Leg End:

Saelune:
Donald Trump literally calls criticism of him 'fake news' and 'libel'. Trump is vehemently anti-free speech, and wants literally only his own brand of hate speech to be allowed. No one can support free speech AND Trump. Those two things are mutually exclusive.

I see it as him flinging the MSM's shit right back at em. The moment we're actually seeing him gun after speech, then we'll talk.

Donald Trump also does not support fair immigration. He is racist against Mexicans. If you want actual fair and reasonable immigration control, you wont get it with Trump.

Do explain how he's racist against the various ethnic groups of Mexico, which are not one race by the way.

So many things you claim to support, but you support Trump, which goes against many of these things you claim to support. Tear all those differences away, and what do you have left?

Differences between me and Trump, the differences between what you say conflicts with what I believe, or? Please clarify.

Saelune:
I actually don't think 'No one should have guns', but I think most of the people who want them the most, don't deserve them, and that human rights are more important than gun rights.

Gun rights are a human right. Thoughts?

You're making excuses then.

He is racist against all non-whites. I am sure if he was shown a very Aryan Mexican, he would get caught up in his racist hypocrisy. But then, he also continues to illegally employ illegal immigrants, and his wife is one too. Trump is a racist, AND a hypocrite.

Basically, I think you either support someone despite him not representing your views, or you support someone who does represent your views and you keep claiming otherwise. Which is it?

Gun rights should not supersede natural rights. Guns are man-made tools of murder. That is worth less than LGBT people's rights to exist.

Saelune:
If you vote for them anyways, you're letting them off the hook.

I disagree, no more than any democrat voter was letting Clinton "off the hook" for what she did as secretary of state (Libya springs to mind).

Too many people care more for the right to let dangerous people own tools of murder than ensuring children are safe from harm by the literal government.

Or people care about letting people exercise their constitutional rights more than the opinions of those who would try (and fail) to restrict them.

I am sure if he was shown a very Aryan Mexican

I'm sorry, but the mental image of that is really funny. And then I remember the Goldshirts from Mexico.

Gun rights should not supersede natural rights. Guns are man-made tools of murder.

Man, if my guns are tools of murder, they're doing a really shitty job. I've owned them for nearly a decade now and not once have they killed anyone.

CM156:

Saelune:
If you vote for them anyways, you're letting them off the hook.

I disagree, no more than any democrat voter was letting Clinton "off the hook" for what she did as secretary of state (Libya springs to mind).

Too many people care more for the right to let dangerous people own tools of murder than ensuring children are safe from harm by the literal government.

Or people care about letting people exercise their constitutional rights against those who would try (and fail) to restrict them.

I am sure if he was shown a very Aryan Mexican

I'm sorry, but the mental image of that is really funny. And then I remember the Goldshirts from Mexico.

Gun rights should not supersede natural rights. Guns are man-made tools of murder.

Man, if my guns are tools of murder, they're doing a really shitty job. I've owned them for nearly a decade now and not once have they killed anyone.

So you want guns so you can KILL tyrannical politicians?

Ya know, if Gun Rights people advocated background checks and shit like that, ya know, making sure not any nutjob could just get a gun, you know you would have far less problems with Democrats, right? I don't want to wait for a school shooting before we go 'Maybe this persons should not have had a gun'.

Reminder, voting for Trump means condoning the suffering of these children.

Saelune:
So you want guns so you can KILL tyrannical politicians?

I do not follow your jump in logic there.

EDIT: I see now. Edited my post to make my point more clear

Ya know, if Gun Rights people advocated background checks and shit like that, ya know, making sure not any nutjob could just get a gun, you know you would have far less problems with Democrats, right?

We have background checks. You're talking about private transfer, right? I have advocated allowing private individuals to submit a request for a check through NCIS, but that idea hasn't caught on quite yet.

CM156:

Saelune:
If you vote for them anyways, you're letting them off the hook.

I disagree, no more than any democrat voter was letting Clinton "off the hook" for what she did as secretary of state (Libya springs to mind).

Too many people care more for the right to let dangerous people own tools of murder than ensuring children are safe from harm by the literal government.

Or people care about letting people exercise their constitutional rights against those who would try (and fail) to restrict them.

That reminds me the guy who took a town hostage because he was fined for letting having his cattle pasture on government owned property without permission for 20 years and didn't want to move his cattle away. He was "exercising his constitutional rights against those who would tried to restrict them".

