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

[Dirty Hipsters]

Regardless of whether I vote democrat or republican I will be betraying half the things I care about, and apparently according to you if I vote 3rd party (which I did) I'm a Trump supporter because I voted against Hilary (even though I simultaneously voted against Trump).

If I may ask, who did you vote for?

Gary Johnson.

I knew that he had no chance of winning, and there are some platforms of his that I have issues with. I don't think that he would do enough to protect the environment and counteract global warming, and he's against government spending on infrastructure if that infrastructure doesn't pay for itself which I think is a moronic stance, as is his idea of completely abolishing income and corporate taxes. On the whole though, I agree with his policies more than I did with either Hilary or Trump.

There's no perfect candidate, and Gary Johnson is far from perfect, but he was closer to my personal viewpoints on domestic policies than any of the other candidates, and considering I didn't think he had an chance in hell of actually abolishing corporate taxes I wasn't too worried about that platform.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

And no one is actually FOR illegal immigration by the way. I just think immigration should be easy and should acknowledge that most immigrants are just people wanting a better life.

Then call it what it is. I'm so sick of the left talking about all immigrants in discussions of illegal immigration and then pretending that anyone who is against illegal immigration is anti-immigrant.

I'm an immigrant, most of my family are immigrants, as are many of my friends. We all came to the US legally, and it was a huge pain in the ass. Giving protections to people who break the law and come here illegally spits in the face of all the people who went through the legal channels to come here, and even more so for people who attempted to come here legally and were denied. You can't reward people for breaking the law.

The US has the right to choose who it allows to enter. I'm pro all of the immigrants who take the time to go through the process legally, and I don't have a lot of sympathy for illegal immigrants who get deported.

 

[Leg End]

Gary Johnson.

I knew that he had no chance of winning, and there are some platforms of his that I have issues with. I don't think that he would do enough to protect the environment and counteract global warming, and he's against government spending on infrastructure if that infrastructure doesn't pay for itself which I think is a moronic stance, as is his idea of completely abolishing income and corporate taxes. On the whole though, I agree with his policies more than I did with either Hilary or Trump.

Pretty much my way on it. Figured he had no chance of winning despite being the best choice, so I voted for Trump in a bid to put my hands on the steering wheel to avoid the cliff. Then again, California, so my vote doesn't matter for jack here.

There's no perfect candidate, and Gary Johnson is far from perfect, but he was closer to my personal viewpoints on domestic policies than any of the other candidates, and considering I didn't think he had an chance in hell of actually abolishing corporate taxes I wasn't too worried about that platform.

If there was any chance of it happening, I'd have gone in behind Ron Paul. Unlike Gary or Donald, I can't immediately think of things I'm majorly against in his stances. Thanks for answering!

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I just linked you Hillary Clinton's official stance on firearm regulation. Banning AR15's isn't taking away one's right to defend themselves, like I stated above, unless you are going hog hunting, no one needs an AR15. They can sell it and get something far more reasonable. No one is suggesting they come in and take my shotgun and glock 40, and it should not be interpreted as such.

Thank you, that's all I needed to hear.

After they do that they can focus on removing firearms from people with violent histories. Right now due to firearms not even being registered there is no way to really do that either yet.

This really doesn't help fight against the idea that registration leads to confiscation.

Why is that all you need to hear? We don't allow people to have access to all weapons because those weapons have been shown to be harmful to society. It is all about having the right tool for the job. I still think people should have access to certain weapons if what they are using it for requires it and we distribute them on a permit basis rather than just allow them in mass on the streets. What that weapon is matters. We are not allowed access to nukes because they have been deemed detrimental to society, they did the same thing with Automatic weapons because they too were deemed detrimental to society. I saw guys unburying bags of guns on the playground down the street from my cousins house when I was a kid. My cousin was shot changing a tire in his driveway. My highschool boyfriend was shot and killed driving home from work on 635. My own dumbass brother stole one of my father's guns and traded it to a friend whose wife then used it to kill herself, even worse my brother was pulled over with that gun on the way to his friends and they just let him go with it. If we had registration laws, he could have been stopped. We have seen where our lax gun laws get us already, we have mass shootings so frequently now that people have become numb to them. Hearing that even a single person has been shot should be seen and emotionally felt as a tragedy, but now people are numb to it to the point it just blends in with the background. Why is that seen as an acceptable price to pay for gun ownership?

It shouldn't be. Yes, registration will lead to some confiscation, but some confiscation should be seen as good, not bad. The less people who should not have guns losing those guns the less chance a stray bullet flies through your house during a drunken argument from your neighbors and hits your loved ones. Why should we be afraid of confiscation when we already should be more afraid of leaving guns in the hands of people who should not have them. Are your kids going to be safe when they go to school? walking down the street? On the playground? In their own beds at 2 am when your drunk ass neighbors are fighting again? That is far more concerning than being worried about taking their guns away from them. Why should we be hysterical about confiscating some guns but not be about what is happening because we don't?

 

[Marik2]

 

[Leg End]

Why is that all you need to hear?

Got your full viewpoint down in that short segment. I get where you're at.

We don't allow people to have access to all weapons because those weapons have been shown to be harmful to society. I saw guys unburying bags of guns on the playground down the street from my cousins house when I was a kid.

And gun control stops that... how?

