Why do the democrats want to ban guns?

Ironically republicans have done more to ban guns than democrats have.

Look up what Regan banned and Bush jr did afterwards.

>Ironically republicans have done more to ban guns than democrats have
Such as?

>hurr durr,democrats!

hey dipshit,trump's gun grabbing is unconstitutional to.i guess you only care about the constitution when the democrats are president

also,i left it out to make a point.something that you obviously missed because your some dumb trump supporter who chooses to ignore reality

go figure the libtard brings up bush,you still cant get over him can you.id rather have bush jr then donald trump anyday

To earn public support out of sympathy, without any consideration of the potential ramifications from those in the voter base in favor of it.

Notice how this fucking jew didn't actually address a single thing I just said. Instead bitching and whining about trump, meanwhile the DEMOCRATS pass gun control for real and his kike ass doesn't say shit about it.

>democrats pass gun control for real

hey idiot,time to start living in reality.trump has passed gun control for real also,but go ahead and continue calling me a kike i guess.your the only democrat here since they also hate jews

please take your trump dick sucking party back to /pol/ where it belongs

>sage this trash

sage goes in all fields

There is no such thing as 'Trump gun grabbing' you fucking cock sucking nigger.
You fucking jews need to set on fire.

Attached: 1564303519359s.jpg (250x220, 6K)

lol,trump and his supporters are no different then democrats since they put up with his left wing bullshit

>please go back to /pol/ with the other nazis
>don't forget to sage

actually there is,but go figure im wasting time arguing with people who get their news of the country from trump's twitter account and their republican biased blogs

baltimoresun.com/opinion/readers-respond/bs-ed-reagan-letter-20120210-story.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

thoughtco.com/gun-rights-under-president-george-w-bush-721332

Uh huh, and you're going to say bump stocks right? Why don't you kikes at least TRY coming up with new material for once? But again, why the fuck are you NOT addressing the fact that the DEMOCRATS have banned "assault" guns in blue states and passed red flag laws? Have Trump done that? That would be no.

1/10 troll
sage

the reason why im not adressing that fact is because democrats arent the ones who always preach about being pro gun and support the nra.you backstabbed your own party with donald trump,time to get the fuck out and take your maga hat with you

pathetic
>sage

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Bill Clinton was president when that was passed you fucking moron, and Bush un-did it

Bump stock ban? They're stupid and memey, but never give an inch, they'll take a mile. It can happen under any administration, in any state, in any city, etc.
FOPA/Hughes Amendment for Reagan, import bans and an eagerness to continue the 1994 AWB implemented by Clinton. The only reason we made it past the sunset clause with regaining gun rights was because the legislation never made it to Bush's desk, it died in Congress. The Republican majority Congress knew they'd lose a lot of support if they let it pass. Politicians give a fuck about themselves, wealth, and power, not you and I.

>the reason why im not adressing that fact is because I'm a democrat jew

Yeah I know, you made that obvious

also,why do you care about blue states in general? donald trump is pro big goverment,shouldnt you trump cock sleeves care more about the federal goverment then local state goverments

THIS IS AN ANONYMOUS PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

SAGE ALL POLITICAL THREADS IN Yea Forums

especially low tier troll threads like this

lol,what a clueless moron.ive never voted democrat in my life,but hey.have fun thinking there's any difference now with trump in charge

>sage goes in all fields

also,democrat and jew dont go together.democrats hate jews

Brandy Act was created in 81 moron.

Because your team, instead of staying in their fucking safe spaces(blue states), are running for president and seeking to fuck up the whole country with their far left, gun grabbing and open borders bullshit.

always remember to put sage in the options field

sage

Can you fucking read? It says it RIGHT THERE it was passed in 1994. Who the fuck was president that year? I know you weren't even born yet so you wouldn't know, but one google search away.

omg sage
so much sage

Regan started it. It wouldn't have been there at all if it wasn't for Regan.

You're an angry child. lol

IF YOU LOVE TRUMP PUT SAGE IN THE OPTIONS FIELD

take this shit back to pol please thankyou
sage

>sage on shitty pasta

Sure thing kid, they just waited for clinton to be president before passing the law right? And why is it that Bush un-done the ban? Does Bill Clinton get credit for that, or does this only work in your team's favor?

Because their (((doners))) tell them to.

Attached: jewsbehindguncontroll.jpg (652x755, 138K)

>Kikes pushing for gun control

Shocking

agenda 21 that's why

I agree with you, but Bush and Reagan also granted mass amnesty for pardoning illegal immigration, and gun control. I urge you to shed the mindset that the destruction of our Republic is genuinely or effectively being resisted by any political party. It's them vs. us.

>Bush and Reagan
Two RINOS so yeah, no shit they passed and pushed for open borders

Right to bear arms doesn’t ducking mean you get to have military grade weapons as a fucking civilian. What exactly are you worried about that any number of other weapons can’t handle?

Of course he hasn’t. Because he doesn’t give a shit about anyone but himself.

Is this now the argument you fags are making, that rifles are now considered "military grade"? You know the military uses handguns too right? Is that next on your to-ban list?

>Of course he hasn’t
Exactly, so we agree. Thanks.

>military grade
Given that the machine gun registry is closed, incredibly regulated, and often costs five figures to do legally, I'd say commercially available semi auto AR-15s that you can get within an hour after a background check and some paperwork don't qualify. Mil spec construction aside, they function completely differently. Also US issue M4 carbines have 14.5 inch barrels or shorter (example, Mk.18 CQB upper receiver), so that's another area where standard civilian AR-15s differ. This does not apply to the M16A2, but they're still automatic weapons by law. Other devices such as grenade launchers, LMGs, crew served weapons, military explosives, etc. are also heavily regulated at the federal level. Worth noting that the majority of gun deaths are suicides by handgun (legally obtained), and gun violence in cities plagued by drug wars and gang territory, also with handguns (very often illegally obtained), rather than AR-15s.

Liberals are not going to understand any of this and you know that. In their minds every rifles is armor piecing and automatic.

No one needs an assault rifle moron. No one needs a giant clip in any gun no matter what form the firearm takes.