CaitSeith:

CM156:

Saelune:
If you vote for them anyways, you're letting them off the hook.

I disagree, no more than any democrat voter was letting Clinton "off the hook" for what she did as secretary of state (Libya springs to mind).

Too many people care more for the right to let dangerous people own tools of murder than ensuring children are safe from harm by the literal government.

Or people care about letting people exercise their constitutional rights against those who would try (and fail) to restrict them.

That reminds me the guy who took a town hostage because he was fined for letting having his cattle pasture on government owned property without permission for 20 years and didn't want to move his cattle away. He was "exercising his constitutional rights against those who would tried to restrict them".

There's not a constitutional right to graze your cows wherever you wish. Nor is there one to point your guns at federal agents in an armed standoff.

Also I have edited my post to more accurately reflect what I was trying to get across, my wording was inadequate.

EDIT: As for Bundy: The prosecutors really fucked up their case against him. And that's not my opinion, that's the opinion of an appelate court

Saelune:
You're making excuses then.

Eh. I don't see him going for Free Speech Zones or Hate Speech laws, and his shit with Libel and such has gone nowhere and the Dems have moved on themselves to the next thing he's dangling in front of them.

He is racist against all non-whites.

...Examples?

I am sure if he was shown a very Aryan Mexican, he would get caught up in his racist hypocrisy.

Thaaaaat's not how that works. And there are quite a few that'd probably meet your criteria. The people of Mexico are quite varied ethnically, but you just lump em alllllll together and declare Mexican a race despite things being far more complicated than that.

But then, he also continues to illegally employ illegal immigrants, and his wife is one too. Trump is a racist, AND a hypocrite.

Source on wife? Wife kind of implies that's not the case, but we'll see what you show me.

Basically, I think you either support someone despite him not representing your views, or you support someone who does represent your views and you keep claiming otherwise. Which is it?

Former is the closest. He's the closest thing to someone that isn't my worst nightmare, and his platform was nice so I went for it. Still got no wall or immigration reform, but that's life.

Gun rights should not supersede natural rights. Guns are man-made tools of murder. That is worth less than LGBT people's rights to exist.

LGBT people can't exist when people who hate them come in and kill them because they don't have guns. See the problem here? Armed Queers don't get bashed. They shoot back and put assholes in the ground.

Saelune:
Reminder, voting for Trump means condoning the suffering of these children.

Voting for Obama condoned targeted murder of children with drones and helicopters.

CM156:

Saelune:
So you want guns so you can KILL tyrannical politicians?

Spoiler: Click to ViewPHA+PGltZyBzcmM9Imh0dHBzOi8vbWVkaWExLnRlbm9yLmNvbS9pbWFnZXMvODNjMGJhYTRmMGU3MzEzNDA2YWVkZjkzYzJjNTgxNmEvdGVub3IuZ2lmP2l0ZW1pZD03MjQwNjM2IiBhbHQ9ImltYWdlIi8+PC9wPg==

I do not follow your jump in logic there.

EDIT: I see now. Edited my post to make my point more clear

Ya know, if Gun Rights people advocated background checks and shit like that, ya know, making sure not any nutjob could just get a gun, you know you would have far less problems with Democrats, right?

We have background checks. You're talking about private transfer, right? I have advocated allowing private individuals to submit a request for a check through NCIS, but that idea hasn't caught on quite yet.

To defend gun rights is to defend the concept of violence. My point is, the right wants to call the left violent for doing what the right claims to want to be able to do...but with guns. Like, would you prefer the left shoot Nazis instead of punch them?

The left advocates actual precautions for gun ownership, the right doesn't. Perhaps you and Leg End would be better served by Democrats?

CM156:

CaitSeith:

CM156:

I disagree, no more than any democrat voter was letting Clinton "off the hook" for what she did as secretary of state (Libya springs to mind).

Or people care about letting people exercise their constitutional rights against those who would try (and fail) to restrict them.

That reminds me the guy who took a town hostage because he was fined for letting having his cattle pasture on government owned property without permission for 20 years and didn't want to move his cattle away. He was "exercising his constitutional rights against those who would tried to restrict them".

There's not a constitutional right to graze your cows wherever you wish. Nor is there one to point your guns at federal agents in an armed standoff.

Also I have edited my post to more accurately reflect what I was trying to get across, my wording was inadequate.

If you phrase like that, obs. But when he phrased it he omitted those little details.

Leg End:

Saelune:
You're making excuses then.

