Neighbors dead following snow removal dispute

Can we go ahead and ban pointy knives, box trucks, and hydrogen peroxide?

If the dead couple had been packin', they coulda shot the loonie first.

Say, in the article. it states:
The neighbor who lives across the street then went inside and grabbed a gun.
How could the dead couple throw snow on his property if he lives across the street?

As you can see, my name is James Olsen and I am a highly trained investigatorial journalist, am am trained to ask these questions.

If you could legally carry bombs they could just have one planted on the street and wait for him to become aggressive

Mr Olsen, in the video, the couple are, as we say in Canada, real "Cunts".

They threw snow across the street obviously on purpose to be "cunts"
And then the husband calls the neighbor a "fucking queer", and threatening to hurt him and chasing him into his home.

As a queer, I know this hate crime perpetrated by the husband could only be met with deadly force by the gay neighbor.

The wife got caught in the crossfire.

20 bullets!
1 for each cunt hair(or fingers) on them.

That'll learn em!

This could all have been avoided if they had just kept their snow to themselves. Less of a gun issue and more of a stupidity issue.

Why are white gun owners so violent?

You're a real "cunt".

>Why are white gun owners so violent

Guns attract violent people.

Another fine example of responsible gun owners making their case for heightened gun restrictions. Please oh please keep on being useful idiots.

How would gun control have helped? Assuming he wasn't a criminal previously, this could have happened in Canada too. Are you proposing the US take on more strict gun laws than even Canada?

This kind of thing happening is a good thing. Reminds fucking assholes that if they're going to be dickheads, there's a small chance they'll regret it. An armed society is a polite society.

>Guy fails background check
>Doesn't get gun
>Instead tries to punch husband and couple then beat the shit out of him for amusing video instead of another textbook case of why we need less guns and more gun control.

Turn on new IP notification and sit in one of these threads before posting. His post isn't from a new IP he's bumping the thread for (you)s

He could just grab a tire iron and kill them both anyway. Or hit them with his car. Or stab them. You don't need a gun to murder someone, but it can help defend oneself from murderers by leveling the playing field.

What's race got to do with it? Are you some kind of racist?

If had killed them with an axe, you would be calling for axe control laws?

Are axe killings a regular problem in this country?

Yes. Problem?

>You don't need a gun to murder someone, but it can help defend oneself from murderers by leveling the playing field.
You need a gun to defend yourself? Just use a tire iron, or your car. Or stab them. You don't need a gun for self defense.

I'm disabled

If they were, would you want to restrict axe ownership?

Clearly

If having background checks and safety training are restrictions for you then you're probably not responsible enough to own a shooty shooty bang bang

That's some serious ableism, user. I didn't know that anti-gun people were so filled with hate.

Background checks and safety training are the least of what gun control advocates seek. I don't see how they would have prevented this crime, so when discussing restrictions I must assume you mean restrictions that go beyond just training and background checks. Pennsylvania already has background checks for purchases.

Shall not be infringed you braindead redditnigger

You're probably not even American anyways.

>a guy with a gun kills two people without guns
>clearly we need to make it harder to carry a gun for protection

Now imagine how this would've played out if one of the victims was armed. No in fact I'll help you out: indystar.com/story/news/crime/2017/07/05/no-charges-after-firefighter-shoots-neighbor-johnson-county/451606001/

good lord youre fucking retarded

YAHOO!
Shoot out at the OK Burbs!

ok so what happens if the guy who sperged out just started shooting without any warning?

>gun used in self defense
>but it doesn't count because reasons

>An armed society is a polite society.
Fuck you, I'd put a bullet in you with my .30-06 rifle if you was my neighbor

Well regulated you braindead Dab Forums chud

Wait, so why didn't the guy with the gun stop himself? He had a gun so he should have been able to stop himself from shooting his gun, by having a gun.

can you answer the question? do you think real life is a movie where the bad guys have bad aim and the good guys can take a dozen bullets without dying? nevermind how you can even determine who a bad guy is before they start shooting. unlike you and your cult i don't want to live a society shaped by fear and paranoia.

Ya cunt, ya!

Let these 2 shoot it out.

The duality of man.

communists aren't people, bunkerfag

AR stands for armalite. The AR-9 and AR-17 are shotguns. And the AR-5 and AR-7 are .22 cal survival rifles for shooting squirrels and rabbits to eat.

>>goy
>Can't make this shit up
That was my first thought lol

>All the more reason for strict gun control.
come and take it, reddit fag.

>Can we go ahead and ban pointy knives, box trucks, and hydrogen peroxide?
Don't forget propane tanks, boxes of ten penny nails, and electric igniters, user.

So I guess you win the argument then. But wait....why are you still mad? Is it because we are people, and we have power, and there's nothing you can do to stop us?

We are.

How do you know he didn't pass a background check? You need to pass a background check to get guns from a gun store. also the >safety training meme is just an excuse to prevent blacks and poors from owning guns. Fatal gun accidents are under 500 per year now more than 76 times as many people die in car accidents as in gun accidents

Oh yeah and pressure cookers, gasoline, and laser pointers

I don't see you outside my door, cuck.
You aren't people. No one is going to surrender to you.

You will. And you'll take it smiling.

>2nd amendment says right to bear arms
>americans think they were talking about guns
amerilards are so stupid lol

>Oh yeah and pressure cookers, gasoline, and laser pointers
Fuck we better ban everything.

Nothing's guaranteed with firearms. Maybe you die, maybe you don't. Maybe you do everything, and I mean everything, 100% perfect that you've been trained to do: your draw, your stance, your accuracy, your speed - and you can still get shot.

This is what's frustrating for pro-gun and anti-gun people. Concealed carry isn't a magical cure-all for gun violence. It doesn't guarantee that nobody will die. That shooter in the church in Texas still got two people before he was shot in the head and you had people in Dab Forums all durr good guy with gun theory is wrong hurr, completely ignoring that it was only two and not 20.

But I digress. So to answer your question the guy who starts shooting without warning might get you, but there's a chance that you can also return fire and get him before you go down. At the very least he'll be wounded too and won't be able to shoot anyone else. Or maybe he shoots you and you're dead before you can do anything about it, but it's better than the alternative where you're unarmed and can't do anything about it even if he misses.

>but user if we ban all guns then this will never happen
Banning all guns in America will never happen. Period. Biden could come out tomorrow and sign another EO banning everything and you'll never see the end of them.

>you can even determine who a bad guy is before they start shooting

The bad guy is the one shooting at me.
I would never slap leather first.

>it can't be helped: the post
Why do you hate life and prosperity, user?

The fact that you call gun rights a cult has already shown you aren't interested in my response, but to answer anyway, sometimes the bad guys win, guns or not. But I'd rather let people have the freedom to arm themselves and have a shot at defending themselves from danger than to deprive them of that option and leave them to suffer. I won't force someone to rely on the goodwill of others for their own defense, nor will I put my safety above a person's rights when that person has never been a threat to my safety.

nope, come and take it bitch boy.
all gun control is intolerable.

Why do you reply to posts that you didn't read?

Banning all guns in America will never happen
Because gun rights advocates keep fighting the good fight. If not for their outcry, many more politicians would have curtailed gun ownership down to what would essentially be a gun ban.

Is that what Randy Weaver told Lon Horiuchi?

nah Horiuchi was trying to shoot the baby and missed and hit the wife.

Shouldn't have resisted

>The fact that you call gun rights a cult has already shown you aren't interested in my response
you're being willfully ignorant if you don't think the NRA has perverted the meaning of the 2nd amendment and politically weaponized it. that retard below you is a prime example of why it's hard to take gun rights activists seriously.

The baby?
What part of "shall not be infringed" is hard for you to wrap your head around? But keep licking that 1% boot vox.com/the-goods/2019/9/12/20862604/145-ceos-gun-control-letter

Nothing the NRA does or doesn't do makes gun rights a cult.

>the baby?
You mean future criminal?
>What part of "shall not be infringed" is hard for you to wrap your head around?
WELL REGULATED

>You mean future criminal?
pretty sure the baby was a girl
>WELL REGULATED
You already lost this argument retard, see heller
texasgopvote.com/sites/default/files/2nd-Amendment-diagrammed-PC.png

>Dab Forums infographic
Gonna be a yikes from me!

A sentence diagram is not a >Dab Forums infographic
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_diagram

Then that's proof we need stricter checks given he's clearly not qualified to have a gun.

Any gun control legislation disproves your opinion

gun control advocates are actually on your side but you just don't realize it because of the propaganda you've been fed. if you're a "good guy with a gun" as you claim to be then you won't lose your guns. criminals and mentally unstable people will which will result in fewer gun deaths. when gun violence goes down, there will be no reason to take the "good guys'" guns away. see how that works?

Such as? Are you going to have every single gun owner go through an entire psyche eval? Who pays for that?

Quote the second amendment and say which will not be infringed: the right of the people or the well regulated militia. Explain where it says that a well regulated militia is a prerequisite for the people to have that right. Because it reads that the right is claimed to exist and the decision not to infringe upon it is upheld by the necessity of a militia, but the militia is not given as a requirement for the right's existence. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are not framed as granting rights on a conditional basis, but as guaranteeing the exercise of the rights.

>gun control advocates are actually on your side
Oh do go on.

>James Goy and Lisa Goy
What

>you won't lose your guns.
Not him but that needs an asterisk:
>so long as they don't have spooky military looking bits, hold more than 11 or whatever the current meme number of bullets is, and the politicians and their voters don't have a current news hate boner against a similar model
>among a list of other possible reasons

All gun control is unconstitutional. Also consider there have been all of 4 2nd amendment cases ever to show up before the scotus. Miller, which was a kangaroo court where the pro gun side never showed up because that side was 2 gang members and the whole thing was a set up to get the court to rule the NFA was fine. Their findings was that the 2nd amendment didn't protect short barreled shotguns because they were not weapons used by a militia and only weapons for fighting were fine. The same court would go on to say putting japanese Americans into concentration camps was fine. The second was heller, which affirmed the 2nd amendment is an individual right and the government cannot ban guns in common use for personal defense. The 3rd, McDonald, used the 14th amendment to incorporate the 2nd amendment against the states, and the 4th, Caetano unanimously said that arms made after 1790 are included in the second amendment.
Comprising of what standards?
>gun control advocates are actually on your side
That's a load of shit.
> but you just don't realize it because of the propaganda you've been fed.
uh huh, I'm fed the propaganda when the anti gunner side literally includes the media? Got it.
> if you're a "good guy with a gun" as you claim to be then you won't lose your guns.
Did you tell that to the Aussies and Kiwis and bongs?
>criminals and mentally unstable people will which will result in fewer gun deaths.
Criminals are already banned from owning guns and the mentally ill commit less than 1% of the yearly gun homicides
psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/appi.books.9781615371099
>when gun violence goes down, there will be no reason to take the "good guys'" guns away. see how that works?
Did you tell that to the bongs, aussies, canadians, or kiwis? Anti gunners will not stop until all gun owners are on a cattle car to death camps

Except gun control advocates routinely call for bans of types of guns for all people, not just for criminals and the mentally unstable (already a vague term ripe for abuse). They try to make it difficult for gun owners to exercise their right by imposing artificially high taxes on ammunition and the manufacture of guns. They resort to scare tactics like calling AR-15s assault weapons (an assault weapon is an automatic weapon, AR-15s are not automatic rifles). We already have background checks and prohibit the sale of guns to felons, but they act like we don't. And they tell us again and again that they will take our guns, then snidely call us paranoid for believing them.

>if you're a "good guy with a gun" as you claim to be then you won't lose your guns.
Except for all those good guys with guns who lost their guns for no reason. Gary Willis, Jeffrey Scott Kirschenmann, etc.