No one is after your “gunz”. Some people would like to limit the damage that rednecks and white supremacists cause on a regular basis. Is that really that hard to understand?

And yes, we agree on that point because he’s an asshole.

So they can bad the 1st then take over and be communist

No one needs big macs. No one needs trucks. No one needs a 60 inch TV. No one needs alcohol or cigarettes. No one needs a $1000 iPhone.

You sure you wanna go this route what people do or do not supposedly need?

>No one is after your “gunz”
Yes they are, and that someone would be your team

AR isnt military grade what some stupid fucks who knows nothing about guns. You can get hunting rifles that does what the AR does but it looks cooler.

So it is your stance that the specifics about the technology that can massacre matters civilians matters. Because it’s something not specifically issued by the military it’s ok. Even though there isn’t a good reason why anyone needs it.

Sigh, there’s a bit of a difference between a tv and a firearm. If you can’t see that difference, you’re beyond redemption.

>No one is after the guns
>Calling for ((((assault)))) weapon ban

You realize how fucking stupid this makes you people look when you say this, right?

Sigh, you know, cause all those laws that have taken away your guns and shit. Except it never happens other than on faux news.

Imagine being a Russian shill. Like what a pathetic life.

Sensible laws about what a civilian can have isn’t everyone coming after your guns. Are you saying a civilian needs high grade explosives? Well why not nuclear capabilities?

You obviously missed the point completely. Today it's "oh well you don't need an AR-15". Next you'll change it too "oh well you don't need ANY gun because you can call the police". Everyone knows that's what your team is trying to pull when they say this bullshit.

Except the democrats already HAVE passed "assault" weapon bans at the state level. So remind me again how you motherfuckers aren't after anybody's guns when you already have passed bullshit gun laws and now you have passed "red flag" laws, where you can take somebody's court at any time for any reason because they may or may not do something somewhere at some point.

Sensible laws my ass. The democrats NEVER pass sensible gun laws.

I've never met a trump supporter that wasn't fat, smelly and in the middle of planning a mass shooting

Heh, yes the slippery slope argument. Except that that holds absolutely no water. The only laws lately that have been attempted it be past is to simply tighten up security.

And to answer your hyperbole. Why not let every one have nuclear arms? Who says people don’t need that?

Because it’s sensible. You rednecks done fucking need high powered rifles.

Sigh, please post proof of your assertion.

First off "nuclear arms" isn't even a fucking thing. Why are you changing the subject? You didn't address anything I just said.

Again, if your team doesn't want to ban guns then why did they ALREADY pass assault weapon bans in multiple states? Or how about bullshit permits to carry a fucking gun in public, which is a BLATANT violation of the 2nd amendment. Are you gonna answer that or keep on parading around like a fucking faggot?

Yes I did. Should civilians be allowed nuclear weapons? Who says they don’t need them. I answered your hyperbole with one of my own.

The "assertion" that your team is trying to ban guns? Sure

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_legislation_in_the_United_States
California
Connecticut
Hawaii
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York

Wow look at that. ALL blue states, ALL controlled by those gun-loving democrats.

Because no one needs an assault weapon. Much like they don’t need high grade explosives nor nuclear weapons.

Lol, no dumbass, the assertion that they aren’t sensible.

No you did not answer it. If your team isn't trying to get away guns then why did they already do that in blue states? Now they're trying to change the magazine limits to UNDER 10, even after they repeatedly "promised" they would stop at 15, then changed it again to 10.

So you're gonna keep on acting like a fucking retard and not answer the question. Thanks for letting me know so I can stop wasting my time with you.

Idk if this is bait or not. Trump supporters are pretty retarded.

Never said that there weren’t laws being enacted that limit certain gun sales. So I did answer your comment. Assault weapons aren’t needed anymore than explosives nor nuclear weapons.

>Never said that there weren’t laws being enacted that limit certain gun sales
So you admit that democrats are taking guns away. Good, you can fuck off now.

I’m sorry you’re too fucking retarded to carry on an adult conversation. Maybe you can take a class for that.

Lol, sensible gun laws aren’t a bad thing. But they are scary for morons that think they should be able to stockpile whatever the fuck you want.

Yeah today it's "you don't need assault weapons". Then your team will say that about handguns, then shotguns, then ALL guns. But your monkey pets can buy any guns they want illegally and your team says nothing about it.

Certain wepoans aren’t needed in the general population. Same as certain options for weapons. That doesn’t mean they are coming for you guns, it means we would like a more responsible fucking society. Because given the gun nut views, we have mass shootings every other day.

Yeah because everytime you faggots say this bullshit "sensible laws", you later on change it. First it was "sensible" to ban automatics. Then it was "sensible" to ban assault weapons. And it was "sensible" to limit magazines to 10. It was "sensible" to set up "gun free zones" and require permits to carry guns in public. On and on and on with the fucking bullshit. It never fucking ends with you people that's the problem. By the way not a single one of those does jack shit to stop criminals or mass shooters.

Sigh, again, I don’t think that all guns should be outlawed. There are some that don’t need to be in the general population, or they should be exceedingly hard to purchase.

I still haven’t seen anyone explain why certain weapons are ok to outlaw (certain explosives, nuclear weapons). But not certain firearms.

It makes it harder. Why do people like you think that if we can’t solve the entire problem we shouldn’t do anything at all?

Why do you fags ONLY make this argument about what people do or don't need when it comes to guns, but nothing else. Why does someone need to drink alcohol? Drunk driving kills thousands of people every fucking year. Why doesn't your team demand alcohol bans? Doesn't fit the agenda?

>handguns
A big wakeup call to people who are willing to believe the government won't continually come after handguns is mentioning that early drafts of the NFA of 1934 included handgun bans. Thankfully, they were eventually exempted. However, the reason short barreled shotguns and rifles were under such heavy regulation was in response to the piss poor prohibition policies. They passed these laws because armed gangsters and bootleggers involved with the underground booze trade caused gun violence to skyrocket. So, they de facto banned law abiding citizens from owning them, and to this day major gangs have illegal weapons.