Eh. I don't see him going for Free Speech Zones or Hate Speech laws, and his shit with Libel and such has gone nowhere and the Dems have moved on themselves to the next thing he's dangling in front of them.

He is racist against all non-whites.

...Examples?

I am sure if he was shown a very Aryan Mexican, he would get caught up in his racist hypocrisy.

Thaaaaat's not how that works. And there are quite a few that'd probably meet your criteria. The people of Mexico are quite varied ethnically, but you just lump em alllllll together and declare Mexican a race despite things being far more complicated than that.

But then, he also continues to illegally employ illegal immigrants, and his wife is one too. Trump is a racist, AND a hypocrite.

Source on wife? Wife kind of implies that's not the case, but we'll see what you show me.

Basically, I think you either support someone despite him not representing your views, or you support someone who does represent your views and you keep claiming otherwise. Which is it?

Former is the closest. He's the closest thing to someone that isn't my worst nightmare, and his platform was nice so I went for it. Still got no wall or immigration reform, but that's life.

Gun rights should not supersede natural rights. Guns are man-made tools of murder. That is worth less than LGBT people's rights to exist.

LGBT people can't exist when people who hate them come in and kill them because they don't have guns. See the problem here? Armed Queers don't get bashed. They shoot back and put assholes in the ground.

Saelune:
Reminder, voting for Trump means condoning the suffering of these children.

Voting for Obama condoned targeted murder of children with drones and helicopters.

You have to realize how messed up it is to be ok with him saying lies and/or not delivering on promises. That is the bar you are saying you have.

*looks at title*

Really? You're going to try for this spin? We all know this is some lame BS. And does Trump know not all Mexicans are the same? I have seen no reason to believe he does.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/melania-trump-immigration-donald-226648

So what are the parts you DO agree with him on? Cause no wall, no coal mine jobs, he has NOT helped gun rights at all.

So you support shooting people who are a threat to LGBT people? Such as Nazis?

Voting for Bush and Trump condoned targeted murder of children at the risk of US soldier's lives.

Well this went a bit off the rails huh? And welcome back Saelune.

They are, by definition, concentration camps. I'm sick of the pedants being annoying and utterly wrong by saying that they're not, because they only think of Nazi death camps during WW2 when they hear the phrase "concentration camp". Camps like this have existed outside of the Holocaust.

Anyway, the entire purpose of the camps is to intimidate and to inflict as much suffering as possible. It's to send a message. The conditions these kids are living in IS what it's supposed to be. It's not some tragic mistake or mishap. It's not something they're trying to improve. Hell, they've actively argued that they don't have to. They want them to rot and die to send a message. And all of this is perfectly acceptable apparently because they're not actively being murdered by the guards.

Also it's just really fucking astounding to me that everyone forgot that the administration was saying the suffering was the point. They were openly saying that this was a deterrent, that they made this happen. It's on their hands. They wanted and caused this suffering. And quite frankly, the Democratic leadership needs to stop being such pathetic piles of shit and actively fight against this instead of just being idle and silently supporting it.

And I don't give a fuck what anyone thinks about them coming here in the first place. This isn't an acceptable response.

Saelune:
To defend gun rights is to defend the concept of violence.

Violence isn't inherently bad. If someone commits or attempts to commit violence against myself, I am morally and legally entitled to use a proportional amount of force.

My point is, the right wants to call the left violent for doing what the right claims to want to be able to do...but with guns. Like, would you prefer the left shoot Nazis instead of punch them?

There's a difference between punching someone because they are an immediate threat to your person and assaulting people in response to speech.

Someone breaks into your house: Okay to shoot them
Someone corners you in an alley holding a knife: Okay to shoot them
Someone is marching in the street with signs and tiki torches: Not okay to inflict violence upon them.
Someone burns a flag of your nation or social/political movement: Not okay to inflict violence upon them

The left advocates actual precautions for gun ownership, the right doesn't.

Every gun safety lecture I've been to has been hosted by either the republican party or a group affiliated with a right-wing political movement.

Perhaps you and Leg End would be better served by Democrats?

Thanks, but no thanks.

So what are the parts you DO agree with him on? Cause no wall, no coal mine jobs, he has NOT helped gun rights at all.

He has appointed two pro-gun judges to the Supreme Court and gotten rid of that Social Security related gun control rule Obama tried for. Even the ACLU, wishy-washy as they are on gun rights, opposed this particular law

CaitSeith:
]
If you phrase like that, obs. But when he phrased it he omitted those little details.