My cousin was shot changing a tire in his driveway. My highschool boyfriend was shot and killed driving home from work on 635. My own dumbass brother stole one of my father's guns and traded it to a friend whose wife then used it to kill herself, even worse my brother was pulled over with that gun on the way to his friends and they just let him go with it.

What kind of firearms were used in each instance? What kind do you think were used?

We have seen where our lax gun laws get us already, we have mass shootings so frequently now that people have become numb to them. Hearing that even a single person has been shot should be seen and emotionally felt as a tragedy, but now people are numb to it to the point it just blends in with the background. Why is that seen as an acceptable price to pay for gun ownership?

So, if AR-15s are detrimental to society, where does that put your Glock 40? Is it more or less detrimental to society, in your eyes? Rifles of any kind are absolutely dwarfed in crime usage compared to Handguns, which are incredibly easy to conceal in comparison, even if you're deciding to say fuck it to laws anyway and make an SBR, ATF anal probe be damned. Will you have over your Glock?

It shouldn't be. Yes, registration will lead to some confiscation, but some confiscation should be seen as good, not bad.

Confiscation of property and violation of rights should always be seen as a bad thing. If someone is so dangerous as to require permanent restriction of their rights in order to walk among us in any capacity, why are they among us? Should they not be locked away for the benefit of Society at large? If you do the crime, you do the time, then your societal debt is paid, is it not? Or is that not how things should be?

Why should we be hysterical about confiscating some guns but not be about what is happening because we don't?

Handguns exist and have been/are used by mass shooters, and are continually used by gangbangers and pretty much anyone that would use a firearm in a crime. Will you surrender your Glock for the good of our society?

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Why is that all you need to hear?

Got your full viewpoint down in that short segment. I get where you're at.

We don't allow people to have access to all weapons because those weapons have been shown to be harmful to society. I saw guys unburying bags of guns on the playground down the street from my cousins house when I was a kid.

And gun control stops that... how?

My cousin was shot changing a tire in his driveway. My highschool boyfriend was shot and killed driving home from work on 635. My own dumbass brother stole one of my father's guns and traded it to a friend whose wife then used it to kill herself, even worse my brother was pulled over with that gun on the way to his friends and they just let him go with it.

What kind of firearms were used in each instance? What kind do you think were used?

We have seen where our lax gun laws get us already, we have mass shootings so frequently now that people have become numb to them. Hearing that even a single person has been shot should be seen and emotionally felt as a tragedy, but now people are numb to it to the point it just blends in with the background. Why is that seen as an acceptable price to pay for gun ownership?

So, if AR-15s are detrimental to society, where does that put your Glock 40? Is it more or less detrimental to society, in your eyes? Rifles of any kind are absolutely dwarfed in crime usage compared to Handguns, which are incredibly easy to conceal in comparison, even if you're deciding to say fuck it to laws anyway and make an SBR, ATF anal probe be damned. Will you have over your Glock?

It shouldn't be. Yes, registration will lead to some confiscation, but some confiscation should be seen as good, not bad.

Confiscation of property and violation of rights should always be seen as a bad thing. If someone is so dangerous as to require permanent restriction of their rights in order to walk among us in any capacity, why are they among us? Should they not be locked away for the benefit of Society at large? If you do the crime, you do the time, then your societal debt is paid, is it not? Or is that not how things should be?

Why should we be hysterical about confiscating some guns but not be about what is happening because we don't?

Handguns exist and have been/are used by mass shooters, and are continually used by gangbangers and pretty much anyone that would use a firearm in a crime. Will you surrender your Glock for the good of our society?

Requiring those firearms to be registered would mean that more of those guns would have been likely confiscated when people were caught walking around with them when they aren't buried in the ground. The guns aren't registered, so if police randomly stop someone with them in their car, they have no reason to confiscate it because it isn't illegal for them to have them. It is far more difficult to trace stolen guns without registration, we basically tie the hands of our police by not giving them a means to determine if a person should have that gun or not so they are more often than not, not able to do anything about the bad guys with the guns until after something horrible, or many "something horribles" have already happened.

My cousin was shot in the shoulder by an AK-47, My highschool boyfriend was believed to be shot with at least 5 different firearms as they believe he was targeted as part of a gang initiation shooting, my brother stole a colt .45 revolver. Yes, I do believe registration and permit laws would have helped reduce the chances of those firearms being where they were at the time the shootings happened.

If they determine my Glock 40 to be detrimental, I have no problem using another weapon. If they require me to have training and a permit to own one, I have no problem with that either. Like I stated before, I don't think a total ban is necessary, they can have permits and add requirements to have certain weapons and I think that will help reduce the damage being done as well because you will have less people who have no clue what they are doing with their firearm doing something stupid with it as well. If they are not capable of passing a required tests and training to own a specific firearm, how can they be trusted to use it properly?

Confiscation of property should not always be seen as a bad thing. If someone keeps threatening to kill people, why would you want them to keep their weapons? That is exactly what happens all day every day. If someone is threatening people, they have shown themselves unfit for a weapon. That is not a bad thing to take away their guns. Are we to lock up everyone who threatens people? Every drunken idiot? There is a reason they don't allow guns in bars, they should not allow guns in the hands of angry drunks when they are not at the bar either. Taking them from them should not be seen as a bad thing. I am not suggesting taking them from people who have shown themselves to be responsible, I am stating we should take them from people who have proven themselves irresponsible through their own actions.