They are absolutely going to go after handguns at some point, guarantee it. It may not be today or next year, but give it enough time. The gun-loving democrats will go after them next.

By the way that was part of the reason why the democrats pass these ridiculous permit-to-carry laws in the first place. So when they ban handguns they could make the argument of "oh well you don't need handguns because you can't carry in public anyway".

Interesting, another hyperbole and deflection. Gun nuts won’t even try to limit the damage though.

So why not make every type of weapon legal? Still no one has addressed that question.

Lol, 1934

Go fuck yourself nigger. Move to China faggot, the ChiComs will keep you safe from the guns.

A very cogent argument. When you grow up, let m know.

Exactly. And what your post and my own have in common, is the "solution" proposed by the government will be a byproduct of another government "solution", and only result in lawful Americans losing civil liberties and criminals continuing to run amok in this country. Some of which we pay to imprison, others of which we pay handsome salaries with amazing benefits and pensions.

That guy is a huge faggot. He keeps on talking about what the fuck people "need", like it's his fucking business. Bet you this is the same type of faggot who goes to McDonalds every week and orders extra large Big Macs and rides passenger in his daddy's plus-size GM truck.

Standard neckbeard gun-fucker response.

Attached: 1536520257321.png (866x900, 366K)

Slippery slope. Straw man arguments are always easy to make

And then the democrats will turn around and cry about "muh criminal reform" which is turning out to code for "niggers and spics can break all the fucking laws they want and be given lighter sentences"

hong kong

So make nuclear weapons legal, who says someone doesn’t need that? Again no one has addressed that. But of course it’s easier to call someone faggot than actual address a situation.

Calling for the banning of sales of military grade weapons does not equate to taking away already privately owned property.

God why do you faggots have me talking politics on Yea Forums

About the reaction to expect from someone like you at this point.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me why your team doesn't demand alcohol bans. Why does anyone need to drink alcohol? Thousands of people die and get arrested every year because of alcohol, any reason your idols aren't asking for a ban on that? Since bans and more laws are such a great thing for you.

Just because it wasn’t legal once upon a time doesn’t mean it should have been. I’m betting that people had all kinds of explosives prior to them being outlawed.

Attached: jpg.jpg (522x792, 31K)

And people still make and have them now even with the ban. Like those 2 terrorists in Boston. Was it legal for them to make an explosive? No but they did it anyway.

Maybe because they aren’t equivalent?

There are no teams you know. We are all Americans.

Ok, then make all explosives legal. That seems to be what some are advocating for. Someone else can get some weapon so everything should be legal.

Given that I'm citing historical context by referencing similar legislation in response to public crisis, I think it's a relevant and justifiable point to make. It doesn't change the fact that politicians have continued to propose bans on weapons that don't prevent murders from happening.
I think a big part of the discussion is fixing those areas where the most gun violence occurs. Taking a second look at the war on drugs, the US's role in prohibited substance trafficking and cartel aid, rebuilding economies in impoverished areas. It'd be beneficial to everyone, and help bring peace to those neighborhoods.

They are absolutely eqivalent, since your heroes keep saying muh gun violence and muh children and muh deaths every fucking year. Thousands of people die from cigarettes and alcohol every year but your team doesn't say shit about that. Funny how that works.

I'm slow to respond here because I'm genuinely struggling to find what relevance your comment has to mine.

Whataboutism is a weak argument at best, and comparing apples to oranges at worst.

What are you going on about "idols" for? Who's talking like that here?

Given history, I’m not sure the government understands or cares about peace. I’m not really arguing, it just seems like a lot of their policies countermand their stated purpose.

I get what you mean, it's apathy instead of ignorance. I agree.

Pretty sure that’s not the case no matter how you wanna twist messages.

The express purpose of a weapon is to kill. That is not the express purpose of alcohol, nor most drugs.

No it would not be beneficial. Not a single thing you're saying it what is going on. What is ACTUALLY going on is that the democrats are promoting and encouraging literal lawlessness, taking law abiding citizens' rights to self defense away, anti-police agendas and demanding the police is disarmed, giving light sentences to gang members and repeat felon violators, saying how guns are the problem but when one of their democrat voters get caught with one the gun charges get dismissed in bullshit plea deals, list goes on and on. And they want to make this problem even worse by passing "criminal reform" nation-wide so the slaves can do as they please.

I’m sorry you suffer from a lack of reading comprehension.

Oh and by the way this doesn't even INCLUDE the open borders agenda and sanctuary cities policies from the democrats

>suffer from lack of reading comprehension

Okay faggot lets look at what you said.

>Just because it wasn't legal once upon a time doesn't mean it should have been.

In response to a comment explaining that a ban on gun sales doesn't equate to taking away already owned guns, what the fuck are you speaking in reference to?

>it wasn't legal once and that doesn't mean it should have been

Sales of dangerous guns are currently legal, you brainlet fuck. What fucking thing are you talking about that was legal that shouldn't have been?

Your fucking comment reads like a 16 year old in remedial english wrote it, it doesn't even fucking make sense. And you're ready to fling shit, amazing.

>dangerous guns
See this is why I don't take you stupid liberal fucks seriously. What the fuck does this even mean? How fucking stupid are you, that you think a gun can be "safe"?

>open boarders agenda

Oh look another stawman political boogyman argument that people don't actually fucking support

Nice moving the goal posts are the argument

I should have said rifles/anything greater than a handgun, but excuse me

I agree that open borders and immigration from hostile nations are a problem, I was simply saying that part of the reason the government turns a blind eye to gang infected shitholes is it's good money to be made. We absolutely need accountability and backgrounds of every single person who enters this country, and while that won't ever happen, we need immigration policies that aren't a joke and provide illegal immigrants with better treatment than some US citizens.
>everything I disagree with is a strawman
Please stop. I respect your right to disagree with me, but at least state why and cite data.

Why do people like you think that people actually elected trump because they like trump and not because you don’t like trump

So yes, you do lack reading comprehension. I’m tiring of this thread but I have a few more responses left i suppose.

Laws change and previous threats come to light where “we” as a society decide we need to do what we can to limit danger. So laws are enacted where they previously weren’t in place. This means that certain weapons that could have been legal previously are no longer legal or are at least extremely restricted.