Yes, the devil was in the details on that one.

CM156:

Saelune:
To defend gun rights is to defend the concept of violence.

Violence isn't inherently bad. If someone commits or attempts to commit violence against myself, I am morally and legally entitled to use a proportional amount of force.

My point is, the right wants to call the left violent for doing what the right claims to want to be able to do...but with guns. Like, would you prefer the left shoot Nazis instead of punch them?

There's a difference between punching someone because they are an immediate threat to your person and assaulting people in response to speech.

Someone breaks into your house: Okay to shoot them
Someone corners you in an alley holding a knife: Okay to shoot them
Someone is marching in the street with signs and tiki torches: Not okay to inflict violence upon them

The left advocates actual precautions for gun ownership, the right doesn't.

Every gun safety lecture I've been to has been hosted by either the republican party or a group affiliated with a right-wing political movement.

Perhaps you and Leg End would be better served by Democrats?

Thanks, but no thanks.

So what are the parts you DO agree with him on? Cause no wall, no coal mine jobs, he has NOT helped gun rights at all.

He has appointed two pro-gun judges to the Supreme Court and gotten rid of that Social Security related gun control rule Obama tried for. Even the ACLU, wishy-washy as they are on gun rights, opposed this particular law

CaitSeith:
]
If you phrase like that, obs. But when he phrased it he omitted those little details.

Yes, the devil was in the details on that one.

Well, I hope next time people condemn the very concept of violence, you are willing to call them out on it. Many defenders of Nazis like to claim that violence is ALWAYS wrong.

Advocating and supporting The Holocaust should be considered up there too. Any group that creates holocausts deserves to be treated as the terrorists they are.

They are invited to the Dems too.

So you support the views of those Supreme Court justices?

Saelune:
Well, I hope next time people condemn the very concept of violence, you are willing to call them out on it. Many defenders of Nazis like to claim that violence is ALWAYS wrong.

I have yet to see anyone who defended Richard Spencer or any of the like who said violence is always wrong, only that a street militia committing violence against people who are engaged in speech acts is wrong, regardless of what those speech acts are. And that further these groups often had rather fluid definitions of who was and who was not a "nazi" or a "fascist" and that allowing them to serve as enforcers of socially acceptable speech is also a bad idea.

So you support the views of those Supreme Court justices?

I have agreed with most of their opinions thus far. I would like to see an expansion of 4th amendment protections, as I feel the Roberts court has not been strong enough on that, but otherwise I'm mostly in agreement.

Saelune:
To defend gun rights is to defend the concept of violence.

To defend fire extinguishers is to defend the concept of fires!

My point is, the right wants to call the left violent for doing what the right claims to want to be able to do...but with guns. Like, would you prefer the left shoot Nazis instead of punch them?

I'd personally prefer they fought actual Nazis, and with that specific scenario in mind, would you prefer to throw rocks at the goosesteppers coming down the street, or would you rather have some full-auto metal slugs? That's where you confuse me. Neither of us want Queers getting bashed. Your method is to disarm them, mine is to strap them to the gills so that someone will think a few dozen times before the attempt, and said attempt will probably end with swiss cheese gay basher.

The left advocates actual precautions for gun ownership, the right doesn't. Perhaps you and Leg End would be better served by Democrats?

This is actually where I differ from most people. No background checks, no compromise. Shall not be infringed. Democrats are my antithesis.

Saelune:
You have to realize how messed up it is to be ok with him saying lies and/or not delivering on promises. That is the bar you are saying you have.

Oh no, I'm quite peeved about it. Problem is, no one else is better, or they're promising things I pray they don't follow up on. Welcome to my 2019 hell.

*looks at title*

*sees people entering a country illegally being detained for doing so*

Really? You're going to try for this spin? We all know this is some lame BS.

So we're all one race with absolutely no variance of any kind in this country. You know as well as I do that we all have different ethnic makeups, and calling us American as a race does not check out.

And does Trump know not all Mexicans are the same? I have seen no reason to believe he does.

You're going to try for this spin? With the frequency you say it, I'm beginning to question if you know that Mexicans are not all one blanket ethnicity, and that Hispanics and Latinos of all stripes have varying heritage.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/melania-trump-immigration-donald-226648

"After this article's publication, Melania Trump published a letter from an attorney who says that he reviewed her immigration history and that she entered the country for the first time in 1996 and complied with all visa laws."
I'll look into it later but I seriously don't buy any of it.