*yawn*

>npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/11/06/562323131/gun-violence-comparing-the-u-s-with-other-countries
oh yeah imagine living in those hellholes with a fraction of US gun violence. how awful. also i lived in canada for close to 20 years and no one gave a shit about guns up there.
so how far is along is obama in taking all your guns away? increased gun control would introduce more hurdles even for the good guys but that's how civilization works. you have to make a few sacrifices for the good of society because a few people try to ruin things for everyone.
sorry user don't know who they are, but i will say this: i get the political atmosphere is highly partisan these days, but gun rights activists should recognize that advocating sensible gun control laws is in their best interest now. people will reach a breaking point with gun violence eventually and as a result you might see laws on guns you really don't like.

>increased gun control would introduce more hurdles even for the good guys
No. Only for good guys. Career criminals do not get their guns from gun stores.

>sorry user don't know who they are
You should look them up sometime, especially Jeffrey, and tell me again that gun control advocates are on our side.

>An armed society is a polite society

Apparently you've never lived in Newark.

Odds 99/1 this yob don't wear a mask in a store.

>New Jersey is an armed society.
wew

>you have to make a few sacrifices for the good of society because a few people try to ruin things for everyone
So make the sacrifice of not getting your way for the good of having a free society where people can defend themselves. Accept that people own guns. Stop using the actions of a few people as an excuse to make our society less free. Find a solution to problems that doesn't involve infringing on innocent people's rights. Why are the policies that gun control advocates pursue involve infringing upon our rights? The idea that we're obligated to forfeit our rights because of your fears is absurd. You don't trust other people to own guns, but you expect us to trust other people with our safety. The government isn't guaranteed to protect us from harm. They fail, they shirk their duty, and sometimes they deny even having the duty to protect us. If you feel unsafe, then find a way to make yourself safe. Don't make us less safe when we aren't the criminals making you unsafe. We aren't the ones that are going to shoot you, but you are the ones that will disarm us and then, on the occasion that we needed to be armed to defend ourselves, you won't even care that you put us in harm's way.

>newark population 50.13% black

Yeah, I wonder what the problem is.

>bait.jpg

Its already less than 55%.

Fucking hell. This shit right here is why I'm polite to everybody and avoid getting into arguments over petty issues. It's hard to feel sorry for anybody involved, though. From just the footage it's easy to imagine what a pair of colossal cunts that couple were. Should have kept her mouth shut indeed.

>It's almost like you don't think your neighbor is retarded enough to murder you and be put in prison for life.
It was a murder-suicide dumbass.

The tards broke the NAP by getting snow on their neighbors lawn, if you don't like it then gtfo to a like minded socialist hellhole like Venezuela or Canada or California l.

registered gun owners should have regular mandatory psych evaluations to determine if they are mentally fit to be armed.
prove me wrong.

i unironically wish we could go back to just beating each other over there the heads with rocks and sticks whenever there was a disagreement.

>muh NAP
This must be satire.

>Why are {weapons of violence} owners so violent?

Despite being only 45% of the population gun owners make up 100% of all gun deaths

I'd rather not have anyone's rights be taken away without due process. Police officers have to take psych evals before they're hired and we still get cops who aren't fit for the job. It's too soft a science to replace the court's standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". Its reminiscent of literacy tests for voting rights and like those tests, its easy to abuse, and psychiatry has been abused as a political tool many times before:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry

You may think it'll be screening for madmen, but the corrupt will take advantage of it.

Killing someone from up close and personal is a whole other thing than squeezing a trigger and aiming. You don't push a sharp object into someone like that.

That argument just plain doesn't reflect reality.

Someone that shoots two people point blank 20 times and then gets a rifle and shoots them some more over some snow is absolutely willing to beat someone to death with a blunt object.

It's pretty obviously satire considering actual NAP adherents don't murder people over slight inconveniences.

Fucking Americans. What the fuck is wrong with you people. Wait a few minutes and some of you will be arguing that they would have been safer if they had more guns.

Bullshit, they literally did a slavery by having their way with his property without consent. They "accidentally" got their snow on his property so he committed a high velocity accident on their property with bullets.

You won't do shit, keyboard warrior. Your mommy probably won't let you own one anyway.

unironically at least she kept insulting him to the end. if you're gonna die, better to go out staying true to yourself to the end than beg for your life and then die anyway. very sad what happened. apparently the shooter was a 47-year-old virgin. a democrat as well. is the media going to talk about left-wing extremism now?

Imagine needing permission for a right.

You never know with libertarians. They're absolutely massive retards.

it's so sad that this hero died fighting right wing extremism, but hey at least another white woman got shot in the neck lmao

Oh, do deliver ALL of the sauce. (You) sound amazingly informed. Teach us, sensei. Teach us all your secrets.

That's actually false. Most gun crimes are done with stolen or straw purchased guns.
You do realize a gun/ gun owner registry is illegal in the USA. It was a negotiated compromise in exchange for banning machine guns and biden voted for it. Governments cannot be trusted doing psych evals, we saw that with the USSR. Also it likely violates the ada, section 504, and the 14th amendment.

>unable to defend your point
>claim it is because you are bored.
You bunker cucks are as see through as that disguise you try to wear everywhere.

>Should support sensible gun control...
Like what exactly? Every "common sense" gun control proposal does nothing to reduce violence but punishes lawful gun owners. We already have:
National Firearms Act - short guns bad and full auto bad, unless you pay $200 then it's fine.
Brady - background check for every sale from a dealer. Which is almost every sale.
AWB which expired and had no effect
HR 127, I know it won't pass, but the fact that it's even proposed is a joke.

Along with all sorts of shit that differs state to state and city to city. And these are all written by people who have zero knowledge about firearms. We don't have a gun problem we have a violence problem. I live in a ban state and I'm tired of being punished for someone's irrational fears.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. OHH GOD I CANT:: HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

youtu.be/nMPQc6ZITD0

user, I just want you to be able to defend yourself without more govt red tape preventing you from buying an effective firearm.

And I'm sure MS-13 and the Michigan Militia will register all of their guns.

>I just
shalom shabat my jewish friend!

This is because I have a Tavor, isn't it?

The human race needs to be exterminated because there are so many like you.

Maybe our Ai overlords will euthanize the likes of youse, and keep us good humans as pets.

Intellectual Transcendence: The Posting.

54 murders so far in 2021 for Chicago, Baltimore 27 murders for 2021......Sounds like black gun "owners" are a much bigger problem than some crazy white dude shooting 2 mouthy doofuses once in awhile.

Fuckin hell!!

ugh
of all the guns you could purchase, you picked the jew bullpup
amazing
not even a good jew gun like the galil

Don't forget that they'll count his suicide as a gun death.

I live in a ban state, but the jewpup is specifically allowed for some strange reason.

PA is a shithole. Also that guy is a pussy for not shooting it out with the cops

Stronger than what we currently have given these murders are totally unacceptable and only psychopaths think they are acceptable.

How old are you? Underage or ESL, I cannot determine.

no shit, what the fuck is wrong with anti-gunners? Everyone knows the REAL problem is too many members of "a certain subgroup" of Americans have illegally acquired guns in their possession and use them to rob and kill people.

George Floyd should not have resisted either.

hey, just found the Le Redditior

hey, just found the Le Redditor

BAM!

republicans?

the woman shot 6 times first, if you look at her hand

How dare those libertarians believe that using violence to control people is unethical! How are we supposed to get our way without the threat of violence?

Do you think the jokes in ancapball memes are real beliefs?

Ill take your shitty bait retard. That user was wrong, you dont use a gun for self defense to level the playing field you use it give yourself an advantage. Sure you could defend yourself with a tire iron or a knife, but its sure as hell easier to do with a gun. Why would you risk your life trying to defend yourself with a tire iron if you could just shoot the bastard threatening you?

>he was a Democrat so this is obviously a politically radicalized librul killing in the name of bidin!!1
your brain on right wing extremism

The shots he missed were clearly warning shots. He didn't think they were retarded enough to keep arguing with him as he was firing bullets in their direction.

>we just need more guns
no we need to make sure the people who buy guns arent emotionally stunted retards with the impulse control of a 5 year old
>I'mma shoot both my neighbor and his wife over snow

literal child-like reasoning skills right there. person shouldnt even be allowed to drive a car with self control like that. When will he road rage and run someone off the road or into a freeway railing?
at what point does my right to life actually fucking matter? am I obligated to spend money on this product (something conservatives claimed during the obamacare debates was wrong) just so my rights to not die randomly are respected? (hint: the answer is not yes you faggot)

>no we need to make sure the people who buy guns arent emotionally stunted retards with the impulse control of a 5 year old
How?

>person shouldnt even be allowed to drive a car with self control like that.
So why didn't gov stop him from driving? Why isn't there psych evals for driving?

>at what point does my right to life actually fucking matter?
This is going to be a hard pill to swallow, but it is YOUR responsibility to defend your life. SC has already ruled that they can't be held accountable if they don't do their job.

And if you're worried about guns so much then move to a cucked city where almost every gun is banned... like D.C. or Los Angeles. I mean they don't have these issues, right?

>SC has already ruled that they
And by they I mean police. I derped.

I'm so glad I'm not American

Needs new video link.

>warning shots
Anyone trained in the use of firearms knows you do not "fire warning shots" nor do you "shoot to wound" as portrayed in romantic American Westerns. When you pull a firearm with intent to use it against another human you shoot to kill, period.

This is the kind of fantasy the vast majority of gun nuts have along with the idea they'll be waddling down the street packing their concealed handgun and a criminal will walk up to them and say, "Stick 'em up, hands in the air! Gimme your wallet and nobody gets hurt!" When the reality is they'll see the bulge of his handgun as he's waddling along, walk up behind him and pop a cap in his head to get it, his 64 oz Big Gulp and wallet.

>Anyone trained in the use of firearms knows you do not "fire warning shots" nor do you "shoot to wound" as portrayed in romantic American Westerns. When you pull a firearm with intent to use it against another human you shoot to kill, period.
Here's where you had me.

>This is the kind of fantasy the vast majority of gun nuts have
And here's where you lost me.

This might sound contradictory but a lot of gun owners don't look forward to shooting people.

"Intolerable". Well, neck yourself then. You're not gonna wanna live in our world. And as was shown by the election (not to mention number of registered Dems vs repugs) we outnumber you.

You are the reason people hate gun nuts. Seriously.

>Gun nuts are the reason people hate gun nuts.
B-but the Illuminati robot ninja Jews from Mars!

To be fair, anybody who makes owning a thing their entire identity is fucking insufferable.

Why? Because he won't roll over like a bitch and agree to another one-sided "compromise"? Funny how your side always wants us to compromise but you never give anything up.

Who's wanting to compromise? That horse left the cart a long time ago when repugnicans became gestapo for a soulless husk of an orange man.

>Who's wanting to compromise?
Every democrat that tries to push gun control... so every democrat. It's one of their many catchphrases that mean nothing.

>why don't you compromise
>common sense gun reform
>gun show loophole
>military style assault clips

Funny, I only hear repugnicans talking about compromise. Well, I'm pretty sure there won't be compromise anymore after the insurrection.
Don't worry, we don't mind prying it from your cold, dead hands.

And I won't mind paying you and your family a visit. As well as everyone who voted for Biden. Do go on with your whole defund the police thing. I can't wait.

>And I won't mind paying you and your family a visit.
Yeah, user. We definitely want murderous psychopaths like you leading the charge of freedom and liberty. What a slimy degenerate you are.

>muh magic paper
Go suck off your uncle Cleetus, the constitution isn't perfect if they had to amend 20+ times

>Don't worry, we don't mind prying it from your cold, dead hands.
>What a slimy degenerate you are.
lol

We are way past being civil with each other.

>We are way past being civil with each other.
Nah, you are. Your violent, murderous, immoral ideology started it and now you're just whining that we're finishing it. There's nothing unreasonable about engaging in conflict with each other but threatening to come to people's houses and murder their families is straight psychopath shit. The notion that you people ever pretended to be the party of morality and values is fucking laughable. Inhuman monsters - every last one of you.