For instance, explosive laws. I don’t know when they were explicitly placed on “the books” but prior to those laws you could have levels of explosives that were illegal after the law was enacted.

Just because someone is legal at one point doesn’t mean it will stay that way.

Also, based on your reply, you’re the one flinging shit.

>I respect your right to disagree with me
Well at least we don't have to devolve to a flame war now

In fairness, the original claim was that liberals support open borders, and that claim was made without any citations or data to back it up.

I agree with all of that, but the problem is that the democrats don't want that. They want special treatment for illegals and more rights for them over US citizens, which is absolutely ridiculous and does nothing but piss people off and make them less sympathetic towards illegals. Like giving them free college, free licenses, free housing, and apparently now free lawyers. Even US citizens don't get even half of this stuff.

The best way to enact their confiscation. They give zero fucks about dead people.

Immigration in general is stupid and shouldn’t be allowed. It’s a net negative to the world by making life worse for the majority of natives who they will now economically compete with (this means lower average wages) and hurting the economy they left. The only people who are helped is the rich who profits off the bigger worker supply and lower wages and the immigrant themselves, who move up in life at the cost of others. It should just be a crime 100%.

>Please stop. I respect your right to disagree with me, but at least state why and cite data
Also this is why I stopped replying to him. He just says on saying the same bullshit and if he can't refute it, he just calls it a strawman. It's pathetic at this point.

I consider myself left, but I don’t think open borders are a good idea either. We have a legal immigration process just like any other country. I’m not sure why some people think it’s bullshit to have that in place.

I guess the only thing I don’t like is dehumanizing others because they are trying to escape horrible places.

But at the same time, I’m not sure the answer to that equation.

Except that, at least in America, we don’t compete with most of the immigrants because they do the shit we don’t want to do.

What I don't get here is why this is being presented as a counterpoint to the restriction/outlawing of gun sales. In a similar vein to explosives eventually being outlawed after being seen as something that could endanger the welfare of a lot of people, certain guns are the topic of potential similar wave of restrictions.

>Just because someone is legal it one point doesn't mean it will stay that way

I agree, and the gun sales that are in question are currently legal, and it doesn't mean it will stay that way

That’s not true you brain dead lefty. If there was nobody to do the work, the cost of the work would go up. This is basic economics, supply and demand. Post your skin color idiot.

There is nothing wrong with immigration if we have a competent system that isn't abused at every single turn, like it is in the US. What makes it even more ridiculous though is that these same countries these people come from, their immigration laws are far more strict than ours, but the liberals never say shit about that. You think they give illegals free health care in Mexico? Of course not its' only this country where this ridiculous bullshit is tolerated and encouraged. Everyone smiles as more and more illegals pour into the country. But when someone tried pulling that bullshit in other countries everyone stops smiling all of a sudden.

Ok, so maybe we are actually agreeing?

No there is everything wrong with immigration. You can’t just say “immigration is good” “diversity is good” when the negatives of these things obviously outweigh any “positives” you pull out of your ass.

Lol, try again and use adult words this time

>the original claim was that liberals support open borders
Because they do

Please post a comparison of the good and the bad.

Btw classical liberals opposed immigration, because they weren’t fucking retarded pets of the 1%

If the left doesn't support open borders then how do you explain sanctuary cities? Or demanding ICE be disbanded?

I'm left too, and I don't think I've ever heard of anyone that is who really supports open borders either. Others I've talked to and myself support a reform of the immigration system, because the amount of paperwork and elements outside of the control of the person attempting to enter the country is incredibly vast and slow to actually take effect. But no one is saying we should just open the gates and let anyone in.

>I guess the only thing I don't like is dehumanizing others because they are trying to escape horrible places. But at the same time I'm not sure the answer to that equation

And it doesn't necessarily fall on one person to figure that out. But there's a legitimate hatred for a lot of people just trying to help their families, because "they're not us, so why should we care". A general lack of empathy is prevalent, and it's scary.

I explained here There is nothing good about immigration except “growing the economy” ie making work cheaper.

Probably.
Hence why it took me a long time to try and figure out what the fuck you were trying to say.

Post your skin color you 2 digit iq mong

It’s not as simple as why not you fucktarded lefty, we do have to sacrifice in order to help these people

I believe it was an understandably made statement, despite indeed being a blanket one, on Democrat answers to immigration. Securing the border physically has been a can kicked down the road for I couldn't even tell you how many presidencies, bipartisan support. Then, when it comes time to actually do it, it's fought tooth and nail and called racist in an effort to attack those in favor of a physical border. Possibly also in response to many Democrats supporting allowing refugees in with little verification of status or character from NGOs, when they often come from violent nations with largely hostile attitudes towards the US. A case of true colors showing when the chips are down, if you will.
I agree with this. It'd be one thing if the discussion became helping our neighbor Mexico and building a mutually beneficial partnership of growing strength and trust, but that's not the discussion. Mexico being a shitshow doesn't excuse making us more of one.
I agree, temporarily. I think cases of allowing people like doctors and engineers willing to contribute and help, or architects, people with specific skills and knowledge to their trade, to come and go under mutually agreed circumstances on paper is a great idea. But as long as its not at the neglect of our own highly educated workers. I support setting a cut off date in advance for hiatus on accepting of legal citizenship filing, so we can take ample time to reevaluate healthy policy.

100% agree. Thank you

Even if the state receiving the migrant is benefited the state losing the citizen is hurt, it should be a crime even for the educated. In terms of globalistic science, work visas for scientists can still happen.

Given that the only reason America is as great as it is is because of immigration, I’m going to have to disagree with you. Immigration != illegal immigration.

Still not your adult words. I guess that could be explained if you’re 10.

>If the left doesn't support open borders then how do you explain sanctuary cities?
They can't explain it, that's the point. You cannot tell me you don't want open borders yet at the same fucking time you actively protect people living here illegally from deportation. That is literally open borders.

This

America was formed by immigration but that doesn’t make it a good thing in itself for americans. It has a long history of hating newcomers too, if you want to make a point of tradition.