So what are the parts you DO agree with him on? Cause no wall, no coal mine jobs,

...I don't give a shit about coal.

he has NOT helped gun rights at all.

Sad thing is, he's helped them by not assfucking them beyond bumpstocks. That is so depressing that help consists of not tampering with rights.

So you support shooting people who are a threat to LGBT people? Such as Nazis?

If there is an actual Nazi goosestepping his ass onto your property and is armed with the intent to harm you, there are a dozen different qualifiers that just say "fucking shoot them". We are seriously not that different on some things, we just disagree about application of force. In some areas, you're far beyond me in readiness to attack.

Voting for Bush and Trump condoned targeted murder of children at the risk of US soldier's lives.

Iran hasn't been invaded yet and we're GTFOing out of Syria. That's a fucking major win in my book. Also I didn't vote for Bush and fucking hated his ass.

Mind informing people what concentration camps you're talking about first? Not all of us are in the know.

Leg End:

Saelune:
To defend gun rights is to defend the concept of violence.

To defend fire extinguishers is to defend the concept of fires!

That is just a dumb analogy that does NOT work at all. Fire extinguishers DONT MAKE FIRE. I hope you don't think the phrase 'fight fire with fire' is literal. Guns inherently create violence. Fire extinguishers put fires out. Unless you have a gun that shoots bullets that HEAL wounds, that analogy does not work at all.

My point is, the right wants to call the left violent for doing what the right claims to want to be able to do...but with guns. Like, would you prefer the left shoot Nazis instead of punch them?

I'd personally prefer they fought actual Nazis, and with that specific scenario in mind, would you prefer to throw rocks at the goosesteppers coming down the street, or would you rather have some full-auto metal slugs? That's where you confuse me. Neither of us want Queers getting bashed. Your method is to disarm them, mine is to strap them to the gills so that someone will think a few dozen times before the attempt, and said attempt will probably end with swiss cheese gay basher.

The left advocates actual precautions for gun ownership, the right doesn't. Perhaps you and Leg End would be better served by Democrats?

This is actually where I differ from most people. No background checks, no compromise. Shall not be infringed. Democrats are my antithesis.

Saelune:
You have to realize how messed up it is to be ok with him saying lies and/or not delivering on promises. That is the bar you are saying you have.

Oh no, I'm quite peeved about it. Problem is, no one else is better, or they're promising things I pray they don't follow up on. Welcome to my 2019 hell.

*looks at title*

*sees people entering a country illegally being detained for doing so*

Really? You're going to try for this spin? We all know this is some lame BS.

So we're all one race with absolutely no variance of any kind in this country. You know as well as I do that we all have different ethnic makeups, and calling us American as a race does not check out.

And does Trump know not all Mexicans are the same? I have seen no reason to believe he does.

You're going to try for this spin? With the frequency you say it, I'm beginning to question if you know that Mexicans are not all one blanket ethnicity, and that Hispanics and Latinos of all stripes have varying heritage.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/melania-trump-immigration-donald-226648

"After this article's publication, Melania Trump published a letter from an attorney who says that he reviewed her immigration history and that she entered the country for the first time in 1996 and complied with all visa laws."
I'll look into it later but I seriously don't buy any of it.

So what are the parts you DO agree with him on? Cause no wall, no coal mine jobs,

...I don't give a shit about coal.

he has NOT helped gun rights at all.

Sad thing is, he's helped them by not assfucking them beyond bumpstocks. That is so depressing that help consists of not tampering with rights.

So you support shooting people who are a threat to LGBT people? Such as Nazis?

If there is an actual Nazi goosestepping his ass onto your property and is armed with the intent to harm you, there are a dozen different qualifiers that just say "fucking shoot them". We are seriously not that different on some things, we just disagree about application of force. In some areas, you're far beyond me in readiness to attack.

Voting for Bush and Trump condoned targeted murder of children at the risk of US soldier's lives.

Iran hasn't been invaded yet and we're GTFOing out of Syria. That's a fucking major win in my book. Also I didn't vote for Bush and fucking hated his ass.

If we started shooting Nazis, Right-Wingers would claim we are terrorists. We both know this. Yes, including the 'gun rights' people. Right-wingers are consistently hypocritical. (Even made a topic about it like, last month)

To be clear you mean you just want ANYONE to be able to buy a gun, no questions asked?

Not peeved enough to do anything clearly. The things they are promising is equal rights for oppressed groups. You dont like that?