>Don't worry, we don't mind prying it from your cold, dead hands.
>but threatening to come to people's houses and murder their families is straight psychopath shit.
>Waaah only I'm allowed to say edgy shit!

I'm more than willing to accept your wife and child into the leftist eutopia after we've scooped the last shovelful of dirt on top of your ilk, user. I mean, maybe you get sexually excited about murdering people but my only goal is to make the world a better place and the world would be infinitely better without people like you in it. Means to an end, CHUD.

Say when.

Next Wednesday. Meet me at your local Arby's. Bring your wife.

Does my sister count as a wife?

>get sexually excited about murdering people
As opposed to morally excited about murdering people

Did you misspell Utopia, or did you slip that E into there because leftists are eunuchs?

Blah blah blah. No one is scared. We have guns too. LOL pathetic.

random sidenote, but I've never thought about it that way. You're 100% right. If it was perfect, we wouldn't have needed to change it at all. Shows just how terrible the founding fathers didn't think of the country's future.

Cry more you re faggot, it's better than anything else.

Things only progressively worse every time it gets fucked with, the country is a shithole nowadays because of things like giving inferior races rights, completely ignoring what the founders wanted.

>"things only get progressively worse"
For you. Not for the rest of us. And no one gives a shit about you.

For the country as a whole, Europeans built this nation and it has just gotten worse since inferior races started flooding it, since subhuman races can't do anything of value.

A nigger loving redditor like you probably hates whites though.

>for the country as a whole
No, just you.

Now you're just repeating yourself.

I don't have a particularly bad life myself, I live in a low crime 97% white town working as a HVAC Technician, but I can tell that for the Europeans as a whole "diversity" is wholly a negative aspect of this country, not all nonwhites are bad, but the vast majority of crimes are committed by them. (Hispanics and blacks to be accurate).

It would be tolerable if the races in this country were not these two of course.

Most of those amendments have been expanding people's rights, not curtailing them. The second most common are the changes in government like two-term limits and congressional pay raises. The only amendment that reduced private citizens' liberty was prohibition.

I'm ok with that! I still think the point that it wasn't as perfect as the Constitutionalists would lead you to believe is real.
I'm for doing whatever will make the best sense for the country. If that means expanding rights, cool! If it means reducing them, then it is what it is.

Is she hot?

I repeated myself because there's no reason to waste my brain cells on someone who obviously just wants to hate other races for no apparent reason other than they're different. It's disgusting.

All you have is random facts that you correlate without any causation behind it. Who's got time for that bullshit?

Suicide-homicide dumbass.

Ask Darius.

While some Constitutionalists treat it like some kind of sacred document, a lot of what I hear is just that letting politicians defy the constitution defeats the point of having a constitution and that there already exists a process in the constitution to change it if necessary so the laws that circumvent that process should be harshly condemned. The founding fathers intentionally included a way to change it but also made it difficult to change so that it wouldn't be subject to the whims of whoever was in charge for the moment. Its fucked up when people scoff at a document intended to limit the authority of government. They complain that it is an obstacle to them doing what they want when that's the whole point. I don't think giving more power to the government is what's best for the country considering what they do with the power they have is already an issue.

My take on it is, what is going to make us more safe? There comes a point where you have to actually give up freedoms to be more safe. Or even just to be taken care of, period.
I'm all for M4A - As far as I'm concerned, it should be an amendment to the constitution. But that could infringe on others' rights. /shrug.

I'm not a fan of medicare, but since the federal income tax amendment already exists I think that sort of thing becomes a policy issue for congress such that they don't need an amendment to institute it. The constitution is pretty flexible in regards to how taxes should be spent. If an amendment were passed that guaranteed it as a right, it would be the first time a right was created and provided by the government instead of protecting a right from the government. It might clash with the ninth amendment that claims rights are retained by the people, not created by government. Honestly, I just wouldn't claim it as a right but as some kind of "benefit of citizenship" or something.

Holy shit, I can tell we think far differently, but thank you for taking the time to actually type out a well thought out sentence.

Them claiming it as a benefit of citizenship could actually help the country in a multitude of ways, I think. One of which is, in my head, it would encourage more illegal aliens (to be clear, they don't bother me but I know someone is going to say something about illegals and free healthcare) to actually register with the fed gov.
Thank you again. Your viewpoint is definitely appreciated.

I don't have any strong opinions on illegal immigrants (my old roommate was one, and I'd hate for him to get sent back, but I would prefer people immigrate the legal way), but they should get the same things citizens get so long as they pay taxes. Really, despite my disdain for government, I don't mind welfare as long as it doesn't muddle the waters when it comes to what is a natural right. I think a lot of people similar to me would agree, we don't see the government doing good things for people as a problem, its the implication that not doing them is some kind of rights violation. The government should do moral things, but only through ethical means.

>the Goys were cleaning off their vehicles and throwing snow onto Jeffrey Spaide's, 47, property

How the fuck does one achieve that? Were they literally pushing the snow _across the street_ and throwing it on his driveway/sidewalk? WTF?

This isn't a "gun control" issue since the shooter was a home owner and so odds are he was gainfully employed and had no criminal record or mental issues and thus would have passed any kinda background checks.

This was a guy who simply "snapped" after what was no doubt a long running feud with the shitty neighbors and that's something no gun law can stop.

>Were they literally pushing the snow _across the street_ and throwing it on his driveway/sidewalk? WTF?
Yes, it seems so.
nbcnews.com/news/us-news/3-dead-murder-suicide-over-snow-removal-dispute-prosecutors-say-n1256599
>Surveillance video revealed that Spaide and the Goys were involved in disputes before the deadly encounter, prosecutors said.
>The video shows that the Goys shoveled snow from their parking spots, pushed it across the street and threw it onto Spaide’s property. After Spaide asked the couple to stop throwing snow onto his property, the neighbors got into an argument where they appear to have exchanged obscene gestures and expletives.

Sounds like they deserved it, cunts.

I didn't know any of these people, and don't know the background of their problems with each other. But taking snow all the way across the street seems like wasting a lot of energy just to be a petty fucking asshole.

>BAM!
Woot!

>I'm so glad I'm not American
We're glad you're not too. We have enough trannies as it is.

>I didn't know any of these people, and don't know the background of their problems with each other. But taking snow all the way across the street seems like wasting a lot of energy just to be a petty fucking asshole.
The thing is, in this day and age, why would a married couple go so far out of the their way to be such utter cunts to a neighbor? Not excusing what the guy did. People that act the way the Goys did kind of had that coming. That guy may have been sitting in his house with the barrel of his AR in his mouth, contemplating blowing his head off. And then you have the fucking doofus neighbors do the shit they did. It goes to show you: be fucking polite to your neighbors- you have no idea what they are grappling with.

Caution, brutal video. This is what went down.
bitchute.com/video/cIjUIgnomHI9/

He fucking shot at them and they STILL just stood there insulting him. She was lying there bleeding out and STILL insulted him. They really did have a terminal case of being a couple of fuckwits. I wonder if that last insult was what made him go back in and get a bigger gun.

So fucking satisfying when he told the whore she should’ve kept her fucking mouth shut right before he finished her off

Shooter was apparently a navy vet. Presumably had weapons training.

>navy
>weapons training
No, just no. Either way even the navy doesn't teach that one-handed shit.

lawofficer.com/shooter-in-snow-shoveling-murder-suicide-was-a-decorated-navy-veteran/
google.com/amp/s/www.legacy.com/amp/obituaries/citizensvoice/197658829
google.com/amp/s/www.the-sun.com/news/2275751/who-jeffrey-spaide-neighbors-james-lisa-goy-pennsylvania-shooting/amp/
wikifoxnews.com/jeffrey-spaide-wiki-bio-newshttps://www.kniffenfuneralhome.com/obituary/Jeffrey-Spaide

Call up kniffen funeral home and tell them if you think there's a problem with his obituary

Sit
Spin
Suck me

And this proves he had adequate weapons training how?

>engineering technician
kek. What a badass.

My God the video made me sick to my stomach. Such senseless death. And the lives destroyed. Had they only had the love of God in them

full video with sound available on /gif/
It's even more retarded than you can imagine.

>Goy
Oy vey..

a society so desensitized and so out of reality that cant even get passed its self indulgement in front of a deadly threat.

meme country

They saved millions of lives.

If it had been a true assault rifle he could have spread it over the snow in his own property to melt it all. Holy fuck it's like you phone posting scum don't know the origins of words that you type in your blithering posts.

This. He fired his gun and that woman was still running her fucking mouth. The moment he pulled it out I'd be bolting. How fucking dense do you have to be to completely lose your sense of danger and your fear of death? To stand there still trying to insult a guy who might very well use that gun.

They ego-tripped into death.

I'd assume he had to do some basic weapons training to get into the military. Either way, it doesn't really matter cause shooting someone at close range isn't rocket science. All he had to do was point and pull the trigger.

>I'm not a fan of medicare
>the elderly should simply be cast to the street to die
You share the same ideas some of the Native American nomadic tribes had: Leave the elderly and sick behind to be devoured by wolves if they can't contribute to the economic sustenance of the group. Good to see you've evolved so far, Ayn Rand Paul, lolibertarian 1st rank, lol!

Exactly. Once I ran into a faggot ass rentacop holding a big shotgun and looking at me like he wanted to shoot me, with another shotgun-toting cocksucker behind him. I got the fuck away from there faster than the Flash. I disappeared like a magician. Yeah fuck those pussied faggot rentapigs but I can't fist fight 2 shotguns.

But that dumb bitch in the video was standing there shouting insults at someone who was shooting bullets past her head.

why are niggers killing eachother daily with white men's guns?

Because the government created ghettos full of impoverished people in the early 20th century and then helped Nicaragua smuggle tons of drugs into them in the 80's. The poor people sell these drugs to make money and use guns to protect their criminal enterprises. You can thank big daddies Nixon and Reagan for this one.

but why are they killing eachother

Because running a successful drug enterprise requires you to acquire and then protect your turf from rival dealers. This happens literally every time impoverished people turn to crime to survive.

but why are niggers killing eachother even in less impoverished areas

I don't know what you mean by "less impoverished" areas. What areas are there where upper-middle class black people are shooting each other at disproportionate rates? Do you actually know or are you just doing the same old "blacks are genetically more violent herp durr warrior gene" Dab Forums bullshit?

>What areas are there where upper-middle class black people exist?
FTFY

but they are

>2020 census will show comprise 55% of the US population

Which is the reason ALL OF US SHOULD BE DOING WHAT HE DID.

Well, you sacks of shit insist that muh natives are so fucking amazing and superior in all matters so we should follow their lead right?

They're baiting you because they have no facts only feelings. I'm sure next comes the FBIs statistics that they'll use and then we will counter it with actual facts. We can explain class issues all day long to these mouth breathing morons, but they just want to be edgy racists. They think that by posting this shit it'll "redpill" people. They don't get that normal people think they are subhuman, just as much as they claim black people to be.

They're fucking inbred hicks who are mad that we have brains and they don't.

>uhh, purely economic factors
KEK

Where?

>I'm sure next comes the FBIs statistics that they'll use and then we will counter it with actual facts.
You mean they provide empirical evidence, and you provide subjective social "science" hand waving?

>We can explain class issues all day
Here's one issue: why are the 'urban' areas with the most crime and most income disparity and most class division, also all solidly Democrat run for decades?

>They don't get that normal people think they are subhuman, just as much as they claim black people to be.
How would you know what normal people think? You're not one of them.

>They're fucking inbred hicks who are mad that we have brains and they don't.
Who is we? You're some mentally deranged leftist crusading on Dab Forums for Corporate Joe Biden. You think you're a normal person?