Of course I will surrender my Glock for the good of society, there is nothing stating that is the only firearm I can use, nor is it like I am not capable of using another one. I see this as no different than requiring we have cars up to safety standards or stoves that won't leak or explode. When they ban certain models or features of stoves, they are not saying you can't have a stove, they are just telling you to get a different one because the one that specific model has been shown to be harmful. If my choice of stove is bad, I get another stove. If my choice of gun is bad, I get another gun. It isn't that hard to do with a buyback program.

 

[Leg End]

Requiring those firearms to be registered would mean that more of those guns would have been likely confiscated when people were caught walking around with them when they aren't buried in the ground.

Yet people digging guns up aren't exactly going to be the people that are without a criminal past, are they? If someone like that is stopped and searched for whatever reason, and the firearm is found, it is their own criminal record that will do them in. Right?

The guns aren't registered, so if police randomly stop someone with them in their car, they have no reason to confiscate it because it isn't illegal for them to have them.

But we're talking about instances of people where it would be illegal for them to own a firearm, owning one. It doesn't matter if a gun is registered to you or not if you're a felon who, legally, isn't supposed to have one.

It is far more difficult to trace stolen guns without registration, we basically tie the hands of our police by not giving them a means to determine if a person should have that gun or not so they are more often than not, not able to do anything about the bad guys with the guns until after something horrible, or many "something horribles" have already happened.

So we're now specifically talking about people with spotless records possessing firearms and determining if they're theirs or not?

My cousin was shot in the shoulder by an AK-47, My highschool boyfriend was believed to be shot with at least 5 different firearms as they believe he was targeted as part of a gang initiation shooting, my brother stole a colt .45 revolver. Yes, I do believe registration and permit laws would have helped reduce the chances of those firearms being where they were at the time the shootings happened.

...I can try and understand your reasoning from your brother's situation with your word as the basis, but how on Earth would registration and permits have stopped a gang initiation shooting?

If they determine my Glock 40 to be detrimental,

Why haven't you determined it to be detrimental yourself?

I have no problem using another weapon.

Well, immediately you're stuck with a shotgun, and that's about it. Your arms to defend yourself with has been dropped down to a rather large and bulky long-arm that you cannot conceal nor easily walk around with. Not many are willing to make that kind of trade, or are afforded the luxury. That, and how long until that buckshot menace is declared an ill to society? What are you willing to give up for the health of society?

If they require me to have training and a permit to own one, I have no problem with that either. Like I stated before, I don't think a total ban is necessary, they can have permits and add requirements to have certain weapons and I think that will help reduce the damage being done as well because you will have less people who have no clue what they are doing with their firearm doing something stupid with it as well.

Again, what part of this would have stopped the gangbangers from murdering your boyfriend? California already has rather extensive laws regarding purchase, ownership, and carry. I still nearly lost my mother to a random shooting because gangbangers are unaffected by these laws.

Confiscation of property should not always be seen as a bad thing. If someone keeps threatening to kill people, why would you want them to keep their weapons?

If they keep threatening to kill people, why are they not in a cell?

That is exactly what happens all day every day. If someone is threatening people, they have shown themselves unfit for a weapon.

They have shown themselves unfit to be outside of a cell, potentially a padded one.

That is not a bad thing to take away their guns. Are we to lock up everyone who threatens people? Every drunken idiot?

It is typically illegal to threaten to kill someone!

There is a reason they don't allow guns in bars, they should not allow guns in the hands of angry drunks when they are not at the bar either.

Carrying while intoxicated is already a crime in a shitload of places! What are you proposing to be changed?

Taking them from them should not be seen as a bad thing. I am not suggesting taking them from people who have shown themselves to be responsible, I am stating we should take them from people who have proven themselves irresponsible through their own actions.

You're describing people that should be behind bars. This is a very strange redundancy.

Of course I will surrender my Glock for the good of society, there is nothing stating that is the only firearm I can use, nor is it like I am not capable of using another one. I see this as no different than requiring we have cars up to safety standards or stoves that won't leak or explode.

...It is quite different because you're talking about restricting one thing due to potential for user abuse, while the other two things are to do with the safety of the operation of the item in question. A better analogy would be for firearms to be held to a standard of safety for the user, along the lines of a gun straight-up exploding in your hand due to bad design.

When they ban certain models or features of stoves, they are not saying you can't have a stove, they are just telling you to get a different one because the one that specific model has been shown to be harmful.

...This is not even remotely the same conversation.

If my choice of stove is bad, I get another stove. If my choice of gun is bad, I get another gun. It isn't that hard to do with a buyback program.

So, you yourself never determine if something is bad at any point of this, you leave that determination solely for the state, and that determination being what is good for society. And you at no point personally enter into this and do not have your own code on what is good or bad for society, thus resulting in you personally taking action before the state would weigh in. Am I correct in my conclusion?

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Requiring those firearms to be registered would mean that more of those guns would have been likely confiscated when people were caught walking around with them when they aren't buried in the ground.

Yet people digging guns up aren't exactly going to be the people that are without a criminal past, are they? If someone like that is stopped and searched for whatever reason, and the firearm is found, it is their own criminal record that will do them in. Right?

The guns aren't registered, so if police randomly stop someone with them in their car, they have no reason to confiscate it because it isn't illegal for them to have them.

But we're talking about instances of people where it would be illegal for them to own a firearm, owning one. It doesn't matter if a gun is registered to you or not if you're a felon who, legally, isn't supposed to have one.