You're ok with Trump torturing children? No 'but Obama' here, Trump could have stopped it and did not.

Trump is the racist. No one is falling for this. You're just trying to troll at this point.

She did what Trump does, and says 'believe me', but gives no reason to believe her. But you have said you're ok with Trump lying to you in this very topic so...

Not coal, coal miners. They lost their jobs, the ones Trump said he was going to save. You dont care that these 'hard working Americans' were lied to by Trump and lost their jobs cause of it?

Your priorities are terrible.

As I said, if we shot Nazis your side would lose their shit.

TRUMP WANTS TO ATTACK IRAN! You cant give Trump credit cause the rest of us know thats BS to do. And leaving Syria is cause Putin wants us out of the way.

Samtemdo8:

Saelune:

Chimpzy:
Hi Saelune. Bienvenido. Getting right back into the thick of it, I see.

I may have been suspended for two weeks, but Trump wasn't.

Don't get in trouble again.

I wanna you to be here when 2020 comes.

Also what's your opinion on the Mulan 2020 movie?

Mulan is a cultural story of China from China. If anything, the US shouldn't be the one making it to begin with.

Specter Von Baren:
Mind informing people what concentration camps you're talking about first? Not all of us are in the know.

Are you not American? I genuinely don't know/remember. Everyone in the US should know about this.

Trump is putting immigrants from Mexico into concentration camps, splitting up families including very young children, and leaving them in Nazi-like conditions, no toothpaste, no soap, no care, for many many months now. Multiple people, including children have died. These kids are also growing up! without the attention of their families, and will likely be developmentally stunted for the rest of their lives. Trump is a terrorist and this is beyond not ok. And ANYONE who defends this is defending torturing children. THIS IS WHY MY THING SAYS "Trump puts kids in cages!"

CM156:

Every gun safety lecture I've been to has been hosted by either the republican party or a group affiliated with a right-wing political movement.

Are those lectures mandatory for acquiring a gun?

Leg End:

'Obama dun did it too' is getting pretty old, but it simply points out how the only reason anyone cares about it is that Donald is at the helm.

That's not quite true. I agree that there are people not even attempting to consider what they think should be happening because any opportunity to compare Trump to Hitler is more important to them than solving problems, but the primary reason that people care more now is that the issues at the border have dramatically changed. Obama was separating kids from parents, sure (and even before that), but the scale was way lower. And no, it's not really cause of catch and release or a move to zero tolerance, it's because the demographic of people coming to America has changed. Under Obama, it was still primarily working age men trying to sneak into the country undetected. Now, it's entire families from Central America trying to get across the border to turn themselves into CBP. What used to be a few kids taken from adults has changed into a major humanitarian crisis just because of the change in scale. Donald Trump didn't do that. A strange alliance between humanitarian groups promoting migration to the US and criminals willing to take people's money in return for discreet transportation to the US border has developed an infrastructure capable of getting parents with children into the custody of the United States.

That being said, these aren't concentration camps. Concentration camps are where you put people so they don't escape. Nobody, excepting perhaps wanted felons, is obligated to go into detention. They have the option to turn back both before and after they've crossed into the US. They have decided for themselves that living in detention for a time with the possibility of permanent asylum in the US is better than the life they have. I've seen people making comparisons to the Voyage of the St. Louis, a ship carrying Jewish refugees from Europe that was turned away by every nation they sought refuge, and after returning home many were killed in concentration camps. Stop and think about that. Imagine if they arrived at the shores of the US and were told "sure, you can stay, but you'll be detained in some uncomfortable buildings while we figure out the logistics. Cool?" Their discomfort probably wouldn't even be mentioned in the history books, the US would be the nation credited with saving those refugees. That is the policy now. Excepting the past couple years where Syrian refugees lapped a lot of the world's rate of refugees, the US has taken in more refugees that the rest of the world combined every year for decades. And with the near death of ISIS and the rise in asylum claims at the border, 2019 is probably going to be a return to form. We are the welcoming and generous nation that these people are trying to get into. That they have to spend some time detained in facilities with food, shelter, medical care, and education for children while the paperwork gets worked out does not diminish that.