Just accept that you must worship negros and hate White people.

in most cities during all of 2020s fentanyl george riots

Dab Forums is responsible for this

>You mean they provide empirical evidence, and you provide subjective social "science" hand waving?
Providing statistics in and of itself isn't an argument. You have to contextualize statistics to properly frame them, particularly when you're making prescriptive arguments. You have to explain why things are in order to substantiate an argument for the way things should be. If you can't explain why statistics are what they are then you aren't engaging in any kind of coherent way. You're just cherry picking facts to fit a presupposed narrative.

>why are the 'urban' areas with the most crime and most income disparity and most class division, also all solidly Democrat run for decades?
Most major metropolitan areas are blue, user. People who live in heavily populated areas and are exposed to more people and cultures are more likely to be liberal than their homogenized, conservative counter parts. Major metropolitan areas have more people therefore less livable space therefore more income inequality. The fact that conservatives tend to want to live spaced out in the middle of nowhere is not really a slam dunk on "democrat" run cities.

>You're some mentally deranged leftist crusading on Dab Forums for Corporate Joe Biden.
Leftists don't like Joe Biden. Leftists are just as combative against neo-liberals as they are against conservatives - even more so in many contexts. This really speaks volumes on how disconnected you are from the reality of your opinions.

>Leftists don't like Joe Biden

LOL you low end shit, you faggots voted for him in record numbers.

>Leftists are just as combative against neo-liberals as they are against conservatives - even more so in many contexts. This really speaks volumes on how disconnected you are from the reality of your opinions.
No they arent. They do as they told.

>Major metropolitan areas have more people therefore less livable space therefore more income inequality
Ahhh so thats why South Africa and Brazil have such terrible income iniquality! Its the darn livable space!

Compare the Gini Coefficient for say Texas v California and then reconcile yourself with how shit your argument is.

>3 retards are dead
fail to see how this is a bad thing, everyone the globe over should have guns so we can weed out all the undesirables

Of course you can't understand the difference between voting for someone and worshiping them as God's chosen messenger, the Trump cult has taken over the right

>You have to contextualize statistics to properly frame them
AKA: you have to dress them up in social science propaganda so you can blame it on white people.

>Most major metropolitan areas are blue, user
Yes, hence the rampant crime, income disparity and class division.

>The fact that conservatives tend to want to live spaced out in the middle of nowhere is not really a slam dunk on "democrat" run cities.
It absolutely is, because they form better communities than 99% of anything you'll find in Democrat run urban shitholes.

>Leftists don't like Joe Biden.
They did when they were voting for him, now they have buyers remorse. Tough shit.
>Leftists are just as combative against neo-liberals
HAHAHAHAHAHA, you people are literally girl-boss-ifying Kamala Harris on twitter, right now. This board is filled with endlessly excuses and placations for Biden, it's like how Dab Forums was with Trump.

>This really speaks volumes on how disconnected you are from the reality of your opinions.
Your entire political praxis is completely contradictory and astroturfed by the establishment. You forever have no leg to stand on.

>Of course you can't understand the difference between voting for someone and worshiping them as God's chosen messenger
"Jamie, pull up those articles of leftist mouthpieces calling the Capitol a sacred space while using a photo of Biden in front of a specific flag that makes it look like he has a halo"

Rogan is just enough of a brain-fried dumbfuck that you probably could convince him the Washington Post is a leftist mouthpiece.

another day in muttshootica

t. Brenton Tarrot

Generally any where outside of your mum's house, although on those weekend nights when she's "entertaining" Tyrone and you aren't permitted out of the basement, they are even present there.

Yes, if only there were 500k of Tarrot's the world would look very different right now.

There is no Trump cult, you low info group think clowns just mindlessly repeat that because you are in fact a cult.

Classic leftist projection.

>AKA: you have to dress them up in social science propaganda so you can blame it on white people.
Did you read my sentence? Stating statistics isn't an argument. Statistics are used to inform arguments. In order to support an argument for what things should be you have to explain why. Its called meta-analysis. Your victim complex has nothing to do with it.

>Yes, hence the rampant crime, income disparity and class division.
Yes, the more people live in a given area the more crime and income disparity there will be. Its an almost universal socioeconomic fact that could apply to any country. You could say the same about Tokyo - is that Democrats fault too?

>It absolutely is, because they form better communities than 99% of anything you'll find in Democrat run urban shitholes
It depends on what you mean by "better". Typically, to your types, homogeneity of any kind is considered "better" solely based on your feels. Its easy to ignore the fact that "urban shitholes" are the technological centers that generate the vast majority of wealth in this country if your definition of "better" is everyone in your neighborhood being the same race and religion. Most economically literate people wouldn't argue sacrificing progress because living next door to brown people is too scary. Oh, and if you were curious, impoverished white, rural communities have comparable drug and crime rates to the inner city. Check out any meth-town in the rust belt if you honestly think Democrat policies are solely responsible for the death of the working class.

>HAHAHAHAHAHA, you people are literally girl-boss-ifying Kamala Harris on twitter, right now.
Those are liberals, not leftists. It doesn't surprise me that you don't know the difference.

two more innocent goy killed, got to call a Spaide a Spaide

Did I trigger you by not endorsing your pet policy, loser?

>cult member denies he is part of a cult
ok sure

>no y-you're the cult!

Classic. Debating conservatives should be considered child abuse.

Hello there, magat cultist!

>“Politics isn’t about the weird worship of one dude,” Sasse said.
>Sasse said the Capitol riot “happened because the president lied to you” and because Trump “riled a mob that attacked the Capitol — many chanting ‘hang Pence.’”

>“If that president were a Democrat, we both know how you’d respond,” Sasse said. “But, because he had Republican behind his name, you’re defending him.”

politico.com/amp/news/2021/02/04/ben-sasse-censored-nebraska-466056

>There is no Trump cult, you low info group think clowns just mindlessly repeat that because you are in fact a cult.
>Classic leftist projection.

I swear to fucking christ, this has to be the absolute BIGGEST fucking gaslighting I've seen.

it's "no u" with a serious side of dunning-kreuger. Holy fuck.

"Tell me you're American without telling me you're American"

Because of a snow, three people were killed,
How can Americans be more stupid?

>Smart and rich at killing and guns
>Paid Healthcare basically zero to none
>is Dumb at pretty much at anything
>Selfish pricks who thinks they give freedom
or created freedom
>man shot neighbor because of snow

Ah yes, the old kafka-trap. Denying that they are a cult proves they are a cult. Real solid reasoning there.

I see your brain seems to be malfunctioning. Are you having a stroke?

...

Not user, but both of you are right and wrong
There is definitely an orange man fan club but most conservatives are probably not amongst it's members, although it's following are absolutely devout and fanatical in their beliefs and are the most vocal
There is definitely an orange man bad club and while many liberals are probably amongst it's members, it's only the most fanatical of its devoutees who are the most vocal

Both of these clubs do their best to find the loudest and most vocal of the opposing members to broadcast on tv and show to their base.

shockingly, I 10000000% agree. And the other part is, the two sides (I include myself in this) go into the others lion dens to rile up the lions.

The internet was a mistake.

I think we all do this.
I find that the vast majority of conservatives or liberals in the US (as in, irl) all want the same thing for america. Even internationally most of them want the same thing for their own country as here domestically.

Maybe people disagree on the methods to get there but pretty much everyone wants the same outcome, which is what's best for their country.

Sure, politics is disagreeing on the question of 'how'. That's politics.

I find it sad that modern special interests and media conglomerates have sectioned people off so much as to have our countrymen turn on each other.
because let's be honest, even if the question of 'how' is disagreed on the question of 'what' is generally agreed upon by everyone unless if it is being diluted by greed or shareholder profits

>Statistics are used to inform arguments.
>I shall now ignore them because they don't fit my narrative

The fact that there may be other underlying reasons why cities are crime-ridden shit holes does not excuse the fact that they have been voting blue for decades. Voting blindly red would not have worked either, but you need to admit there's a problem.

What's your solution? And I mean a real one, not "KILL ALL NIGGERS AND FAGGOTS". I mean, literally, what's your solution to fixing it?

I'm not him, but do we have to have solutions before recognizing the problems exist? Acknowledging the issue could lead to better solutions being found.

Well if you just say there's a problem, but most people don't see it as a problem, how are you going to explain how you'd make it better?

I don't see cities voting blue as bad, because they tend to be exposed to more diverse people and cultures as well as education tends to skew upwards. More educated people is better.

So if I see no issue here, how am I supposed to sign on to fix it?

We need thread ID's. I would create more govt job programs and push more high school students to trade schools. Decriminalize most drugs and remove retarded gun control laws. If you're from a shitty family and your mom has 3 baby daddies, you get a free ticket to a different city.

Keep shoving people in commie bloc projects and there's bound to be problems.

Thank you!

>I would create more govt job programs and push more high school students to trade schools.

I like this - though I take it farther than you (i'm guessing) and say that I think those, and all, trade schools should be paid for by the state. I did trade school instead of college and I am 100% behind it. I'm guessing though that you're not for state-sponsored education, even in the form of trade schools? Only a guess, not trying to paint you as anything.

>Decriminalize most drugs and remove retarded gun control laws.

I won't touch the gun control laws one, because I have a hard time with it. I absolutely wish we could decriminalize most drugs. Esp psychedelics.

> If you're from a shitty family and your mom has 3 baby daddies, you get a free ticket to a different city.

Nice - 100% agree!

>Keep shoving people in commie bloc projects and there's bound to be problems.

I LOLed at this mostly because I both agree and disagree. I think people who haven't lived in cities don't understand what it's like to live there. But I also think those who have lived in cities have no idea what its like in rural America.

I have experience in both but I was one who wanted to run away to a big city from birth basically so I don't consider myself a reliable source when it comes to which is better. Definitely though, think there are way different issues facing it and neither side understands what it's really like.

>City has more problems than rural
>Continue voting for the same people that perpetuate the problems
Being educated and diverse doesn't seem to be fixing things on it's own.

What's the issue with the gun laws? I can probably explain whatever your issue is.

I'm not opposed to the state paying, but it has to be an option, not the only option. I would open more state hospitals and subsidize med school for students with a contract to work at a state hospital for X number of years.

I haven't lived in a city, but I have worked and gone to school around several. Agreed that city and rural have different needs and people keep ignoring that the other is different.

>Well if you just say there's a problem, but most people don't see it as a problem, how are you going to explain how you'd make it better?
People do see it as a problem, they just phrase it in terms of "why are there so many people of one demographic in jail?" and "why is poverty disproportionately affecting certain demographics?". And the gut reaction is to chalk it up to socioeconomics and theories of class and identity relations. Just suggesting genetic, or even cultural causes can lead to wild accusations of racism. We've abandoned the idea of all people being of equal moral worth and deserving of equal rights and turned equality into a shell game of power.

>I don't see cities voting blue as bad, because they tend to be exposed to more diverse people and cultures as well as education tends to skew upwards. More educated people is better.
How are you quantifying education, and what makes that quantifiable thing better? I have an engineering degree and a minor in math, and I'd still take a working joe's advice over half the college graduate population. There are plenty of issues facing academia and we've all met people with doctorates that are as dumb as a sack of bricks. I live in a blue city and for all the educated people here the voters are no better informed about politics than anyone else.

>Being educated and diverse doesn't seem to be fixing things on it's own.
Democrats and Republicans are still corporatists whose allegiance lies primarily with their donors. Nobody's saying Democrats are the solution to big city problems. We've just all come to the very common sense conclusion that Republicans are much, much worse. Honestly, Republicans could win so many more elections if they had the capacity to even momentarily pretend like they weren't unrepentant bigots. People are plenty disillusioned with Democrats - the GOP just keeps scaring people back to them.

>I live in a blue city and for all the educated people here the voters are no better informed about politics than anyone else.
They're still statistically more informed than conservatives. Its a start.