I’m not sure what you’re saying. But why shouldn’t we sacrifice surplus to help humans. We are all humans, Americans aren’t the only humans.

Citation needed

>If someone doesn't support X, then what about Y, or Z?
If I had to guess, because the having of sanctuary cities can act as a pro to the immigration system which a lot view as badly needing reform. And as of ICE, it's reactionary to the border camps if I had to guess. Personally I don't really agree with the concept of sanctuary cities, but while I don't like ICE as of late the organization as a whole is fine.

Sanctuary cities?

>work visas
Forgot that was a thing, you've got me there.

What surplus? Your surplus? Will you give all your things to Africa so you can be equal with them?

Let me tell you I don’t have a fucking surplus.

>we do have to sacrifice in order to help these people
I said it before, a general lack of empathy is prevalent, and it's scary.
I'm not asking this to snark, or try to prove a point. But what are you/we sacrificing by no longer demonizing people who are trying to escape horrible conditions and help their families?

No so much tradition as introducing skill sets some have in other countries that don’t exist here. Or can’t rise to be exposed.

I don’t think immigration is why they can’t rise. There are a myriad of other causes.

>, because the having of sanctuary cities can act as a pro to the immigration system
How the fuck is it a "pro" to have people who broke our immigration laws and are living in this country without the proper paperwork? Then when one of these people turns out to be a fucking criminal, your team just shrugs it's shoulders and say "OOPS, NOTHING TO SEE HERE HEHE". That is total bullshit and you know it. You people are literally promoting lawlessness when you do this. But if it were one of those politican's kids or family members that were victims of an illegals, all of a sudden all the fucking jokes and smiling would stop. Of course they don't give a fuck because they don't live near any of those people they claim they love so much and how "great" they supposedly are.

Are you asking a question, or trying to snarkly give a "citation" to liberals supporting open borders?

I donate to causes that are important to me, domestic or foreign. Federally we have all kinds of surplus since we give aid to other countries.

Why is it all or nothing with people like you? No I don’t have to give 100% of what I have to help others, but what’s wrong with giving some?

That's how this works. The democrats tell these people oh yeah they can come here illegally, so long as you vote democrat and stay in your containment zones. It's all smiling when illegals cross the borders illegally and have kids in the US. Soon as a black or hispanic moves in next door though they stop smiling.

A nuclear weapon is only defensive in the case of mutually assured destruction, which means it requires the threat of offensive use as a deterrent. In all other cases it is purely an offensive weapon.
A rifle can be used purely in defense of one’s property without the destruction of someone else’s being a necessity.
There is no situation in which use of a nuke constitutes reasonable force. Not so for guns

>your team
>you people
You realize politics isn't a sport right?

It's a pro because the immigration system is cripplingly slow, to the point where people don't hear back for years when attempting to immigrate here. And in that time period, assuming they're coming from horrible and dangerous conditions, they'd not risk their/their family's well being to wait that time. I'm not even particularly for sanctuary cities, but to a degree I understand the rational behind them.

We can only pray that they're actually going to try and take them

Attached: 1200px-Gadsden_flag.svg.png (1200x800, 112K)

Not according to several replies previous this mine. No one should be told what they “need”. If I decide I need that kind of destructive yield the why not.

Again it’s about limiting damage. If you can say everyone should have what they want, then why not nukes, explosives, etc.

If empathy means demanding of others to take care of me then I don’t want anything to do with empathy. We don’t live in a world without scarcity, to share means things will be worse for us, and who are you to demand that from others? You pose it like there’s nothing to fucking lose, but you’re telling me to give things up.

And if we’re really trying to be humanistic and equal here, why didn’t we start at home? Are you telling me that on top of a rising homeless problem we need to take in immigrants? Are you serious right now?

Lol, we got a tough guy over here.

What’s wrong with idiots like you who can’t seem to understand that resources enjoyed by 400 million won’t stretch far among 8 billion

Hrm, not sure what you’re saying. I’m not saying to help every person on the planet. I’m just asking why helping some is such bad thing?

Tell the democrats that since they're the one who treat it like it is a sport.

>horrible and dangerous conditions
Let's say this is true. Then how the fuck do you explain the fact they come here, recreate the same fucking dump they just came from, and then create hispanic gangs in the US and commit more crimes? IF what you're saying is true. Then why are there so many hispanic gangs in the US? Of course your team wants us all to not pay attention to that.

Why help some and not everyone

I forget that you minorities don’t go to preschool so let me share some knowledge you’ve apparently lived your life lacking “if you don’t bring enough to share don’t bring any”

>to share means things will be worse for us, and who are you to demand that from others? You pose it like there's nothing to fucking lose, but you're telling me to give things up

Are you this mad about paying taxes? About giving up your money to the government to fund whatever projects they choose?

>Are you telling me that on top of a rising homeless problem we need to take in immigrants?

I mean our homeless population by year has decreased from 2007-2018, with rises only really being seen in 2009 to 2010, and from 2016 onward.

endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-report/

Not him, but there are people who will genuinely die over this issue. When you think about it, it's not too surprising. Gun ownership has been a staple of American culture since the initial colonization and frontiersman days. Many don't take well to talks of confiscation.

I don’t even know how to reply to a post without a point

>makes point
>counterpoints are offered
>"I don't even know how to reply to a post without a point"

Uhm you forget that genuine liberals are getting ready to die in the face of these hellspawns that want to ban free speech

Sigh, because the world is a big place and not everyone can be saved. You do what you can. So again, this is another “if we can’t save everyone the don’t even bother.” Which is stupid.

"a well regulated militia" is the National Guard. No one else has any "right" to own a gun.

Those aren’t points. We will have to lose to help immigrants “it’s just taxes” is not a point, god left wingers are such small brained cretins

Yeah man your AR-15 is really gonna stop that dronestrike. Or tank.

But if everyone can’t be saved, why are you trying to make other people help you save others

Why is this that every time all of talk of "hur dur you gonna help out your fellow man" its ONLY in reference to whites helping minorities and not the other way around. You mind explaining that? Why aren't blacks and hispanics expected to pull their own fucking weight in this country?