It is far more difficult to trace stolen guns without registration, we basically tie the hands of our police by not giving them a means to determine if a person should have that gun or not so they are more often than not, not able to do anything about the bad guys with the guns until after something horrible, or many "something horribles" have already happened.

So we're now specifically talking about people with spotless records possessing firearms and determining if they're theirs or not?

My cousin was shot in the shoulder by an AK-47, My highschool boyfriend was believed to be shot with at least 5 different firearms as they believe he was targeted as part of a gang initiation shooting, my brother stole a colt .45 revolver. Yes, I do believe registration and permit laws would have helped reduce the chances of those firearms being where they were at the time the shootings happened.

...I can try and understand your reasoning from your brother's situation with your word as the basis, but how on Earth would registration and permits have stopped a gang initiation shooting?

If they determine my Glock 40 to be detrimental,

Why haven't you determined it to be detrimental yourself?

I have no problem using another weapon.

Well, immediately you're stuck with a shotgun, and that's about it. Your arms to defend yourself with has been dropped down to a rather large and bulky long-arm that you cannot conceal nor easily walk around with. Not many are willing to make that kind of trade, or are afforded the luxury. That, and how long until that buckshot menace is declared an ill to society? What are you willing to give up for the health of society?

If they require me to have training and a permit to own one, I have no problem with that either. Like I stated before, I don't think a total ban is necessary, they can have permits and add requirements to have certain weapons and I think that will help reduce the damage being done as well because you will have less people who have no clue what they are doing with their firearm doing something stupid with it as well.

Again, what part of this would have stopped the gangbangers from murdering your boyfriend? California already has rather extensive laws regarding purchase, ownership, and carry. I still nearly lost my mother to a random shooting because gangbangers are unaffected by these laws.

Confiscation of property should not always be seen as a bad thing. If someone keeps threatening to kill people, why would you want them to keep their weapons?

If they keep threatening to kill people, why are they not in a cell?

That is exactly what happens all day every day. If someone is threatening people, they have shown themselves unfit for a weapon.

They have shown themselves unfit to be outside of a cell, potentially a padded one.

That is not a bad thing to take away their guns. Are we to lock up everyone who threatens people? Every drunken idiot?

It is typically illegal to threaten to kill someone!

There is a reason they don't allow guns in bars, they should not allow guns in the hands of angry drunks when they are not at the bar either.

Carrying while intoxicated is already a crime in a shitload of places! What are you proposing to be changed?

Taking them from them should not be seen as a bad thing. I am not suggesting taking them from people who have shown themselves to be responsible, I am stating we should take them from people who have proven themselves irresponsible through their own actions.

You're describing people that should be behind bars. This is a very strange redundancy.

Of course I will surrender my Glock for the good of society, there is nothing stating that is the only firearm I can use, nor is it like I am not capable of using another one. I see this as no different than requiring we have cars up to safety standards or stoves that won't leak or explode.

...It is quite different because you're talking about restricting one thing due to potential for user abuse, while the other two things are to do with the safety of the operation of the item in question. A better analogy would be for firearms to be held to a standard of safety for the user, along the lines of a gun straight-up exploding in your hand due to bad design.

When they ban certain models or features of stoves, they are not saying you can't have a stove, they are just telling you to get a different one because the one that specific model has been shown to be harmful.

...This is not even remotely the same conversation.

If my choice of stove is bad, I get another stove. If my choice of gun is bad, I get another gun. It isn't that hard to do with a buyback program.

So, you yourself never determine if something is bad at any point of this, you leave that determination solely for the state, and that determination being what is good for society. And you at no point personally enter into this and do not have your own code on what is good or bad for society, thus resulting in you personally taking action before the state would weigh in. Am I correct in my conclusion?

That is just it, it isn't currently illegal for someone to have a firearm after they threatened people or have had a violent past, only a felony. Domestic violence rarely results in felony charges if any. Threatening people rarely result in charges and drunks get to keep their guns in the house even when they have been fighting. That is the current reality here. You can call the police but they will not help you stop them from shooting you or anyone else because current laws prevent them from doing so. When we had a neighbor threatening another neighbor with his AK47 over parking, when we called the police, the dispatcher actually asked " is he pointing it at him because it is legal for him to have it out even when they are arguing?" They were not even going to come out until he was already pointing the gun he went into the house to go get because he was pissed about parking. How long does it take for someone to be shot after the gun is being pointed eh? That is why so many have been calling for regulation that the Republicans have been fighting against. Even common sense gun laws allowing police to confiscate weapons from stalkers and people threatening to kill people do not yet exist in the US. Often the people transporting the firearms that are dug up from playgrounds are not the same people with felony convictions that is why they use "mules" in the first place. Before we can start taking guns away from those who are dangerous, we have to start with registering them so that we can do so. If the person carrying the gun is not the registered owner, they can confiscate it and they can apply to get it back later if they are the legal owner. That keeps guns in the hands of the people that are supposed to have them and allows for them to be confiscated later if they start threatening people. All police have to do at that point is look up and see they own that weapon and confiscate it rather than wait until they killed someone with it. This would be especially helpful in domestic violence cases, as they would actually be able to remove the gun from a home where they have a domestic violence situation going on. Most deaths are from domestic violence, and repeatedly we hear that the police had been called to the residence repeatedly prior to that happening and could not do anything about the guns because there were no laws to allow them to do so. This would be one of the better ways to prevent that from happening.