>We've just all come to the very common sense conclusion that Republicans are much, much worse. Honestly, Republicans could win so many more elections if they had the capacity to even momentarily pretend like they weren't unrepentant bigots.
That's the kind of attitude that put me off the Democrats for good.

Let us know when you've had enough Republican fearmongering and racebaiting.

I was going to respond to you both and had long shit typed out, but tbh,

basically said what I was saying in a far shorter and easier to read format. Kudos to that person.

couple extras:

> and I'd still take a working joe's advice over half the college graduate population.

About what? Plumbing? Sure! Even makes sense. But would you go to the same plumber for advice on how to invest your money for the future? No, you'd probably go to someone who's had education in that, right?

>What's the issue with the gun laws? I can probably explain whatever your issue is.

It doesn't have anything to do with anything you'd be able to help me with. I'm torn on 2ndA vs rights but it's an internal struggle not something anyone can convince me of. Just know that I might joke about taking your guns away but I have no intention of voting for that, as I too have guns. (shocker, I know. Dems owning guns. And even knowing how to use them!)

>I'm not opposed to the state paying, but it has to be an option, not the only option. I would open more state hospitals and subsidize med school for students with a contract to work at a state hospital for X number of years.

Fucking based. Holy shit. All of this.

>That's the kind of attitude that put me off the Democrats for good.
Well, thankfully the majority of the country disagrees with you. The GOP lost themselves the election this cycle and their constant unhinged behavior is to blame. Not just that - your inability to honestly address the toxic, conspiracy-addled brainwormed death cult faction that has poisoned your party will continue to lose you elections until you figured out how to address it. You guys put all of your eggs into the "you need to vote for us or else transgendered ms-13 gang members are going to force your children to be gay and eat soy" basket and you fucking lost. Miserably. The country summarily rejected it. Funnily enough, a large amount of people who vote Democrat aren't Democrats - they're just people smart enough to see how fucking insane conservatives are.

>itt; Americans argue about how they're smart and rational while their enemies are psychopathic cultists

Both sides of the American political routine aree filled with retarded cultists flooding the internet with what is essentially your online pamphlets. Both sides have people who'd kill themselves to make a political opponent stub their toe.

And both sides are just worshipping the same monstrosity, but from different sides. Ever heard of the African trickster god, Eshu? One day Eshu decided to cause strife in a village. He walked down the centre of it wearing a hat that was black on one side and red on the other, causing either side of the village to fall into disagreement over the colour of the hat. Both sides were so sure that they were right and the others had to be stupid, or liars, that they started to get angry and started fighting. There are two endings to the story. In one, Eshu turns back around and walks through the village, now with each side seeing the other colour of his hat. He explains to them that different people can see the same thing in different ways, and both be right.

In the other, the villagers start killing each other while Eshu laughs and walks away. The USA has chosen to enact the second end to the story.

>About what? Plumbing? Sure! Even makes sense. But would you go to the same plumber for advice on how to invest your money for the future? No, you'd probably go to someone who's had education in that, right?
About who to vote for, since that's the issue that being discussed. A financial advisor is one type of educated person, and their advice is useful in some areas they're educated in. I'm not about to take a college professor's ideas on identity politics seriously if they preach CRT like the gospel. Trusting expert opinions doesn't work if their opinions aren't based on fact.

But is Eshu a Russian agent or a Chinese one?

Oh! I didn't even think about the "who to vote for" part - I thought we'd moved onto a more general discussion. I wouldn't talk to either person about who to vote for tbh. Don't disagree with your statements at all.

If Dems dropped gun control they would get a lot more support. I think most of this country is moderate. Source: my own ass.

Good on you for being able to protect yourself.

>No, you'd probably go to someone who's had education in that, right?
I'm also an engineer and I don't trust most people, but the shear amount of people with degrees that have no idea (or don't care) where their food comes from or how to change a tire is scary. College isn't for everyone and I watched NY turn their state and community college into a pyramid scheme.

>I'm not about to take a college professor's ideas on identity politics seriously if they preach CRT like the gospel. Trusting expert opinions doesn't work if their opinions aren't based on fact.
Ah, I see the issue. You're one of those culture warriors. You don't have any idea what CRT is - only the bullshit you've heard on conservative news about wacky liberal arts professors convincing their students to dye their armpit hair. It may behoove you to learn something about the systems you're critiquing before you critique them.

Again, both commies from Eurasia. The same thing, just from different sides.

>If Dems dropped gun control they would get a lot more support. I think most of this country is moderate. Source: my own ass.
I think its a double-edged sword for them. I think dropping gun-control would appeal to a lot of moderates but its also a HUGE wedge issue for a lot of pearl clutching "I'm with her" liberals who have no idea how guns work and just despise them based on the fact that they make a loud noise. I also think the gun issue, for a lot of progressives, is a non-starter. For most people in America, whether or not you can own a 16" barrel or an 18" barrel or carry a 100-round mag into the post office is not something that affects their everyday lives. Most people want to provide for their families and make a good living and feel secure in their homes and careers. Republicans massively overplay how important these issues are to your average person and, in turn, convince them that the alternative is some sort of violent, communist hellscape. My last point is that Republicans often enable Dems to be so cringey on guns just comparatively. It doesn't seem so ridiculous to your average, scared American to entertain universal background checks and AR bans when the conservative alternative is literally advocating for teacher and ex-military goon squads to arm themselves and roam the halls of public schools so they can put one center-mass in little Timmy if he starts getting squirrely with a pair of scissors.

Enlighten us because on the surface it seems to be "all white people are racist."

>Enlighten us because on the surface it seems to be "all white people are racist."
Define racist

>you don't believe it so you must not understand it
Consider that people may disagree with you without being ignorant of what you believe in. CRT is not empirical, it is pseudoscience.

>Enlighten us because on the surface it seems to be "all white people are racist."
I'm sure that's the narrative that newsmaxx has convinced you to internalize. CRT is basically a mode of analysis. The basis of CRT is essentially to analyze the socioeconomic and political history of the United States through the lens of race relations. You can substitute "race" with any contributing factor to the growth of America, really. You can analyze American history through the lens of anything from trade, natural resources, popular culture, music or even food. That's the "critical" component of CRT - essentially taking one mode of analysis and then extrapolating by asking yourself how the history of America (or any country for that matter) was influenced by this specific factor. If you've ever read anything about, lets say, the history of basketball in America and how it shaped American culture you basically read written using critical basketball theory. Does that make sense?

Essentially, CRT doesn't take sides in anything. Its completely neutral. The conclusions you draw from it all depends on which issue you want to be the lens through which you focus your analysis. Conservatives and great white culture warriors despise CRT because if you examine American history and culture through the lens of race relations it paints an extremely unflattering picture. They don't like looking at that picture and feel personally attacked whenever it is brought up so they pretend like CRT is some kind of hit against white people to avoid ever engaging with it.

Not bad, but remember that a 16" barrel is legal, shorter than that and you need to pay a tax - that makes it safe. So you end up with an AK with a 12" barrel and no stock being considered a "pistol" and legal without the tax stamp.

I changed my voter registration from the GOP to independent this year. I hate both sides.

The first google result for CRT is encyclopedia brittantica and it includes this
>socially constructed concept that is used by white people to further their economic and political interests at the expense of people of colour.
I would consider that to be "racist." Although I think we're all a little racist deep down because we're afraid of things that are different.

>CRT is not empirical, it is pseudoscience.
See CRT is not a belief. It isn't even a science. There are no descriptive tenants to CRT in the slightest. Its merely a mode of analysis. Its basically the historical equivalent of the socioeconomic practice of multivariate regressional analysis. Seriously, user, try doing a little bit more research on these things before you take such a hard stance. You speak so confidently about an issue you clearly know nothing about. Its not a good habit to get into.

>Not bad, but remember that a 16" barrel is legal, shorter than that and you need to pay a tax - that makes it safe. So you end up with an AK with a 12" barrel and no stock being considered a "pistol" and legal without the tax stamp.
I own a fuck ton of guns and its amazing how little Democrat politicians seem to know about them. I honestly think basic gun knowledge should be taught to every school aged child.

>changed my voter registration from the GOP to independent this year. I hate both sides.
Fair. I'm a leftist but my disappointment and disgust with both political establishments is definitely a progressive one. Conservatives are the worst in terms of material danger to the people of this country but neo-libs are still up there. I cringe at their policies more at their complete spineless ineffectiveness than I fear them.

>Implying I have cable

This country has a bunch of racist things in its history. Is that all it is? Am I the retard because I'm not surprised by this? I liked it better when it was a personal attack on my whiteness.

>If Dems dropped gun control
The core issue is expressed in that phrasing: most people on both sides take a black or white stand, no middle ground. Either drop all controls and arm everyone with free machine guns or take away everything, including plastic sporks.

The problem is violence, and some small amount of that violence is performed with guns as the main, easy-to-use weapon. Every gun grabber I've every had to listen to sperges on about the little bitty babby childrens that are slaughtered with murder bullets. Every gun stroker I've ever had to listen to has 20 or 30 guns & thinks he's the last thin line "protecting" his property from the Deep State.

Dems would sweep the elections if they came out against violent crimes and started providing solutions to reduce that. At the same time they have to recognize the fundamental human right to protect and defend themselves at the moment they are faced with a threat. You can't wait 20 minutes or an hour for someone to get around to calling 911, getting passed through two or three phone extensions to someone who was just defunded and maybe get a cruiser or two to respond.

A lot of so-called 'liberals' are as retarded as the MAGAts and refuse to recognize certain realities of living life every day that isn't in their personal little bubble.

I'm using rounded off numbers here to talk generally, but consider:
About 35,000 deaths involving a gun (any type of gun) per year.
About 23,000 are suicides (who's talking about preventing suicide?)

That's about 12,000 total deaths by guns otherwise.

About 1,300 of those involve police shootings (cops & bad guys both)
About 10-20 make the big evening news every year.

About 1,200:"accidents" (mommy left baby in the car w/ a gun, etc.)

About 9,000: black-on-black crimes, usually city/gang related

Total left: 1,500, ALL OTHER CRIMES between any race, including white-on-black and white-on-white and black-on-white.

What does the media report on ..?

>This country has a bunch of racist things in its history.
Sure. Depending on which mode of analysis you choose you could come to nearly any conclusion you like. There are even CRT scholars and academics out there who disagree with each other on what extent race played in certain areas. CRT was never a conclusion - only a question.

>Is that all it is?
Yup. Just a mode of analysis.

>Am I the retard because I'm not surprised by this?
Nothing wrong with learning something new, user. There's a lot of misinformation out there and a lot of people make a lot of money convincing us one way or the other.

>I liked it better when it was a personal attack on my whiteness.
A lot of people do. Emotional responses are easy and they feel good. Its intuitive. It takes no critical thinking at all. We all have some of this to unlearn.

Not going to buy into your motte and bailey bullshit and your courtier's reply crap. CRT is a lot more than just "analyzing the socioeconomic and political history of the United States through the lens of race relations". The use of a mode of analysis is a belief in that mode of analysis' ability to discover truth. CRT has many underlying assumptions which it takes for granted and it's creators believed in the conclusions of CRT before formulating the theory, it was made to 'prove' the results they wanted. Its not a neutral fact-finding methodology.

>Not going to buy into your motte and bailey bullshit and your courtier's reply crap.
I just gave you the definition of CRT. Sorry if it doesn't please you.

>CRT is a lot more than just "analyzing the socioeconomic and political history of the United States through the lens of race relations"
It objectively isn't. You may disagree with the conclusion of some people who use CRT but you don't actually disagree with CRT itself. CRT is basically a microscope and race is a sample slide. You can disagree with the findings or what the sample says about a larger contextual body but CRT is just the tool you use to look.