That being said, an overworked and underfunded government agency was blown out by an unexpected surge in migration by families and was not well prepared to care for those people, particularly with courts' insistence that you can't keep children and adults together for an extended period of time. And instead of changing laws to take some burden off the border, or staffing the agencies needed to expedite the processes, or funding the centers to make conditions more comfortable, people keep talking about abolishing law enforcement agencies under the premise that something's not really a crime if nobody enforces it. Not realizing their solution amounts to "Let the children and the criminals walk across the desert together so that they can fend for themselves in a foreign land when they get here. That's the humane thing to do."

tstorm823:
Nobody, excepting perhaps wanted felons, is obligated to go into detention.

tstorm823:
And instead of changing laws to take some burden off the border

They did change. Since the past year the Trump administration has made a practice of limiting the number of asylum seekers allowed to enter the US each day. This had the effect of increasing illegal entry, not decreasing it.

tstorm823:
people keep talking about abolishing law enforcement agencies

When ICE agents keep harassing US born citizens just for their looks, this kind of talk is bound to happen.

CaitSeith:

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/deportation-removal-proceedings.html

"Non-citizens have the right to a lawyer, as well as other rights under the U.S. Constitution. The immigration authorities cannot simply deport someone without providing a chance to be heard.

Of course, the authorities often try to make the process go quickly, by asking the immigrant to sign something agreeing to depart without a hearing. In some cases, when the immigrant really is in the U.S. illegally with no defense to removal, leaving voluntarily can be the best way to go, because it avoids having an order of deportation on one's record.

But anyone who believes they might have a right to remain in the U.S. should insist on their right to a lawyer (which they will, unfortunately, have to pay for on their own) and to a hearing on the merits of their case."

We don't want to detain people who are willing to leave. We would rather they left. The only people detained are those who insist on their day in court. I don't fault people for insisting on their day in court, but they are perfectly welcome to waive that right.

They did change. Since the past year the Trump administration has made a practice of limiting the number of asylum seekers allowed to enter the US each day. This had the effect of increasing illegal entry, not decreasing it.

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/how-many-people-can-get-asylum.html

"The U.S. immigration laws do not set a limit on the number of people who can be awarded asylum in the United States each year."

Edit: I'll be nice and get ahead of this to save us some back and forth. What you're thinking of is "metering", slowing down asylum claims at a point of entry deliberately. They did this because the busier and better staffed border crossings were capable of getting people past the first step of asylum claims faster than the rest of the system could handle people, so they tried slowing down entry rather than sticking more people into crowded buildings with inadequate resources.

CaitSeith:

CM156:

Every gun safety lecture I've been to has been hosted by either the republican party or a group affiliated with a right-wing political movement.

Are those lectures mandatory for acquiring a gun?

Depends on the state. In my state, it is not a requirement.

CM156:

CaitSeith:

CM156:

Every gun safety lecture I've been to has been hosted by either the republican party or a group affiliated with a right-wing political movement.

Are those lectures mandatory for acquiring a gun?

Depends on the state. In my state, it is not a requirement.

It needs to be a requirement.

Saelune:

CM156:

CaitSeith:

Are those lectures mandatory for acquiring a gun?

Depends on the state. In my state, it is not a requirement.

It needs to be a requirement.

yup

Saelune:
That is just a dumb analogy that does NOT work at all.

Dumb? Sure. Does not work? Well, I like my extinguishers.

Fire extinguishers DONT MAKE FIRE. I hope you don't think the phrase 'fight fire with fire' is literal.

Usually isn't, but it actually can be. But that's going into actual combating of real fires.

Guns inherently create violence.

Then where the hell is my violence production? Clearly mine are broken! But for a serious reply, no, they do not. The creator of any violence is the person engaging in a violent act.

Fire extinguishers put fires out. Unless you have a gun that shoots bullets that HEAL wounds, that analogy does not work at all.

More concerned with how I can use a firearm to stop a violent incident. I don't exactly think hugs are going to stop armed home invaders, general thugs, Nazis, you know.

If we started shooting Nazis, Right-Wingers would claim we are terrorists. We both know this. Yes, including the 'gun rights' people.

Like I've said before. If you're shooting at actual goosestepping Krauts who are initiating violence, absolutely nobody in their right mind is going to fault you. Of course, that goes the same for if you're initiating violence against someone else.

Right-wingers are consistently hypocritical. (Even made a topic about it like, last month)

Fox News is shit. What else is new? Left-Wingers are consistently hypocritical and that gets no flak from you, at least as far as I can remember.

To be clear you mean you just want ANYONE to be able to buy a gun, no questions asked?

Shall not be infringed. Change the Second Amendment if you disagree.