The police hardly ever take someone to jail for threatening people.People threaten each other dozens of times a night at bars all over the place and no one is charged for doing so. When I bartended in college this went on all night every night. It is not as uncommon as you seem to think. Hell people are threatened far more in their own homes by family members, why do you think domestic violence is such a problem? When you throw guns into the mix it becomes deadly instead of irritating. If you think prison overcrowding is bad now, just imagine how bad it would be if they threw every person making threats behind bars? They rarely lock people up for threats is the issue. All someone has to say is " I didn't mean it" and they let them go on their way, even if that means as soon as the police leave they go get their gun and shoot someone. That is the reality here. We have to deal with all sorts of people in reality, drunk people, people on drugs, people with high blood pressure, people with road rage, that is all just a part of existing in this world. We do not exist in a world where everyone is nice to each other, that would be great but is far from reality.

Actually often items are banned because of improper user operation, not just firearms. Everything from Seldane to baby products have been banned because people didn't follow the directions. Seldane was perfectly safe to use as long as you don't mix it with grapefruit. People wouldn't stop doing that so they banned it. Numerous baby products such as walkers, bouncers, sleepers are constantly banned because they require parent supervised use but parents refuse to watch their kids so they have to remove the products when there is technically nothing wrong with them. That is how these things work in reality. If people won't stop using certain guns improperly, they may have to do the same thing they do with baby products and medication.

Of course I determine if things are bad on my own, I am not going to suddenly run out at start drinking spoiled milk or smoking weed simply because it is made legal. That is not what we are discussing here though, it is a matter of the whole" not just the individual. I also see it as the function of government to look out for the " general welfare" of the people as designated by the constitution, whether that means banning a certain baby walker or banning a certain model of firearm because people refuse to use it properly. I personally choose not to use a lot of things, that does not mean I should go vigilante and start enforcing it on my own, that is why we have the government to look out for the "general welfare" of the people in the first place. Currently though our police do not have a means to remove guns from a house they are called to every other weekend due to their drunken brawls, that is part of why this needs to change so they can prevent bad situations from escalating into horrors. How many horrors could have been prevented if they had been able to act on this sooner?

http://fortune.com/2017/11/07/domestic-violence-shootings-statistics/

 

[twistedmic]

It shouldn't be. Yes, registration will lead to some confiscation, but some confiscation should be seen as good, not bad.

Confiscation of property and violation of rights should always be seen as a bad thing. If someone is so dangerous as to require permanent restriction of their rights in order to walk among us in any capacity, why are they among us? Should they not be locked away for the benefit of Society at large? If you do the crime, you do the time, then your societal debt is paid, is it not? [/quote]
What about people with mental illnesses? What about mentally impaired people? Should they be locked away?
As to your point on confiscation, does that apply to people who have had their driver's license revoked? What about the doctors and surgeons who have had their license to practice revoked? What about people who have had their cars seized due to traffic or drug and alcohol violations? Have those people had their rights violated?
Is it a violation of rights for a public school (elementary to high school) to confiscate a bottle of alcohol?

 

[Agema]

Confiscation of property and violation of rights should always be seen as a bad thing.

That depends on the reason property is confiscated or rights violated. Obviously, with respect to this argument, confiscation of property (guns) may potentially prevent violation of rights (physical harm).

If someone is so dangerous as to require permanent restriction of their rights in order to walk among us in any capacity, why are they among us? Should they not be locked away for the benefit of Society at large? If you do the crime, you do the time, then your societal debt is paid, is it not? Or is that not how things should be?

Jail is restriction of rights - and a damn sight more restriction than being free to go about one's business except for being forbidden to own a gun or drive a car, etc.

We can judge that someone is broadly safe, so long as they restricted from certain high risk activities where they have a proven history of poor conduct. Your average fraudster, for instance, is not the sort of person you'd want running a company, but probably safe to own a gun.

 

[Silvanus]

Yet people digging guns up aren't exactly going to be the people that are without a criminal past, are they? If someone like that is stopped and searched for whatever reason, and the firearm is found, it is their own criminal record that will do them in. Right?

Uhrm, well, no. Obviously not everybody who is going to commit a crime has committed a crime before.

Every criminal has to commit a crime for the first time. And for that reason, background checks are inadequate.

If you rely on background checks, you are tacitly considering those initial crimes (as well as the violated rights and freedoms that the victims suffer) as an acceptable cost. That's not a cost I consider acceptable for the right to carry around weaponry.

 

[Saelune]

And no one is actually FOR illegal immigration by the way. I just think immigration should be easy and should acknowledge that most immigrants are just people wanting a better life.

Then call it what it is. I'm so sick of the left talking about all immigrants in discussions of illegal immigration and then pretending that anyone who is against illegal immigration is anti-immigrant.

I'm an immigrant, most of my family are immigrants, as are many of my friends. We all came to the US legally, and it was a huge pain in the ass. Giving protections to people who break the law and come here illegally spits in the face of all the people who went through the legal channels to come here, and even more so for people who attempted to come here legally and were denied. You can't reward people for breaking the law.

The US has the right to choose who it allows to enter. I'm pro all of the immigrants who take the time to go through the process legally, and I don't have a lot of sympathy for illegal immigrants who get deported.

When I call things what they are, people like you ***** at me.

The Right should call it what it is. I'm so sick of the right talking about all immigrants in discussions of illegal immigration and then pretending that anyone who calls out the racism involved is pro-illegal immigration.