>CRT has many underlying assumptions
It doesn't. People use CRT to develop underlying assumptions.

>it's creators believed in the conclusions of CRT before formulating the theory
You just found out about the origins of CRT three minutes ago, user.

>Its not a neutral fact-finding methodology.
By definition it is. You just don't like the conclusions it produces.

>I just gave you the definition of CRT
You've gave me a watered down summary of the barest basis of CRT. You didn't mention the actual assumptions, methods and arguments used by CRT scholars.

>You just found out about the origins of CRT three minutes ago, user.
Again with this courtier's reply shit. CRT was founded in the 80's by Harvard students to address what they felt was liberals' failure to continue to address race issues. One of its founders even stated that it was an offshoot of civil rights activism. Part of the impetus to develop CRT was because critical legal studies was too neutral for them and didn't offer solutions to the issue it was analyzing.

I'm starting to think you don't understand CRT and are just going off some summary you got from a CRT proponent. You portray it as some kind of simple single concept while ignoring its origins, the goals its adherents developed it for, and all of the other ideas it incorporates.

Read this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory and tell me its just a mode of analysis about looking at history with attention to race.

>You've gave me a watered down summary of the barest basis of CRT.
No I just gave you the definition.

>You didn't mention the actual assumptions, methods and arguments used by CRT scholars.
That's because there are hundreds. Some of them I agree with and some I don't. As it turns out, analyzing things like finance, real estate, the stock market, sports, music and entertainment all through the lens of race provides more academic conclusions than one can just casually summarize in a Dab Forums post.

>CRT was founded in the 80's by Harvard students to address what they felt was liberals' failure to continue to address race issues.
>One of its founders even stated that it was an offshoot of civil rights activism. Part of the impetus to develop CRT was because critical legal studies was too neutral for them and didn't offer solutions to the issue it was analyzing.
Wow, so they popularized a multivariate method of analyzing jurisprudence which would assist in building a more comprehensive understanding of why certain races receive empirically unexplainable treatment by the justice system? These guys seem pretty smart.

>I'm starting to think you don't understand CRT and are just going off some summary you got from a CRT proponent.
That's so weird because I was thinking the exact same thing except instead of a CRT proponent it was probably a sweaty, screaming Ben Shapiro. I feel like you started with the conclusion "CRT BAD" and then scoured the internet afterwards to justify your conclusion.

Ok I read it. Critical race theory is just a mode of analysis about looking at history with attention to race. Racism existed, user. Objectively. It had a measurable impact on the growth of American law, economics and culture. Many people have dedicated themselves to cataloging, analyzing and drawing prescriptive conclusions from the way racism shaped the country. As much as I appreciate how sensitive you are I don't see the academic benefit in completely throwing out this mode of analysis because it hurts your fee fees.

>sweaty, screaming Ben Shapiro. I feel like you started with the conclusion "CRT BAD" and then scoured the internet afterwards to justify your conclusion.
>because it hurts your fee fees
Way to strawman. You can't fathom that I disagree with you because I think you're wrong, no there must be some other reason that I don't accept your claims.

I'm a leftist, its what I do.

Americans are damn stupid, and these guys right here is still debating bullshit, it's stupid. period

You're late this morning, chang.

Listen to that old bastard cry. In the end the price if shit was actually the pussy, more so than his wife who instead was a karen to the bitter end.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! NOT DA ASSHOLERINO! YOU ARE DA BAITERINO! ASSHOLE GOOD! GUNMAN BAD!

>You can't fathom that I disagree with you because I think you're wrong
Because I'm not wrong. Your vague, anti-intellectual gesturing towards conspiracy has nothing to do with the definition of CRT.

>no there must be some other reason that I don't accept your claims
If I had to guess I'd say its because you're dumb and pretty ideologically married to the idea that any examination of racism is some sort of personal attack against the color of your skin. Entertaining the possibility that the analysis of racism might be a worthwhile expenditure of our resources probably challenges your most deeply held beliefs about where you belong in this country and why. Its probably an existential and personal journey you're not equipped to go on so your denial allows you to continue to live in blissful ignorance.

Lets ban guns so that law abiding citizens can't protect themselves from the criminals/crazies who will still manage to get guns. Huuuuuurrrrrr Duurrrrrrrrrrr

>the definition of CRT.
Boy I bet there's a consistent definition for CRT too, one that doesn't change depending on what's convenient at the time for whatever race-hustler is trying to secure themselves a nice do-nothing bureaucratic title and salary.

>no no no stop critiquing my bullshit neo-Marxist ideology
No.

CRT has nothing to do with Marxism. This is just more right-wing propaganda. You're completely brainwashed.

>this theory that presupposes that there is a class that is inherently oppressed by another class and that the only way to end the oppression is to destroy the system
>is not Marxist
uh huh

>CRT has nothing to do with Marxism
Then why do all Marxists push CRT and vice versa?

Still butthurt Biden rammed the "1776 Commission" chaired by former Christian white nationalist Governor of MS, Phil Bryant, up your ilk and Trump's puckered poop shoot, I see. Better loosen up, more is poised for entry, lol!

wheres all the snow thrown into the neighbors yard from across the street? you would at least see a trail(s) of snow on the street from being thrown, and how the fuck do you throw powder snow that far?

>mad that a fascist acted like a fascist
Any reasonable person on the right side of history would oppose Biden's fascism :)

failure to answer and your cutie pie name for a gun proves you are a morally muddled idiot

>Then why do all Marxists push CRT and vice versa?
Who do you mean by "all the Marxists"? Can you stop being purposefully vague and give a specific example?

fuck off chang. You stick out like a sore thumb, no one takes you seriously.

>Who do you mean by "all the Marxists"?
Who do you think I'm referring to when I say Marxists? The fucking Marxists.

>Can you stop being purposefully vague and give a specific example?
Can you stop being a fucking sealioning faggot?

>The fucking Marxists
youtu.be/7391UR6A4xI

>a critical theory spinoff has nothing to do with the critical theory developed by Marx and Kant to dodge the need for empiricism, even though it does the same thing and CRT's developers acknowledge critical theory as one of its roots

>If I had to guess I'd bullshit a reason and ignore all of your arguments
This is exactly the kind of shit that is the issue with CRT proponents, they refuse to engage with arguments and instead push narratives. There is a world of difference between neutrally examining racism and using a method to get conclusions you want to promote an agenda.

>Who do you think I'm referring to when I say Marxists? The fucking Marxists.
Most actual Marxists, the ones who actually still read Marx rather than teenagers larping as Marxists online, don't support critical race theory. The World Socialist Website, for example, has been on the forefront of pushing back against projects like the 1619 Project which seek to interpret everything through the lens of race as opposed to class.

>the critical theory developed by Marx and Kant to dodge the need for empiricism
fucking lmao

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory#Kant_and_Marx
>Kant's immediate impetus for writing Critique of Pure Reason was to address problems raised by David Hume's skeptical empiricism which, in attacking metaphysics, employed reason and logic to argue against the knowability of the world and common notions of causation. Kant, by contrast, pushed the employment of a priori metaphysical claims as requisite, for if anything is to be said to be knowable, it would have to be established upon abstractions distinct from perceivable phenomena.
>Marx explicitly developed the notion of critique into the critique of ideology, linking it with the practice of social revolution, as stated in the 11th section of his Theses on Feuerbach: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory
>Critical race theory (CRT)[1] is a framework[2] in jurisprudence[3] that examines society and culture as they relate to categorizations of race, law, and power in the United States of America.[4][page needed][5] It began as a movement in American law schools in the mid- to late 1980s as a reworking of critical legal theory on race issues.[6] As the word "critical" suggests, both theoretical frameworks are rooted in critical theory, a social philosophy which argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors.[7]

Would I call CRT Marxism? No, but I'd call it a descendant of Marx's bullshit ideas.

>Kant's notion of critique has been associated with the overturning of false, unprovable, or dogmatic philosophical, social, and political beliefs.
Real enemy of empiricism there. It's literally just testing assumptions.

Every revolutionary theorist tests assumptions. Adam Smith tested assumptions. Einstein tested assumptions. The notion that "examining and establishing the limits of the validity of a faculty, type, or body of knowledge" automatically makes you into a lunatic critical race theorist is insane.

>It's literally just testing assumptions.
Its a method that draws conclusions from a priori assumptions. Its not testing anything, its used to skirt tests in order to 'overturn' beliefs the proponent disagrees with. Kant is rejecting empiricism in favor of appealing to assumed non-empirical phenomena. Literally right in the quote:
>Kant, by contrast, pushed the employment of a priori metaphysical claims as requisite, for if anything is to be said to be knowable, it would have to be established upon abstractions distinct from perceivable phenomena.
Trying to portray this as in line with empiricism suggests that you don't understand empiricism. Portraying it as "just testing assumptions" and ignoring how it 'tests' them is disingenuous. The 'how' is the core of the theory. You're treating the premise of the theory as its entirety, just like what you've been doing with CRT.

>passed background checks
>got the license
>no crime
>no domestic disturbances
What now nogun what would have prevented this?

>What areas are there where upper-middle class black people are shooting each other at disproportionate rates?
All of them

There is no one more misinterpreted than Marx because politicians from the right know the only thing they themselves and their constituents know about his philosophy is the idea it is somehow associated with countries our Govt. has declared to be US enemies.

He was primarily a social theorist whose ideas about modes of production being the prime mover in cultural development remain valid today. Like anyone, intellectual or pure dumbshit who attempts to predict future developments he ran into trouble. Marx predicted the class revolution would begin in England because it was the vanguard of the Industrial Revolution which was wildly inaccurate for reasons Orwell pointed out in one of his essays.

The strange thing is you never hear anyone screaming about Kant or Nietzsche (except when someone who took Philosophy 101 remembers he was somehow vaguely associated with Hitler).

we all *niggers to Porky

Well I must admit I agree 100% with the Goy who called him a pussy (even if hough he got what was comin)... Fact 1 only fag pussy bitches own & use guns in this manner because, well they are fag pussy bitches who can't fight for shit. Though even afterfirst shot Goy doesn't even rush him and attempt to disarm him, so he is a pussy too. Concerning the bitch, well ~~~ fuck her too...

>Though even afterfirst shot Goy doesn't even rush him and attempt to disarm him
Run into someone shooting at you.

The pussy shooter blew his brains out

You're a dummy I bet .
Low IQ , no education

They are all niggers, period.

I can't wait to rip that man apart in Hell. I'm going to wait for him especially.

You obviously haven't a clue how to fight.
*Cues MSI SMF*

PANIC BITCH!!! Don't fight for your life, just lie down like the whore you are. Run and cry while you're at it...

Hi Bill,

Quack, quack, quackery, quack

Well if you are indeed serious it is said that suicide is a sin that sends you straight to hell, so why wait?

>Eyes know glamour nosy: butt ice punk jew racing/ car ledge grab?

its almost as if retarded people think bad things cant happen to them.

he did pass a background check retard

Why give you that satisfaction? Is she that upset? I'm not into coked up whores.

shh, this is Dab Forums where anything on the right is bad. just like on reddit.

>the couple were the biggest, most absolute douchebags imaginable
>literally still being douchebags when someones pointing a gun at you for being a douchebag
It's got a whole falling down feeling. Can't say I feel particularly terrible for the couple here, they're dude bro assholes who probably do nothing but be cunts to people all day because nobodies ever taught them a lesson before.

>Its a method that draws conclusions from a priori assumptions.
That's a valid philosophical line of attack. Mathematics, for example, draws conclusions from a priori assumptions.

>Trying to portray this as in line with empiricism suggests that you don't understand empiricism.
It's a pedantic philosophical razor. Kant has an inane claim that that we can't "know", philosophically, that cutting people's heads off kills them. He claims we can only know that "when we observe people's heads being cut off, they are statistically likely to die shortly thereafter."