Not peeved enough to do anything clearly. The things they are promising is equal rights for oppressed groups. You dont like that?

When one is privileged, equality can feel like oppression.

You're ok with Trump torturing children? No 'but Obama' here, Trump could have stopped it and did not.

I am not okay with any form of child torture or abuse. Take that as you will.

Trump is the racist. No one is falling for this. You're just trying to troll at this point.

You're brushing the topic under the rug. Taking issue with foreign nationals wiping their ass with our immigration laws is not racism. Do you know anything at all about Mexican history? At this point you're basically saying "That's white, that's brown, that's black", and kind of ignoring various groups and ethnic makeups in the region. We're more than just a goddamn skin color, which a lot of us don't even fucking share!

She did what Trump does, and says 'believe me', but gives no reason to believe her. But you have said you're ok with Trump lying to you in this very topic so...

Lawyer's letter comes in the mail, and everybody shuts up. Hmmmm...

Not coal, coal miners. They lost their jobs, the ones Trump said he was going to save. You dont care that these 'hard working Americans' were lied to by Trump and lost their jobs cause of it?

I'm not as versed on the matter, but I consider it him promising a miracle. If he was going to save their jobs with our money, I'd actually be just as pissed.

Your priorities are terrible.

I like people being able to stand up to tyrants. Can't do that with slingshots. The Government doesn't give equality. Being armed to the teeth tends to make people think twice about stepping on you.

As I said, if we shot Nazis your side would lose their shit.

Libertarians? You know the NAP is a thing, right?

TRUMP WANTS TO ATTACK IRAN!

We'll see what comes of Iran.

And leaving Syria is cause Putin wants us out of the way.

RussiaGate is a conspiracy theory.

Leg End:

Saelune:
If we started shooting Nazis, Right-Wingers would claim we are terrorists. We both know this. Yes, including the 'gun rights' people. Right-wingers are consistently hypocritical. (Even made a topic about it like, last month)

Fox News is shit. What else is new?

That Right-wingers believe what they say. No wait, that isn't new either. That's been happening for years, and that's the reason why so many fools defend and excuse even the worst of GOPs actions (like the ones that lead to the current concentration camps).

CaitSeith:

That Right-wingers believe what they say. No wait, that isn't new either. That's been happening for years, and that's the reason why so many fools defend and excuse even the worst of GOPs actions (like the ones that lead to the current concentration camps).

Still aren't concentration camps.

Leg End:
Then where the hell is my violence production? Clearly mine are broken! But for a serious reply, no, they do not. The creator of any violence is the person engaging in a violent act.

Hrmmm... in a sense.

However, if we have (say) a machine used to assemble boxes, it's perfectly reasonable to say the machine makes boxes. You might quibble and state that the person operating the machine is the one "making" the box, but the machine obviously vastly amplifies that person's ability to make the box, so to pretend that the machine has not played an integral part in bringing that box to fruition is nonsense.

Ditto, guns. The gun has vastly amplified the person's ability to perpetrate violence, and the gun has blatantly played an integral part in bringing the violence to fruition.

Leg End:
Shall not be infringed. Change the Second Amendment if you disagree.

Take that literally, and toddlers can buy guns. Murderers in prison can buy guns in their cells.

Quoting the wording is not an argument. Everybody in their right mind recognises some form of restriction; the disagreement is where that restriction lies. Don't imagine it's some kind of absolute rule, self-evident in the words "shall not infringe", and the debate ends there.

undeadsuitor:

Just because they aren't the narrow definition of death camps popularized by Nazis, doesn't mean they aren't concentration camps

That or some of us are comparing them to the time America actually had concentration camps.

Silvanus:

Quoting the wording is not an argument.

It's a clear argument that it's a constitutional right.

Everybody in their right mind

Well, not this guy right here.

recognises some form of restriction; the disagreement is where that restriction lies.

Sure, we all have disagreement on whether to restrict or not, and to what extent.

Don't imagine it's some kind of absolute rule, self-evident in the words "shall not infringe", and the debate ends there.

It does, unless you want to open up the can of worms for violating the constitution on a whim. That'd be a really fun thing to just have happen under this presidency, eh?

undeadsuitor:

Just because they aren't the narrow definition of death camps popularized by Nazis, doesn't mean they aren't concentration camps

It's not just nazi death camps that they aren't. It's any definition of concentration camp. If you have the option to not go to the facility, it isn't a concentration camp. There's no such thing as a voluntary concentration camp.