Your reasoning is selfish. It is the kind of reasoning of people who hate when we try to make life better for those who come after us. Trust me, I as an LGBT person envy future generations of LGBT people who will have an easier time than me, but I also am the envy of older generations who had a harder time than me. I cant let that get in the way of progress though.

'You cant reward people for breaking the law' says a lot about you. Guess what, the law is not perfect, nor is the law inherently just. As an LGBT person I know that quite well. Lots of LGBT people have broken the law and I absolutely think they deserve being rewarded for it, cause the laws they broke were bigoted and draconian. If your defense is what I quoted, then your defense sucks.

It really upsets me when people who should know better don't.

 

[Saelune]

Donald Trump is a White Supremacist. You voted for Donald Trump.

...Anyone got evidence for this? Any at all?

Now you are blatantly giving Republicans an excuse you wont give Democrats. You defend Republicans cause only 1% voted against while condemning the 33% of Democrats who voted against it. That is hypocritical of you.

There is a difference between defending Republicans and attacking Democrats. I'm attacking the Democrats.

If they both suck, why did you vote for Trump?

Better of the two options. Simple.

Then why did you vote for Trump? You keep proving my point time after time. You criticize Democrats for what Republicans do even more of. Because you dont actually want what you say you do, you just want to bash on the left, because you are a Right-Winger.

Because I'm voting for whatever path eventually gets me to my ends.

As I said to Dirty Hipster, you have to decide what views are more important. You chose guns and walls over healthcare and LGBT rights. You dont care about trans soldiers clearly. But they arent you, so not your problem, right?

You chose socialized medicine over minorities getting lynched. Is it that black and white? Not at all. I can assume good faith on your part. Can you assume that of me?

Thats selfish. You want people to care about you without you having to care about them. That is hypocritical and selfish.

I'd like for all of us to care about each other and not be hostile for opinions.

You wouldnt offer it, clearly.

Dead wrong. I offer what little I have to people in need.

And hows paying for Trump's golfing working out for you?

What, you think I enjoy that?

And yet you support the anti-choice side.

You support the disarmament of minorities side. Again, is it that simple, or is there a lot more nuance to these things that you aren't considering?

I will keep saying it. If you cared about what you claim to care about, choice, freedom, personal liberty, you would never have voted Trump.

I'm voting for whatever gets me what I want, even if it takes a lifetime of doing so to get there. I should probably move to a different state so my vote actually matters though.

I have submitted my evidence time and again. You need to provide evidence he isn't at this point.

Maybe if you're Bernie Sanders or AOC, but you aren't. You are attacking Democrats as a defense of Republicans.

That says alot about you, none of it good.

Your ends are bad ones.

There is too much evidence to go by assumptions with you at this point.

Balls in your court on that one.

Voting for Trump says otherwise.

Nothing has turned you from Trump. So I have to assume yes. You support Trump despite having apparently no reason to. Unless there is some other reason perhaps?

I support guns laws that are fairly and evenly applied. They should apply to white and non-white people evenly.

The problem is the things you want.

 

[Saelune]

Confiscation of property and violation of rights should always be seen as a bad thing. If someone is so dangerous as to require permanent restriction of their rights in order to walk among us in any capacity, why are they among us? Should they not be locked away for the benefit of Society at large? If you do the crime, you do the time, then your societal debt is paid, is it not? Or is that not how things should be?

What an extreme and rather black and white view of the situation.

Why does it have to be so all or nothing?


I dont think children should be driving cars or operating heavy machinery. Doesnt mean I think they should be in jail though.

 

[Saelune]

Yet people digging guns up aren't exactly going to be the people that are without a criminal past, are they? If someone like that is stopped and searched for whatever reason, and the firearm is found, it is their own criminal record that will do them in. Right?

Uhrm, well, no. Obviously not everybody who is going to commit a crime has committed a crime before.

Every criminal has to commit a crime for the first time. And for that reason, background checks are inadequate.

If you rely on background checks, you are tacitly considering those initial crimes (as well as the violated rights and freedoms that the victims suffer) as an acceptable cost. That's not a cost I consider acceptable for the right to carry around weaponry.

How often does a mass shooter get a second chance to shoot up a place? (I agree with you)

 

[tstorm823]

There have long been concerns over the nature of the Republican Party's "southern strategy". We can add to that immigration rhetoric which has tended to the ever more inflammatory. Or we consider people like Steve King, only very belatedly criticised by his own party recently despite a long and iffy history. Some like Ron Paul, of course, had a history of accepting money and support from white nationalists. Recently, it seems to me the Republican reliance on a certain demographic area has led to a degree of white identity politics and at minimum severe weakness in the face of more extreme forms of it.

It ends of course with a Republican president describing white nationalist protestors as "fine people" to little harm to his support amongst Republican voters. And yes, he was rebuked for that by Republican legislators... mildly and to little apparent result. Trump brought the growing nexus of far right movements and web media right into the White House.

So if you want to say the Republican Party is openly courting white nationalists, then no. But if you mean being quiet about them, failing to confront them and thus facilitating the normalisation of their attitudes and rhetoric, then yes. And it does so because voters for whom America's identity as a white nation is a big deal are a big chunk of voters they need to keep satisfied to win elections.

The Southern Strategy is a lie. Steve King has never not been disavowed by basically everyone else (but his voters). Ron Paul's campaign received donations that fairly round to 0% of his campaign budget from people whose white supremacy he actively disavowed. Trump explicitly did not call white supremacists "fine people" ("And you had people -- and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.").