There aren’t very many US based Hispanic gangs, there are Mexican and central and southern American gangs with US members for smuggling. It’s a cost of the drug war.

>I feel weak against the government, everyone else should too

So why aren’t you protesting paying taxes that the government already used to help other countries.

If you’ve excepted you’re going to pay taxes then you’ve already relinquished control of some of your money.

why do republicans want to become mass shooters?

>why are you protesting something that’s happening, you idiot
You must literally need to not have a brain to go left

I don’t think there is anyone, except racists, making that argument.

There aren’t very many US based Hispanic gangs

Uh yes there are? What fucking planet are you on? But I guess the better question is why are there ANY hispanic gangs at all? If supposedly all of these people aren't criminal and are fleeing "dangerous" situations? You see how that doesn't make any sense right?

Shut up retard

Do you have an argument to make? Or are you just randomly typing on a keyboard?

Idk, it’s not like the left complains about the rising African nationalism and kicking white people out of africa

youre right, my bad lol

Lose what?

So democrats are responsible for stuff in other countries?

Liberals and non-whites make this argument every fucking day, how everyone has to chip in more money for dem programs so Tyrone can "have somewhere to hang out on the weekends", give me a fucking break. The whole thing is a fucking joke.

>I have no concept of scale

>I'm delusional

Has the left really never cared about the ongoings outside america? Pretty vacuous of them but that’s not surprising.

You do realize the “minoroties” don’t make up the majority of social program recipients....right?

>american military won’t fire on civilians, that’s why homeland security has an army with equipment for 1 million
>1 million men to control all of america, a country still full of outdoorsy gun owning freedom loving rednecks as soon as you leave the city

Well I would HOPE they don't considering they are outnumbered by the millions to whites. Problem though is that they are disproportional on welfare and food stamps. Of course people like you want us all to just ignore that part because it's inconvenient for your agenda.

Dumb Americans and their guns

everywhere else in the world you are used as an example of how shit hits the fan if people have easy acces to guns

However you're fucked now... at this stage, even banning them won't work anymore lol

yyaaaayyy guns, vote for more guns. You need it. For defense. What else stops your govermnet from taking over

Attached: 1385739637719.gif (245x230, 871K)

Sigh, nice, twisting my words. I’m asking if “the left” is *responsible* for what happens in other countries. Ya know, which is what you seem to be implying.

Expropriation of land isn’t “kicking out”, you dumbfuck

That's the thing with insurgencies: you have to subdue them by occupation and controlling areas. It takes soldiers on foot and in trucks to do that. Also, what benefit would the US get from destroying their own neighborhoods and infrastructure with tanks, drones, jets, destroyers, etc.? It wouldn't make sense, and just like overseas in Iraq, every time a house gets bombed more insurgents are born. Military vehicles alone cannot enforce curfew, search vehicles, pat down civilians, clear rooms, and so on. Some guy in a field trying to shoot a drone out of the sky, drone bombs him. Great, you wiped out his crops, and now populations lose food. You bomb an overpass or road with militia driving on it? Cool, now people struggle to get to work, or those powerlines leave people with the food in their refrigerators expiring and losing creature comforts. Bomb that house across town? A fence sitter's best friend lived there and he wants revenge. A lot of the public would turn on the government as soon as the wars personally affects them. So, you need troops to enforce these regulations. Think morale will be high when the National Guard or Marines are ordered to kill their own? Family? Friends? Strangers just like them? Couldn't that pose an threat to desertion and even aiding resistance? Not to mention the economic cost and instability that would follow, and sheer size of the US in both land and population, or the estimated vast sums of weapons unaccounted for. Food for thought.

>everywhere else in the world you are used as an example of how shit hits the fan if people have easy acces to guns

Right, because there isn't ANY gun violence in south america even though they already banned guns there

Are lefties really too stupid to comprehend limited resources

Heh, lets see the numbers that show its disproportionate please.

I don’t understand, isn’t that enforcing a border?

And then when I show you, you're gonna cry about that too right? Because it makes your nigger boyfriend look bad

you fucked up, ban guns or not they're still everywhere in your country you dumb shit

like I said, even banning them wont work anymore for you at this stage

Try English and making a cogent argument. You might get farther.

I'm a spic and I fucking hate AOC. A lot of other spics and other Latin American spics here in New York that I know love her. I hate that bug eyes bitch.

They’re poorer. if you just count minorities who are eligible for social programs they are actually less likely to apply for benefits than white people in the same situation

Interesting retort. Burn it informational. Which proves my point.

Do lefties really not grasp all English words?

>since they're the one who treat it like it is a sport
As you continue to say "your team". Got it.

>Then how the fuck do you explain the fact they come here, recreate the same fucking dump they just came from, and then create hispanic gangs in the US and commit more crimes?

So we're still running with the assumptions of entering the country illegally. First, because of the method used to enter the country, most are starting from nothing. They're resources/funds are limited, and in the case of needing to find/acquire a livable environment, quality concern goes out the window. The most affordable and readily available housing is acquired, without care for quality. If you've been desperate enough to enter the country illegally, I'm assuming the education is lacking, and seeing as you might not speak english, your options for employment probably aren't the most lucrative. Any money you're making is likely going to either your rent, food, or other other necessities for your family. There isn't exactly much room for economic growing in that situation, which can wind up creating desperation to provide for the family. Considering we're probably in a low economy area, public schooling won't be the best, so if there was a hope that the kids are going to pull the family out of their situation, that's down the drain. Put many people feeling the same poor situation, levels of desperation, and lack of any real way to get out of it, they resort to crime as a last resort.

I could have probably just said socio-economic conditions but you probably wouldn't have accepted that either

What point are you even making here? This is why I don't like talking to fucking foreigners, they're all fucking morons.

That is unfortunately probable. But it’s a step in the right direction in any case.

No. It’s not even remotely similar

>We will have to lose to help immigrants "it's just taxes" is not a point

You have yet to make any actual point as to what we lose to help immigrants. Maybe make a point yourself before lambasting me for being as vague as you've been

>A lot of other spics and other Latin American spics here in New York that I know love her

Of course they do, most spics are fucking dumb. I say that as a spic myself.

