also shit talk AOC. Currently I am on Team Warren. Hillary got more votes and Warren is better than Hillary in every way. If Warren doesnt win, it wont be because she is a bad candidate.

Because you are a Right-Winger. You wonder why I call you that, yet here we are.

You are admitting to advocate people should be allowed to own bombs!? Again, I do not think YOU are responsible enough to own guns.

I know it doesnt. That is why I am so critical of you.

Putin pulled us out of Syria because Putin wants to maintain control of it.

That is you attempting to make up some BS right now and you know it. I was using one example of equal rights.

When it is used to justify why some alien race is not given equal rights despite deserving it, possibly.

And guns are a bigger problem.

Guns are for killing, cars are for transportation. This argument is a poor one and you know it.

I dont support your desire for a gun-filled race war. Trump does not care about you. Republicans do not care about you. They both like the idea of the ethnicities they hate being in conflict with eachother, and you're feeding right into that.

Fieldy409:

No, back in the day people worked together to create good environmental policy, it wasn't 'the left vs the right' back then, most people didn't even know what the left or right was until the terms got popularised in the last ten years or so. It wasn't so divisive back then.

And the thing is, you can argue left vs right, but theres also progressive vs conservative. And a conservative means to conserve, which in this case is not environmental conservation, but simply conserving the way things are, conservative means opposition to change. The conservative doesn't want new policies that effect environment or any thing, they only want new policies when they return to the old ways. At a lot of times in history conservatives were in the right being the guys who said no to thins. But these days its a big time of change, new technology, finally waking up to things like gay rights and such, that the conservatives resisting change often want us to regress to bad old things. And one day they will be right again once this big era of change is settled. Heck, I feel every day conservatives become more reasonable, like how many aren't against gay marriage anymore. One day the progressives will have changed far enough and the conservatives will be right again.

Conservatism and Progressivism are fundamentally identical. They're both based on the idea that what people do as a nation and as a society can bring good into that nation or society in the future. A progressive intends to change society now in order to make new good things happen. A conservative intends to preserve the things done in the past in order to repeat the good things we have now. Conservatives aren't slaves to tradition that does bad things any more than progressives want revolution that wouldn't help. None of it is that senseless. We have good things now because of what was done in the past, and because of the things we do now, we can make more good in the future. To kinda quote Republican conservationist Teddy Roosevelt, wise conservatism and wise progressivism go hand in hand. They are connected theories of governance. This is different from something like liberalism where the purpose of government is to abide eternally by set values, in that case liberty, equality, and sometimes justice. Conservatism and progressivism aren't ideologically bound like that. They just seek to do what's good for the people. The difference is whether you prefer to do what you know works or try to aim for better, and I'd argue any reasonable person should be doing both of those things depending on the situation.

That progressives and conservatives are so at odds at the moment is an accidental consequence of a separate ongoing culture war. Those primarily identified as conservatives are trying to conserve Christian morality, an undeniable part of the American culture during the rise to prosperity. Those primarily identified as progressives are those trying to deny Christian morality, believing for some reason that Christian morals hurt people. And I could write a book about how that current conflict is basically all John Calvin's fault. But this concept of who is conservative and who is progressive is just this moment in time. There's nothing progressive about environmental stewardship, that's a centuries old concept that is well ingrained in the status quo. There's nothing conservative about banning abortion, abortions were allowed so long as the baby hadn't kicked yet until modern medical science came around and even though there were laws against abortion at some point, the position of treating a fetus as a human being is wildly new. Hell, Prohibition was part of the Progressive movement, that's not exactly how people would classify it these days (cause they don't know what the words mean).

The world is about to swing culturally in a way you don't expect. Studies indicate young people, gen z, are about as politically conservative as millenials. The thing is, people get more conservative as they age, which means that gen z is actually more conservative than millenials in the long run. And as a matter of personal behavior, gen z is less sexually active, less high, and less drunk than recent previous generations as teenagers. People keep trying to find ways to pin this on smart phones or fast food, but the truth is much more simple than that. Kids can tell that the people who depend on these things are just genuinely miserable. Kids are going to emulate the people who are happy, and right now the people who are happy are the Christian conservatives with traditional families. What's "progressive" and what's "conservative" are going to change greatly, but not for the reasons you think. People aren't just going to give up on Christian sexual morality, the opposite is going to happen. Whether or not the Bible is involved, we're going to have a return to the culture of sexuality, parenthood, and marriage being united concepts, because people would rather be happy than miserable.

tstorm823:
).

The world is about to swing culturally in a way you don't expect. Studies indicate young people, gen z, are about as politically conservative as millenials. The thing is, people get more conservative as they age, which means that gen z is actually more conservative than millenials in the long run. And as a matter of personal behavior, gen z is less sexually active, less high, and less drunk than recent previous generations as teenagers. People keep trying to find ways to pin this on smart phones or fast food, but the truth is much more simple than that. Kids can tell that the people who depend on these things are just genuinely miserable. Kids are going to emulate the people who are happy, and right now the people who are happy are the Christian conservatives with traditional families. What's "progressive" and what's "conservative" are going to change greatly, but not for the reasons you think. People aren't just going to give up on Christian sexual morality, the opposite is going to happen. Whether or not the Bible is involved, we're going to have a return to the culture of sexuality, parenthood, and marriage being united concepts, because people would rather be happy than miserable.