Immigration rhetoric is "more inflammatory" because there are real problems on the southern border that bad actors deliberately exacerbate and one particular party get's more political points for calling Republicans racist than they do by actually addressing problems.

And voters choosing a candidate because they're the nicest to white supremacists are like 1000 people in this country, where those who actively vote against that are like 150,000,000. White supremacist rallies tend to be like 6 people being booed by 1000 protesters. What sort of morons would deliberately select to tiniest minority as a voting base at the expense of every voter that feels the opposite?

As always, in order for you to think that Republicans are evil opportunistic bastards, you also have to think they're moronic incompetents who accidentally fumbled into power but are failing to have the same luck enacting their evil plans. There's a simple alternative to that: they aren't evil in the first place.

Edit:

You made me dig up context and now I'm mad a second time. Journalists really are awful sometimes.

Donald Trump: "I?m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly."

Reporter: "Sir, I just didn?t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly?"

Like, what the hell is that crap? Trump says a lot of dumb things with even dumber implications, but how does a person hear "white supremacists should be condemned totally, but the other people are being treated unfairly" as "white supremacists are being treated unfairly." Jesus Christ.

 

[Leg End]

What about people with mental illnesses? What about mentally impaired people? Should they be locked away?

No.

As to your point on confiscation, does that apply to people who have had their driver's license revoked?

There is an interesting rub here. I'm not exactly well-versed in the subject, but to my limited understanding, a Driver's License or ID is, legally speaking, property of the State. You essentially agree to such terms when you get the little piece of plastic. With that, it is not a confiscation of a person's property, as it is a State-owned representation of what is deemed a privilege(in most states, I think there are varying takes on this in some). How much of that should change, if anything, is a discussion in of itself.

What about the doctors and surgeons who have had their license to practice revoked?

I have zero understanding of medical licenses but they seem to be related to the above.

What about people who have had their cars seized due to traffic or drug and alcohol violations? Have those people had their rights violated?

Not well versed on the specifics of driving offenses, but I know where you're going with this. Relating to being involved in a crime, driving and licensing, and in most cases, the vehicle being able to be recovered, I'm going to say no. But that leads to a different can of worms regarding Civil Forfeiture and how easily that shit is abused.

Is it a violation of rights for a public school (elementary to high school) to confiscate a bottle of alcohol?

I abstain, but this is a very good point.

That depends on the reason property is confiscated or rights violated. Obviously, with respect to this argument, confiscation of property (guns) may potentially prevent violation of rights (physical harm).

A key here is "may potentially". We're discussing a blanket banning and confiscation of one particular item for what an absolute minority of people may do with it at any given time. On what level are we willing to restrict ourselves for a true minority of people that exist among us? In relation to something said some posts above I believe, how much are we willing to sacrifice for the few for the whole?

Jail is restriction of rights - and a damn sight more restriction than being free to go about one's business except for being forbidden to own a gun or drive a car, etc.

We can judge that someone is broadly safe, so long as they restricted from certain high risk activities where they have a proven history of poor conduct. Your average fraudster, for instance, is not the sort of person you'd want running a company, but probably safe to own a gun.

The problem I have with restrictions is that we are quickly becoming a society where you are permanently branded with a dark mark, restricting your rights permanently. The concept of doing the crime, doing the time, and that's it, is flying out the window in favor of lasting restrictions on people in a society where drug possession makes up the majority of our imprisoned.

Uhrm, well, no. Obviously not everybody who is going to commit a crime has committed a crime before.

Every criminal has to commit a crime for the first time. And for that reason, background checks are inadequate.

If you rely on background checks, you are tacitly considering those initial crimes (as well as the violated rights and freedoms that the victims suffer) as an acceptable cost. That's not a cost I consider acceptable for the right to carry around weaponry.

The same argument can be used to argue for a total restriction on near anything out of considering the possibility of misuse to harm individuals being an unacceptable cost. Didn't I have huge post in R&P in reply to you regarding cars on the same subject?

When I call things what they are, people like you ***** at me.

You call things as you see them, which does not necessarily reflect the reality of what you are seeing.

The Right should call it what it is. I'm so sick of the right talking about all immigrants in discussions of illegal immigration and then pretending that anyone who calls out the racism involved is pro-illegal immigration.

Since you consider me Right-Wing, can I safely chime in on this? Have you ever considered that racism is not actually involved, and that people simply want to have a border that works?

I have submitted my evidence time and again. You need to provide evidence he isn't at this point.

...That's the thing. I really don't think you ever have. Not even once. From memory, you just say he's X and Y is why, but Y usually amounts to you saying he is X again. Can you personally provide evidence for him being a white supremacist? Because I don't know of any white supremacists that are actively backing Israel.

Maybe if you're Bernie Sanders or AOC, but you aren't. You are attacking Democrats as a defense of Republicans.

No, I'm just attacking Democrats. I can attack Republicans, Gary Johnson, the Green Party, Bernie, Donald, Hillary, RMoney, Obama, Bush, Bill, and so on. And none of that is an endorsement of anyone else.

That says alot about you, none of it good.

Your ends are bad ones.

Well, I'm a bad man then.

There is too much evidence to go by assumptions with you at this point.

Well, go by what you want. You want LGBT people to be disarmed and be at the whim of the state and those around them. Black and White.

Voting for Trump says otherwise.