Because they underestimate the stupidity of Trump voters

I’m sure the majority of the people in this thread understand words. But you kind of have to put them in some sort of order that makes sense other than Ransome insults. I can understand 12 year olds having trouble with that. So it’s ok.

confusing drug violence with school shootings, dumb fuck

those are third world, seriously fucked up countries. No first world country has your murder rates / civilian / school shootouts

Attached: 1565556523895.jpg (470x315, 44K)

I mean, she’s real ugly, but most people in the city like her

So the basis of your voting is just spiting other people?

So then you're basically saying they're all criminals or have the potential to be one, making the "they're fleeing violence" argument complete bullshit. Got it.

It is enforcing a border though, so what kinds of borders do you approve of and which do you not?

If you lefties aren’t going to have principles you could be kind enough to explain what your hypocrisies are so we don’t have to dig them all out.

Obviously trump is a manifestation of resistance to left wing idiocy

Well most humans are fucking dumb. I’m definitely left and she’s as ducking bad as the Mitch’s of the world.

friendly reminder that the whole world laughs at result of your crazy gun laws

continue as you will; vote more guns plz

I like school shooting videos to pop up

I'd hatefuck her and cream her snatch, maybe I just have low standards.

The entire job of the marines is to kill people more like them than their own families

You really, really do.

Democrats tend to have higher IQ's, and stupid people shouldn't have guns. Nuff said?

I'm saying the socio-economic conditions that exist because our immigration system currently in place is desperately in need of reform, but thank you for putting words in my mouth and making your echo chamber bigger.

You’re not a leftist

I already knew that but I just wanted to hear him say it lol

No spics are definitely stupider than whites and asians, on average. They make that painfully obvious from the way they fucking act and talk.

Lefties aren’t leftists, you’re neoliberal capitalism stoogies whose primary political goal is keeping the third world the third world and making the 1% richer at the cost of workers through immigration in the name of your feelsies, sold to you on the tv by the big piggy

>It is enforcing a border though
No, it’s really not. Those folks are still citizens and sometimes don’t even have to move, they just lose land. It’s very similar to taxation

So what do you want then, free paychecks to every hispanic immigrant that comes here? Just so we can all hope and pray these people finally stop their bullshit for once? Come on now. You cannot tell me how their countries and violent and shitty, but then we all have to ignore how they come here and recreate the same fucking dump they just crawled their monkey asses from. Asians don't seem to do that, African immigrants don't either. But for whatever reason hispanics do it. Interesting how that plays out.

I mean I lean left but I try to keep middle. So. It strictly leftist. No.

I mean they’re often murdered but okay

Herp derp. I mean I’m not gonna say that no one is like that. But you seem to think anyone that that disagrees is that. Not the smartest way to go.

Literally nobody cares what some polish jag off thinks about it.

Shooting fellow Americans would either destroy morale or cause public resentment. Or both. Also, the Marines would be spread thin. They'd rely on reservists, especially in non coastal states away from bases. It'd be a lot of National Guard if anything, and they're stationed in their homes. Leaves a lot of potential for wanting to change sides. Many do indeed follow orders under pressure, but even 1/100 ditching would be a threat.
While you are correct, my sentiment remain. I'd put her dumb ass on taxpayer funded maternity leave knahimsayin

Please show me who is "murdered" for their fucking land

In much of the world someone with your beliefs would be considered and identify as right wing.

You want just a single example of a white farmer being murdered in africa? That’s all? And you’ll admit you’re wrong? It’s that easy?

Obviously because it's an easy pretense to make the argument. You're supposed to care about 2000% more that some specific guy shot 6 people in a mall than about the dozens of shooters every week that make the background static of inner city life in America. It's completely phony.

I don't mind telling you that you're pretty stupid if you couldn't figure that out.

sdza

>Africa

Nobody gives a fuck about that dump

What can a € boy do to support guns in USA?

Attached: How-to-type-the-Euro-Sign-in-Linux-Mint-Ubuntu.png (600x400, 74K)

What I want is an overhaul of our immigration system that's able to process and help people enter the country legally in a reasonable time span (6 months sounds fair) so that they're able to bring whatever they can without needing to only bring what they can carry and run with. And from there get started with lives here that aren't necessarily always going to be from rock bottom and in piss poor communities/areas.

Africa is what we were just talking about...

No it wasn't

we just want to see even more guns in USA

My bad, should have said that in this instance specifically it seemed pretty clear that for this individual it was the case.

K well anyone can follow this reply chain retarded nigger

Because they feel instead of think.

The left is really having to put those double digit IQs to work itt

Well maybe if we didn't have millions of people living here illegally we would have that by now. Did you ever consider that? Not that the dems care because they benefit from having a broken system that they abuse at every turn.

People love cops, and they blow people away all the time. Literally their neighbors too, not like national guard assholes training halfway across the state. I’m not talking about black teens or whatever either, I have no idea why that gets attention but everybody else gunned down because a cop felt disrespected doesn’t. You sure as hell know cops don’t feel bad about it. I’m confident all of that scales up to the military and that you’re a stupid child for thinking otherwise

Wow I honestly never thought about that. I knew that government depends on unhappiness to exist, but I never took that further to think about the Democrats benefiting the most from that unhappiness.

Name 1 Democrat that is better on guns than Trump. I say Democrat because it is very unlikely that Trump won't get nominated.
Point to where that specifically appears in the constitution. Explain why you believe this, bearing in mind that privately owned cannons were a thing.

Yeah, that’s probably true. But I’ll bet there is a segment that thinks I’m way left too.

Which is a problem in itself. Not everyone is going to agree, so if you try to at least work with everyone and not be a crazy asshole, maybe progress could be made.

>it is very unlikely that Trump won't get nominated

I mean considering primaries are getting cancelled so that no one even can run against him in the party, yeah you're not wrong

Lol, cause only some politicains take advantage? Is that what you’re asserting? Sigh...