Sounds like a lot of conservative wishful thinking tp justify their unpopular policies and dwindling support

That's even if republicans as a whole make it out of trumps first term with their dignity intact

undeadsuitor:

Sounds like a lot of conservative wishful thinking tp justify their unpopular policies and dwindling support

That's even if republicans as a whole make it out of trumps first term with their dignity intact

Literally every time Democrats win in a general election, people start talking about how the Republicans have no support and will probably disappear completely in a few years. Obama killed the Republican Party forever, just like Clinton did, just like Lyndon Johnson did in 1964, and yet here we are.

Saelune:
We should make it easier for them to do it legally then, not harder.

...Yes. Pretty sure we've been on the same page here.

So you endorse violence against the government if necessary. Remember that next time you decry left-wing violence.

Violence as a last resort with reasonable people being forced to do unreasonable things versus... random lynchings of people in the street and calling them racial slurs because they are minorities that somehow don't agree with you. Somehow doesn't seem the same to me.

Lots of bigots think their bigotry is perfectly ok.

Yes. Yes they do.

Nazis are stupid, sure. Communists are not the same as Nazis. I know the Right wants to pretend otherwise, but that wont change that it was Nazis who wanted to commit ethnic genocide and not Communists.

You've been shown this before. They even did it before the Krauts.

Nazis think Trump is a White Supremacist. If they have any problem with him, is that he wont move to the next step of their desired 4th Reicht.

Nazis think Trump is a puppet of Israel and a race traitor, if they don't think he's a Jew outright. Again, you're never finding a consensus on this.

People who support bigotry to spite the left are just bigots looking for an excuse. Anyone who supports the confederate flag is a racist.

Or a Southerner. Can I say that people waving commie flags are supporters of genocide?

That you think that is poorly is an example of your poor use of guns.

Another thing you have had explained to you before. The vast majority of anyone that knows anything about Firearms is going to tell you that shooting for limbs is not going to give non-lethal or less-lethal results, and thinking such to justify an attempt at using very lethal force in a situation that it is not called for is going to do nothing more than do harm. If you're aiming for smaller, moving targets, your chance of missing is going to increase exponentially, which will then lead to damage to things and people that are not your target. You are going to harm people and property because you falsely believe that aiming for limbs is a safer use of lethal force, which is already an incredibly ignorant and downright dangerous mindset. Our arms and legs aren't just meat sacks devoid of important bits and bobs. You're going to hit an artery or bone, with the latter causing the bone to shatter and become shrapnel inside your body, causing incredible amounts of damage as bone fragments rip your ass apart. I am absolutely glad that you do not own firearms, because your idea of them is what gets people killed. There is no situation in which lethal force should be used or thought of as non-lethal. Period. End of.

If they are going to make gun laws too liberal, they are responsible.

Can I hold the Democrats responsible for every time an illegal immigrant breaks the law? Let's just say screw it and go off the deep end with this line of reasoning. Sue car manufacturers for drunk drivers and crap.

Because you are a Right-Winger. You wonder why I call you that, yet here we are.

I don't know why I bother.

You are admitting to advocate people should be allowed to own bombs!?

Absolutely. Sometimes you need that extra oomph to fight Tyranny. Or blow up junker cars in your backyard. One of the two.

Again, I do not think YOU are responsible enough to own guns.

And as I have explained a bit above, your opinion on who is responsible enough to own firearms means absolutely nothing to me, considering you are absolutely for lowering the bar for usage of lethal force, and think lethal force can be used non-lethally. You know absolutely nothing about firearms, but I implore you to change that and learn about them, to better understand their functions and uses, as well as learning that lethal force is lethal.

I know it doesnt. That is why I am so critical of you.

And I'm critical of you because you do not see the bigotry that you regularly post. Actually, strike that. I'm fairly certain that you are very much aware of it, considering a post elsewhere. You just think it is okay when you're doing it to the people you don't like.

That is you attempting to make up some BS right now and you know it.

Have you even been to SoCal recently?

I was using one example of equal rights.

By turning to good old fashioned racism.

Guns are for killing, cars are for transportation. This argument is a poor one and you know it.

Yeah. People doing stupid shit with Cars don't get the car blamed, and nearly kill as many people by accident that someone would have to typically do on purpose. Imagine if someone took a vehicle and started murdering people with that en masse. No wait, they already have.

I dont support your desire for a gun-filled race war.

I can't even begin to imagine where you got the idea that I want a race war. Is this a projection?

Trump does not care about you. Republicans do not care about you.