So I can't vote for Trump and open my wallet to people in need? Does it automatically get sewn shut?

Nothing has turned you from Trump. So I have to assume yes. You support Trump despite having apparently no reason to. Unless there is some other reason perhaps?

So again forgetting that I have misgivings with him, and that if I was to vote for him again, it'd be because the Democrats have not changed at all?

I support guns laws that are fairly and evenly applied. They should apply to white and non-white people evenly.

...Why does it sound like you're trying to pin me as wanting racially applied gun rights? And you still haven't explained the race war bit.

The problem is the things you want.

Peace?

What an extreme and rather black and white view of the situation.

Why does it have to be so all or nothing?

So, why should we be lax on rights? I would have thought you of all people would understand why rights should be protected and not be considered expendable for society. At least, from the LGBT perspective. I'm getting AIDS scare flashbacks.

I dont think children should be driving cars or operating heavy machinery. Doesnt mean I think they should be in jail though.

Different yet related subject on rights, and you absolutely know that's not what I was saying at all.

*snip*

I was going to just leave this thread and delete what I typed up, but this bit in particular made me want to stick around to just post this. Thanks.

You made me dig up context and now I'm mad a second time. Journalists really are awful sometimes.

Donald Trump: "I?m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly."

Reporter: "Sir, I just didn?t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly?"

Like, what the hell is that crap? Trump says a lot of dumb things with even dumber implications, but how does a person hear "white supremacists should be condemned totally, but the other people are being treated unfairly" as "white supremacists are being treated unfairly." Jesus Christ.

It's called mental gymnastics and the ongoing effort for the media to try and fling whatever they can at Donald, regardless if the shit they're flinging even exists. If it doesn't, they'll fabricate it.

 

[Saelune]

The Southern Strategy is a lie.

This tells us everything we need to know about you.

 

[Schadrach]

Atleast if you did vote third party, you would have a better claim to your 'not a Republican' stance. But you voted for Trump, you have admitted as such.

Not true, if they voted third party, even if they voted third party in a deeply red state that went 70/30 to Trump you'd still claim they were really a Republican and were *actually* voting for Trump by not voting for Clinton. How do I know this? Because that's the line you used when I pointed out that I am registered Independent and I voted for Jill Stein.

Fact:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/
Fiction: Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the 2nd amendment.

I mean, ignoring the utter lack of any details as to what exactly some of that means it all sounds good, but the devil is always in the details.

For example, define "domestic abusers." That sounds like a weird nit to pick, but bear with me. If someone gets a temporary protective order against them making an accusation of domestic violence, should they be barred for owning a gun? If so, for how long? What if the order ends up being deemed invalid?

How about an example case. About 20 years ago, there was a vexatious litigation case in Ohio (vexatious litigation is where someone abuses the legal system to harass another person), the legal harassment had been ongoing for 7 years and involved a couple. Essentially the woman would request a temporary restraining order accusing the man of abuse, it would get rubber stamped (because TROs are often just approved with minimal examination under the idea that the harm caused by approving a needless order is much less serious than if they refuse one that is needed), and she would immediately claim it was being violated (sometimes before it was even served). He'd get picked up for "questioning". His lawyer would challenge that the order was invalid, etc, etc. Her lawyer and his lawyer would then essentially play "tag" over whether the "violation" or the validity of the order should be evaluated first (because if it wasn't a valid order he wouldn't need to prove his alibi at whatever random time she picked this time, which would save everyone involved a lot of trouble), and this process functionally extended the duration of the order, in one case making a 30 day order valid for nearly a year. He had an alibi with evidence to back it for every "violation." Several of the protective orders were made using exactly the same claims that were deemed invalid in previous orders. Again, this went on for 7 years.

If a TRO is sufficient to relieve you of your gun rights, then should he have been relieved of them for that 7 years? Permanently? What if he'd failed to get her declared a vexatious litigant?

I just linked you Hillary Clinton's official stance on firearm regulation. Banning AR15's isn't taking away one's right to defend themselves, like I stated above, unless you are going hog hunting, no one needs an AR15. They can sell it and get something far more reasonable. No one is suggesting they come in and take my shotgun and glock 40, and it should not be interpreted as such.

So, a .223 semi automatic rifle is a monstrous weapon that needs to be banned, but a 10mm semi automatic pistol (I'm assuming you have a G40, and not a .40 caliber Glock [which is probably a G22]) is totes OK? What abut a Desert Eagle, a 50 AE semi automatic pistol? Or a PS90 (a 7.62 semi automatic rifle)?

It gets even more complicated when you realize that AR-15s keep getting used in spree shootings because typically the shooter isn't buying a gun for the job, but using a gun they already have access to, and the AR-15 (and rifles designed to imitate it) is just the most popular model of semi-automatic rifle. So if you ban AR-15s, you aren't going to prevent spree shootings you're just going to change the preferred firearm.

If you actually wanted to reduce overall firearm homicides, your G40 would be up on the chopping block instead, as most firearm homicides are committed using semi automatic pistols.

That is a far better system than the current system of just letting white people with guns go without hassle and shoot black people with guns because they see them as a threat.

Most people shooting black folks are other black folks. Like seriously, most homicides overall committed in the US are done by black folks and most of their victims are other black folks.

I'd suggest why I think that is, but I think I'll refrain and just let Saelune call me racist. Because it doesn't matter what reasoning I suggest, Saelune will se the previous line and just assume racist.