This desu, I’m a pure socdem but I am constantly fighting for the right

And no, illegal immigration hasn’t stopped immigration reform. Lobbyists probably have, but not the immigrants.

I did four years in the Marine Corps, and my platoon was full of largely pro gun anti confiscation types. I understand this is an anecdotal takeaway, but I'm saying a lot of troops respect their oath. Also, it could be a regional thing, but a lot of people can't stand the police here. I'm certain that differing cultures in different parts of the country may be a factor too. I guess the only way we'd know for sure is if it happens.

No they’re not and know know it. If you’re the only white dude in some boko haram ass part of Africa you’ll get murdered for being white, is that what you’re talking about? Because I’m not sympathetic to theocracies

All the lefty replies make me picture a drunk old wine aunt raising her waving finger and making a dumb point

The result of the problem as the cause of the problem ignores the problem. You can't say that the immigration system can't be reformed because we have illegal immigrants here without being able to look at fact that lobbyists constantly stonewall this sort of overhauling.

Also, we're going to pretend that only democrats benefit from having a broken system?

Are you really trying to deny white farmers being killed off in Africa?

You said it in your response. “Were” a thing. The constitution isn’t a Carte Blanche to do whatever you want. I’d it was we wouldn’t need most of the courts.

So tell me where it’s constitutionally legal to own whatever you want as long as it’s considered “arms”?

You can probably legally buy a gun before you can drink in America

Fukking love that American anons !

Attached: 1565632517947.jpg (343x343, 14K)

All right-winged replies make me picture a mid 20-30 guy angrily trying to psych himself up to enact his second amendment rights on all those damn middle schoolers.

I mean who preaches about saving the miserable? Democrats. If the devil was going to come to earth, I think he’d be a Democrat.

Be “pro gun” “anti confiscation” all you want. Now you’re assigned to work a roadblock check point. How many of you do that, show up for work where you’re ordered? Some dude rolls up with an illegal gun, how many of you are going to let him keep it? Just going to look the other way and let him ride on by?

so sad little white boys stop killing innocent people i would reckon

buh buh buh duh sekon ameneament!!

fucking hillbillies

The right is making good arguments and the left is shitting their pants

>who preaches about saving the miserable?
Jesus, in the Bible

build the wall american user

fukking start a fb page, mr Trump needs to start or it wont happen

The right cries about boogeymen

>TFW Burgerland is seen as a joke because we can't regulate guns without flinging shit at each other but not!Australia can ban guns in 2 weeks
Fucking sad that there are still people with such low IQ who dont think America needs stricker gun laws. Have fun with your bi-monthly mass shootings.

Attached: Godzilla_1973.jpg (385x659, 104K)

Works for me. He has more morals than “god” in the Bible.

The right is attempting to paint the left as having arguments that it doesn't have

yes the wall user

fight for it

They’re landowners and landlords and yes, they’re still alive.

You're all tards. Obviously the only answer is to issue every american a gun and be done with it

yes plz plz plz

>making economic arguments and pointing out hypocrisy in the left is “boogeymen”
I hope you didn’t read the thread and the left isn’t actually this braindead

Looks like another point the dems can’t respond to

listen to this USA anons !

I'm not saying there wouldn't be conflict, and I'm not some naive idealist that thinks there wouldn't be conflict and a lot of people dying. I'm saying it could potentially destroy morale of occupying forces, being ordered to fire upon Americans. This opens the door to issues ranging from poor field performance to some troops deserting and taking gear with them. I also understand you're being hypothetical, but I'd sit in a cell before I play jackboot thug against my own country. Besides, I bailed that ship when my contract expired. Not gonna be an armed thug for the sake of adding zeroes to rich chickenhawks checking accounts.

There’s like 80,000 people in Australia and you’re all inbred morons.

>left winger never actually thought their beliefs through
>gets the holes pointed out in their ideas
>YOURE MAKING STUFF UP I DONT CARE ABOUT THOSE EFFECTS OF IMMIGRATION

Not in the USA

just wanna see the wall mr Trump promised you guys

I thought is was a crazy plan I wanna see happen

And I would really love orange man bad taxing mexico for it

you guys should be a TV show

>tfw we have to deal with european normies coping with their boring countries on Yea Forums

>Not gonna be an armed thug for the sake of adding zeroes to rich chickenhawks checking accounts.
You did it for years.

INB4 Ausi-cunts
INB4 all criminals

This is a thread about gun control you retarded nigger

Dear America, make orange man bad do what he promised you

build the wall, and let him tax mexico for it

this is the time for you to make noise about it, with reelection

You guys & mexico should be a TV show

That's why I chose to stop.

According to the bill of rights, all of America. Unless you can specifically point to a place in the constitution that refutes that. You want draconian gun control, amend the bill of rights.

>I-I-IM NOT AN IDIOT, WE WERENT SUPPOSED TO BE TALKING ABOUT THOSE ISSUES RIGHT NOW
it’s so interesting how you low IQ lefties process and cope

What does the text on the first post say retard?

Oh yeah, the only people that have ever shot anyone in all of history were white.

Attached: 1565086936486m (1).jpg (951x1024, 203K)

“Well regulated” you stupid bitch

Wow you really think you’re making a good point and the left magically didn’t get btfo about immigration

What are you on about? What point?

>If the devil was going to come to earth, I think he'd be a Democrat

This is your own fucking nonsense, no one's going to argue that retarded shit

>my personal research of goggling every Wikipedia
Is this a joke?

That was just flavor text, I guess I should have been more careful knowing how eager you lefties are to dodge a question

If I hadn't just got in the thread and give a fuck about whatever another retard said, I might care.

Explain why that phrase means private gun ownership isn't protected by the bill of rights.
Refute it.

Ahaha cope. None of this matters, you’ll be here tomorrow and I’ll be here tomorrow and I’ll have fun and you’ll be made to look stupid. It’s getting old really.

Give it a rest, Igor.

Oh damn, sorry, you did actually ask a question.

>I mean who preaches about saving the miserable

Both sides. The differentiation comes from who each side refers to as the miserable

they think it'll mean less people will get shot

So the right wing sentiment of pulling yourself up by boot straps is pandering to the poor