I'd say that was Hillary and the Dems in a nutshell, but frankly I don't care who 'cares' about me. Nobody is concerned with my safety but myself and people that surprisingly give a crap about me.

They both like the idea of the ethnicities they hate being in conflict with eachother, and you're feeding right into that.

I feel very similarly about the Democrats. They don't actually care about anyone, they just want us fighting so they can use that anger and fear to get minorities to vote for them. If you want to agree that both parties do that, I'd be willing to extend the hand on compromise there, because that's politics in a nutshell. They keep people afraid to control us. Outside of that, I'm out of this thread because I'd rather not be stuffed with straw and told I want a race war by someone that only sees the world in two colors, and I'm apparently on Red Team.

Leg End:

Saelune:
snip

snip

Something to clear first. Democrats may or may not care about you; but the GOP is openly hostile towards you. Why to vote for the latter?

CaitSeith:

Something to clear first. Democrats may or may not care about you; but the GOP is openly hostile towards you. Why to vote for the latter?

Well, I have a few takes on this myself. Assuming the Democrats are simply apathetic and the GOP is openly hostile, I've always preferred the gun to my face than the one to my back, especially if the one to my back is because I'm no longer useful. On a more realistic approach, I've found both openly hostile to me at one point or another, and often at the same time. Democrats despise me for being a Latino with questionable location on the LGBTBBQ umbrella that think we need to secure our border and that I like guns, as well as thinking Nanny State policies are dumb and I'd rather not be reliant on the State(all of that is rather hostile, but you get the idea) and prefer to just give money out of pocket to help people or ask for help instead of using force to do it. GOP hates me for calling them pussies because I go far harder on freedom than they do(AKA actually caring) and shit on them for hypocrisy, as well as the umbrella thing. The difference is that I see the Democrats as seeing me as a useful pet until I disagree with them, then I get called an Uncle Tom and am a part of the statistic of strange Latinos that made the mistake of voting for Trump when clearly our race should vote as a collective for one party.

Just from all that crap I just said, you can probably get a lock on my feelings regarding politics in general. I just want to be left the fuck alone, but nobody can quite grasp such an apparently antiquated concept.

Leg End:

CaitSeith:

Something to clear first. Democrats may or may not care about you; but the GOP is openly hostile towards you. Why to vote for the latter?

Well, I have a few takes on this myself. Assuming the Democrats are simply apathetic and the GOP is openly hostile, I've always preferred the gun to my face than the one to my back, especially if the one to my back is because I'm no longer useful. On a more realistic approach, I've found both openly hostile to me at one point or another, and often at the same time. Democrats despise me for being a Latino with questionable location on the LGBTBBQ umbrella that think we need to secure our border and that I like guns, as well as thinking Nanny State policies are dumb and I'd rather not be reliant on the State(all of that is rather hostile, but you get the idea) and prefer to just give money out of pocket to help people or ask for help instead of using force to do it. GOP hates me for calling them pussies because I go far harder on freedom than they do and shit on them for hypocrisy, as well as the umbrella thing. The difference is that I see the Democrats as seeing me as a useful pet until I disagree with them, then I get called an Uncle Tom and am a part of the statistic of strange Latinos that made the mistake of voting for Trump when clearly our race should vote as a collective for one party.

Just from all that crap I just said, you can probably get a lock on my feelings regarding politics in general. I just want to be left the fuck alone, but nobody can quite grasp such an apparently antiquated concept.

.
I love it when your support for a candidate is assumed because of your identity and not your ideological beliefs. I'm someone from a country with a parliamentary system, which has particularly many sectorial parties (a "sector" of the population), it can get very old when your identity literally translates to your preferred party.

Leg End:

CaitSeith:

Something to clear first. Democrats may or may not care about you; but the GOP is openly hostile towards you. Why to vote for the latter?

Well, I have a few takes on this myself. Assuming the Democrats are simply apathetic and the GOP is openly hostile, I've always preferred the gun to my face than the one to my back, especially if the one to my back is because I'm no longer useful. On a more realistic approach, I've found both openly hostile to me at one point or another, and often at the same time. Democrats despise me for being a Latino with questionable location on the LGBTBBQ umbrella that think we need to secure our border and that I like guns, as well as thinking Nanny State policies are dumb and I'd rather not be reliant on the State(all of that is rather hostile, but you get the idea) and prefer to just give money out of pocket to help people or ask for help instead of using force to do it. GOP hates me for calling them pussies because I go far harder on freedom than they do(AKA actually caring) and shit on them for hypocrisy, as well as the umbrella thing. The difference is that I see the Democrats as seeing me as a useful pet until I disagree with them, then I get called an Uncle Tom and am a part of the statistic of strange Latinos that made the mistake of voting for Trump when clearly our race should vote as a collective for one party.

Just from all that crap I just said, you can probably get a lock on my feelings regarding politics in general. I just want to be left the fuck alone, but nobody can quite grasp such an apparently antiquated concept.

Noted.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 . . . 21 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here