One can shuffle around paperwork on whether this is true, but it has absolutely fuckall with deciding that empirical observation somehow doesn't matter. Even your Wikipedia excerpt attempting to link Kant to Marx doesn't succeed. He never even pretends to be doing philosophy in the line of Kant, it's literally some jackoff using a single quote from Marx that has nothing to do with Kant to try and claim that he's following Kant's lead (also original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia). You might as well say that pornography reviewers are Kantian philosophers because they critique how big poeple's tits are.

Not having a gun would have prevented this.

This dude is a hero. These ignorant asshole neighbors started it, kept instigating it, kept it going, mocked him, then dared him to do something, . . . . well he did something. It is obvious that these two are rich spoiled assholes from the suburbs with ZERO street smarts. If they ever lived in a city they would have to at the very least expect someone to respond in this way. The fact that they seemed shocked that he shot them is my favorite part, its like uhhh, yeah dumb asses, what did you think he was going to do, so stupid.

>That's a valid philosophical line of attack. Mathematics, for example, draws conclusions from a priori assumptions.
Its still not testing anything, which was your claim.
>It's a pedantic philosophical razor.
Okay, so you don't understand empiricism.

I have a chance to fight off a axe, especially if I have another person with me, I can't fight off a gun.

Yet the two he attacked would have had a fighting chance.

At least the two he attacked would have a fighting chance.

I see a lot of people here who are missing an important point in the gun control debate. This incident illustrates the whole flaw of "background checks" very well.

If you don't need to get a background check to walk down the street in front of my house, then I shouldn't get a background check to buy a weapon to protect myself.

If you gave all three of the people involved in this debacle a psychiatric exam two weeks ago and you told me that only ONE of them passed, my money is on the shooter ... and the other two were candidates for involuntary commitment for psychiatric evaluation.

>I see a lot of people here

i jsee 3 jews one nigger and two east europeans. everything else is a fucking ukrainian bot and underage american jew trying to bullshit this channel.

>If you don't need to get a background check to walk down the street in front of my house, then I shouldn't get a background check to buy a weapon to protect myself.
lolwut

ok sure, homosexuals and trannies with kids should also have routine mandatory psych evaluations, "for the good of public health"

Being polite at the point of a gun is no politeness at all. No thanks.

Don't have to make it easy for the fucker. Let him get up close and personal see how much he wants them dead when they tag team him

You wouldn't be shoveling snow in the first place, hot wheels.

You have the right to bear arms. Who says they have to be guns? Those come with strings attached, sorry not sorry. Stick to your baseball bat

I think he's talking about wh*toids

>under 500
Is that a small amount to you?

>only two
>only
>two
Stalin said one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic. You did him better by a factor of 999,998.

He has a point. Defeatist attitudes don't work. Literally bending over and taking a (9mm) dick up your ass.

Got shot and that woman was still talking shit. Very poor survival instinct jesus

In a nation with 328 million people including 72 million gun owners, yes 500 is pretty small. That's one fatal accident per 144,000 gun owners. For comparison, there's one accidental fatal electrocution of an electrician each year per 10,000 electricians in the US. Its more likely for a trained professional to shock themselves to death than it is for the average gun owner to shoot someone accidentally. 250,000 people die from medical errors each year but guns are the thing that are so dangerous that they need more regulation?

LOVE THY NEIGHBOR.

250,000 die from medical error AFTER we put doctors through rigorous training and hours of observing as interns.
But yeah, pitch a fit that guns owners have a competency requirement.

>250,000 people die from medical errors each year but guns are the thing that are so dangerous that they need more regulation?
I don't recall ever hearing someone make the argument that we need more gun regulation to stop the epidemic of accidental discharge deaths.

>ignoring that 500 is relatively small for accidental deaths

It is pretty small. I just don't know what it has to do with the larger argument. I've never heard anyone cite accidental deaths as the sole reason for gun control.

>All gun control is unconstitutional.
>"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" - J. Scalia, Heller

>Miller, which was a kangaroo court
>everything I don't like is a kangaroo court

>The same court would go on to say putting japanese Americans into concentration camps was fine.
Ad homs are for homos.

>Comprising of what standards
One that would disqualify the killer, perhaps.

I've never heard the argument either, I'm just replying to the user asking if 500 deaths is a small amount. I kind of assumed his argument given he's contesting that it is a small amount.

Its not an ad hom to question a court's judgement when they have shown how willing they are to allow such obvious violations of the constitution like sending people to camps for their ancestry.

>Except gun control advocates routinely call for bans of types of guns for all people, not just for criminals and the mentally unstable
If it's not "in common use"; why not?

>They resort to scare tactics like calling AR-15s assault weapons (an assault weapon is an automatic weapon, AR-15s are not automatic rifles)
Ignoring the fact assault weapons has no legal definition, forget a consistent one, assault weapons are not strictly automatic.

At the very least, agreeing with gun control advocates and their policies will mean that responsible gun owners don't get put together with all the "lone wolves" you've had. But at the time, I don't blame others for failing to make a distinction between either. After all, you're both equally deadly.

>Stop using the actions of a few people as an excuse to make our society less free.
People commit murder. Laws are made to criminalize it. But you wouldn't say the same for repealing murder laws, would you?

>Why are the policies that gun control advocates pursue involve infringing upon our rights?
Gun control does not infringe on your right to bear arms. You are not entitled to any and all arms, kept in any and all manners, for any and all purposes. The 2A is not unlimited. Nothing is.

>If you feel unsafe, then find a way to make yourself safe.
Sooo gun control? Why choose to put up with a powder keg country? Good? Bad? He's the guy with a gun, and I don't trust him with it, no matter who he may be.

>Police officers have to take psych evals before they're hired and we still get cops who aren't fit for the job.
So why blame the eval in place of the police institutions? Sounds like an America problem; better cops elsewhere and they put up with evals too.

>You may think it'll be screening for madmen, but the corrupt will take advantage of it.
Certainly better than playing frog in a boiling pot. If political dissidents get locked up by shrinks, give SCOTUS a call.

>Most gun crimes are done with stolen or straw purchased guns.
Are you arguing in favor of gun control now?

>Governments cannot be trusted doing psych evals, we saw that with the USSR. Also it likely violates the ada, section 504, and the 14th amendment.
This is the US though. Besides, what do those three laws say against using mental fitness as a factor for gun ownership? Screening out loonies is already a thing.

>You mean they provide empirical evidence, and you provide subjective social "science" hand waving?
Those same stats say white people kill more white people than black people. Don't see you fearing them though.

>Here's one issue: why are the 'urban' areas with the most crime and most income disparity and most class division, also all solidly Democrat run for decades?
Because Republican policy benefits no one and is a terrible pick for densely populated cities? No one bothers to commit crime in Podunk, USA because it's a 20 minute drive between homes. No Brainer they tend to vote red, barely anyone to fuck over with neocon bullshit

>How would you know what normal people think? You're not one of them.
I'm surprised you even mastered bipedalism to type that out. Missing links like you are missing for a reason

hot damn this thread and board are worse than leddit and Dab Forums twitter screen cap threads combined

>People do see it as a problem, they just phrase it in terms of "why are there so many people of one demographic in jail?" and "why is poverty disproportionately affecting certain demographics?". And the gut reaction is to chalk it up to socioeconomics and theories of class and identity relations. Just suggesting genetic, or even cultural causes can lead to wild accusations of racism.
Do black people outside of America have the same rates of crime as black people within? You guys complain of them, and suggest genetic/cultural reasons for their behavior but does it hold up elsewhere? Sounds like an "America" problem to me.

As an aside to, to answer those two questions, you can look at overpolicing and institutional racism. Just because there are more people of a certain group in jail does not mean its for good reasons; you do have the biggest prison population in the world after all. For poverty, you can blame redlining, for one, although poverty has many causes. Hard to bootstrap yourself when you're not even allowed an audience at banks. I don't see black people who live outside the US struggle with either issues as much as those within it.

500 is big for me. Minimizing things doesn't help.

What is the relevance of pointing that out then? I'm sure Scalia and his court have some skeletons in their closets too, if you prefer to hear them. Doesn't mean all their judgments are bad.

Scalia himself opposes abortion and supports execution, but I see you support him in the Heller case, no?

I guess George Washington was a Marxist because he overthrew the Brits.

Lol!

>Would I call CRT Marxism? No
There you have it then. From the lion's mouth

>james goy
>lisa goy
oy vey

Wrong, the fringe left is far more popular, the so called Overton window just makes it seem normal.

73% of democrats favor affirmative action in colleges and even 43% of republicans and 55% of whites. These policies are being increasingly extended to government departments and big business. Since the 90s if someone violates our immigration laws and they get sick or want to send their kids to school, we pay for it. ICE is seen as a racist aberration when almost every country in the world has a similar policy. Illegal immigration also places pressure on the system indirectly meaning less legal immigrants (of all races) with university degrees who are likely to make a net contribution to taxes minus government spending.

The fringe left believes open borders and unfettered mass immigration from latin America is important, that this will make America more "diverse" and thus reduce racism. I don't know how widespread this view is, but the left in general is pretty adamant about "diversity" which in effect means judging people by the color of their skin and everything that goes along with that.

If "Porky" is all powerful why are they allowing the far-left to exclude white men from the government and board rooms of fortune 500 companies?

Face it, old school leftism was bullshit and is all but dead.

fucking retard spotted

Jesus christ bong, why are you so obsessed with Americans owning guns and want to ban them? We fought 2 wars over this, you lost. Now fuck off.
Boy are you going to go crazy when you hear how many people gay sex kills (hint, AIDS kills way more than 500 people per year)

gun control would have prevented this. Or just not owning a gun. Senseless needless death for nothing, no for snow...

>change or die

>all thieves are murderers
Cool all the more reason to cc
Come and take it you piece of shit, human rights denier.

they were all black right? oh waaaait a minute heeer.

>put every 40 year old white person and older in jail, they are too dangerous to leave free.

>based retard

based retard keeps posting i love it.

because you are a retard.

bad comp, these two cunts have hated each other to the point he brings his pistol while mowing the fucking lawn, this was a issue waiting to happen and if n9ither of them had guns they would have.. to.. talk to each other or STFU. your 'dispute' is always BS

i hope you shooter is always a decrepit slow ass gun slinger too. Ambush killings are EZ to do ya know.

coming to but that shit off you boi.

>>but user if we ban all guns then this will never happen
>Banning all guns in America will never happen. Period. Biden could come out tomorrow and sign another EO banning everything and you'll never see the end of them.
wrong and retarded, you will give me your guns as it is the only choice and you know it to be true.

Come and take it commie, samefag. We aren't giving up our rights to a despot like biden to let him put us in death camps. We arent pussies like you. We would sooner end the country than give up our rights and get onto the cattle cars.

>Come and take it you piece of shit
Oh we will, we will as soon as we either create new seats on the Supreme Court and pack them with Progressive originalists or replace the cavemen activist Conservative Justices with Progressives. And you'll either give yours up or be splattered all over the wall of your mum's car park.

I dont think you realize just how close huge swaths of the country are to succession. A big new set of gun laws or bullshit election laws and the number of parties to the Union could drop dramatically.

Right now the talk should be about healing, not on how to foist your agenda upon someone who lives a two day drive away from you.

We can't help it - because we are sore winners. We are not out to heal and unite, We are out for revenge. We're not out to make everyone equal - we are out to take what you have and leave you at the curb. You can't stop the browning, user.

Not just bait, but british larping as american bait.

Doesn't matter - we'll be re-educating them too, when the US is done.

>progressive
>originals
Pick one and then kill yourself brit bong. I legit dont even know who your president is, why are you so obsessed with American gun rights ?

>a lot
Sure, most gun owners aren't murderers. But how do you know for certain which ones are? How many mass shootings is too many? How many 'good guy' gun owners have failed to stop the bad, or even ended up cheering them on? Suppose our increasingly harsh environment worsens the problem until shootings practically become an annual or even monthly occurrence; would that be enough of an impetus?

>secession
LMAO, no, just no! Your red State shitholes are more dependant on the blue State economic powerhouses just to have a functioning State Government than the Confederacy ever was, yet they got their shit completely kicked in by the loyalist Union primarily due to their economic strength and the Confederacy's newborn babby economic backwardness. Except for TX, you 3rd world red States would fold like a wheezing accordion.

In short, more conservative fever dreams.

Meh, let em have some flyover state like Kansas. Or GIVE them Texas and let them secede....We can just relocate Austin.

Learn from Britain, your wiser elder father, who ran a civilised world empire before ignorant Americants started butting their circumcised noses into everything.

I'm not giving up my guns no matter how many kids you murder.
Where do you fags think food and water comes from ?
Bongs are literal subhumans. We fought 2 wars so we wouldn't have to live as slaves like you do.

In the civil war the union had all the manufacturing capacity. Where do you think those factories are now?

uhhh, China?

Republicans are toast. Get ready for socialism, user.

The ones pertinent to weapons production are mostly in red states, but yes everything else is in china.

>Democrats will starve to death
Dank, but all the more reason we need guns to protect ourselves from death camps.

No matter how many times you tell them this, they always think it will be someone else who goes to the camps.

Democratic Socialism a la Northern Europe please. Remember when the Orange Fool offered Scandinavians fast track US immigration and a resounding belly laugh and shouts of "No thank you, rightwing corporate facism won't do. Better stick to trying to buy Iceland (whose populace laughed even louder at the Orange buffoon)."

>think food and water comes from
Sorry Cletus, your carcinogenic roundup GMO soybeans, corn and wheat don't qualify as food. That's why Europe refuses to import them. Your water has been contaminated by the unfettered fracking and coal mining production so is only authorised by your Republican State govt. as being fit for human consumption after they received a treasure trove of funds from those corporations.

Your supply lines to your non-union slave shop factories would immediately be severed. You show about as much understanding of what is really important in sustained military operations, logistics and lines of communication, as the avg. gun nut paintball warrior fantasizing about participating in a prolonged insurrection against literally the strongest military in the world ON IT'S OWN TURF!

Now go study up on how to breakdown and clean your shootem' up popgun, Cletus, LMAO!

We'll make Cletus the first one forced to subsist solely on meal worms.

>Chang going all out

>Scalia himself opposes abortion and supports execution,
That's based

Don't act like a fucking nigger to the people around you and don't be surprised when you eat a bullet after threatening to "make their life hell".

The world is not obligated to put up with your shit. Shut up and live longer.

fuck yeah guns are awesome. This is why they should never ban them, so we can execute our neighbours over frozen water.

>MY RIGHT TO BRUTALLY MURDER MY NEIGHBORS OVER TRIVIAL DISPUTES SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!! GOD BLESS MAGA! GOD BLESS PUTI- ER DOLAN TRUMP!

>Canada has more snow than the US
>Canada has more households that own guns than the US which only has @ 1/3 households that own guns
>Canada never has neighbors shoot each other over snow
Why is Canada so much more mellow, decent and based than the US?

the video made me sick too but please don't trivialize genuine feelings of empathy for fallen victims by involving 'god'.

following your "logic" canada also has more sadistic retarded fearless assholes (see: the fucking video). or canadians are masochists

So you plan to import all your food and water from Europe? Because I am sure that won't be a logistical nightmare. And I can assure you the head waters of all the water supplies for all the Democrat cities come from gop controlled areas.

>he thinks somehow the USA would have functional supply lines when all the choke points are in red states
>he thinks most of the military isnt Republican
>he thinks the same military that lost vietnam could occupy the USA.
Good one chang

>Canada has more households that own guns than the US
Lmao, no they don't

>Canada has more households that own guns than the US which only has @ 1/3 households that own guns
Source?

The 1/3 thing is him using data from a decade ago and ignoring the fact that republicans (who own the guns) were mode likely to be married/have kids so one gop household has more people than the average liberal household and ignoring the fact that if some commie calls you up and asks if you have guns you tell him to go kill himself because he is obviously making a registry. So it is really 1 in 3 households in the USA admitted to owning guns 10 years ago.

More guns have been bought since then but they are bought by individuals who think by accumulating an arsenal of popguns they will acheive their fantasy of conquering the most powerful military in the world on their home turf whose officers have sworn an oath to the US Constitution instead of a weirdo, incompetent dictator wannabe who all officers have scathingly rejected. And are currently weeding out the white nationalist/supremacist potential threats to military cohesion and the US Constitution. Sorry, but the 80 IQ gorilla grunt who could only qualify for 11B MOS can support overthrowing the US all he wants, but w/o officer leadership and coordination he would be as much of a bumbling incompetent as you "militia" paintball warriors sending Billy Bob to Pizza Hut for carryout lunch as their logistics plan.

Are you forgetting the officer corps is university educated and that means they overwhelmingly rejected Trump and the entire notion of a dictator who might attempt to follow in his footsteps?

>More guns have been bought since then but they are bought by individuals who think by accumulating an arsenal of popguns
Not in 2020, close to half the guns sold in the past year were to new gun owners
>they will acheive their fantasy of conquering the most powerful military in the world on their home turf
On the freedom fighters home turf.
>whose officers have sworn an oath to the US Constitution
So an oath opposing Biden and the dems?
> instead of a weirdo, incompetent dictator wannabe who all officers have scathingly rejected.
Yea, Biden.
>And are currently weeding out the white nationalist/supremacist potential threats to military cohesion and the US Constitution.
They are kicking gun grabbers out of the army?
>Sorry, but the 80 IQ gorilla grunt who could only qualify for 11B MOS can support overthrowing the US all he wants, but w/o officer leadership and coordination he would be as much of a bumbling incompetent
How does leadership lead if they have no men?
>as you "militia" paintball warriors sending Billy Bob to Pizza Hut for carryout lunch as their logistics plan.
Why does private gun ownership scare you so much? Are you worried some 17 year old zoomer is going to shoot you with his ar and fortnight dance on your corpse when china sends you to invade the usa?
>Are you forgetting the officer corps is university educated and that means they overwhelmingly rejected Trump
Gunna need a citation on that. Majority of white men with college degrees voted for trump.
>and the entire notion of a dictator who might attempt to follow in his footsteps?
So, Biden? Not really sure how you can call someone who helped gun rights a dictator but someone who wants to ban guns is not a would be dictator

>they are bought by individuals who think by accumulating an arsenal of popguns they will acheive their fantasy of conquering the most powerful military
No they aren’t they bought by people who were spooked by all that Defund the Police rhetoric

aaaaah!!! fkn goy I'm wolkin ere

>bought by people who were spooked by all that Defund the Police rhetoric
So iow, the deranged gun nuts who believe anything new and scary Fox News, Rush and Breitbart spew at them ran out and bought 10 more assault rifles and 10 handguns to add to the arsenal they had started accumulating when 9/11 happened and the NRA and rightwing media claimed we were going to be invaded by Muslims, Obama was elected and they claimed he was going to flood the country with hispanic rape gangs, confiscate our guns, crown himself King, execute every white male and rape every white female, and ditto Biden only he would turn us into Venezuela on barbituates.

Idc what 99% of Americans say user, you aren't insane at all. You are one of those "very fine people" "who we love." You go girl!

Your writing style is so fucking cringe. Do you have anything of value to add or is it just going to be these waves of emotion and asshurt?

>Your writing style is so fucking cringe
Damn, Cletus, can't you buy a dictionary in West Jeebusville, AR?

>Cletus
Oh hi Chang, ass hurt as usual I see

Projection

your chink mother sucks off white men

You can't just shoot someone because they say mean things to you fucking monkey.

>An armed society is a polite society.
>shooting people over minor inconviniences
lol

No, you SHOULDN'T. But thinking everyone will act as you will is fucking stupid. People can be dangerous, people can be stupid, people can be dangerously stupid and stupidly dangerous.

The best course of action is to not antagonize them. This isn't saying YOU DESERVE TO BE RAPED BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU WORE, as a rapist has malicious intent and would act maliciously regardless. But the vast majority of violently aggressive retards won't go out of their way to kill someone unless they feel antagonized. And when I see someone so willing to antagonize that they'll stand there antagonizing someone EVEN WHILE THEY ARE SHOOTING AT THEM then there's nothing that could have been done to stop it. Even when faced with a violent retard looking to murder them they just stayed that course because they didn't give a shit. Just like that fuckwit telling two armed men that he was going to kill them. So sure they wouldn't react because he was big and angry and tough and, most importantly, right. And they blew him away. Should they have? You and I would agree that no, they shouldn't. But they did, because they weren't you and me. Meanwhile these two idiots were literally crossing the street to fuck with their neighbor, an act of dickheadedness that takes actual effort, and when he finally snapped they stood there assured in their own anger, loudness, and rightness. And in the assurance that you put forth. That people just can't kill someone over being insulted.

But they can. Shouldn't does not mean couldn't. Does not mean wouldn't. So why push someone to their limits when you don't know what their limits actually are?

I'm glad you managed to google "infantry MOS" so you think you sound intelligent, but you clearly have never met an infantyman, an officer, or an infantry officer. Most of the military is conservative to moderate. Trump has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment debate. The 2nd amendment should not be a partisan issue, but one party continually attacks it and the other party makes almost no attempt to defend it.

The fact that you continually come on here with your paintball warrior script shows that you fear having armed citizens, which only proves that the 2nd Amendment is doing its job.

When I worked at the morgue I would try some of the hottest chicks. The rigor mortis makes the pussy super tight. My best orgasm ever was in this 20 year old blonde who killed herself. It was like even though you don't love yourself enough to stay alive, I love you.

Oh fuck that. I'm not going to live in fear just because of a few nut cases.

It's not about living in fear you muppet, do you think that being an abrasive fuckwit to your neighbors is showing your bravery? It's just about not being a cunt because other people might be violent cunts, so trying to be a cunt to those cunts is a cunt competition you're gonna lose. I mean, please tell me why you think the opposite of being a cunt is being a coward?

Because all I simply said is don't expect people to adhere to YOUR limits and you immediately take that as me telling you to be afraid. No mate, just don't piss people off and expect them to act like you would.

Fuck off coward.

Make me seppo.

I was literally an officer in the US military long before you were a gleam in your father's and his sister-wife's crossed eyes. The officer corps was very much center to center left. They thoroughly rejected Trump not only because of his bumbling, ignorant foreign policy and diplomacy, but also because he ridiculed veterans, Gold Star families and last but not least, was a coward who had Big Daddy buy him out of the draft with a fake bone spur. Infantry grunts who have IQ's of the avg. braindead magat zombie did support him, though.

I literally said this is not about Trump, but you can't fucking let it go. Why do you keep shitting on grunts?

Ok cosplayer chang. If you were an officer in the military, by being anti gun you are an oath breaker. You swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. You are breaking that oath.

Kek

I believe in "well regulated" gun ownership which is why I own hunting firearms. I don't support poorly regulated gun ownership. Deal with it gun nut and go shoot up a stump with your illegal bumpstock and assault rifle you couldn't breakdown if your life depended on it, which it would if you were ever in a firefight instead of fantasizing about them.

>I believe in "well regulated" gun ownership which is why I own hunting firearms. I don't support poorly regulated gun ownership.
How many more times do people have to tell you you don't understand what well regulated means, and your entire praxis on the matter is debunked accordingly?

Words have meaning and you deliberately use the wrong one to argue in bad faith. Begone.

>I believe in "well regulated"
So, not what the second amendment actually says, see heller.
> gun ownership which is why I own hunting firearms.
Where does it say the word "hunting" in the second amendment? In fact, Miller and heller both explicitly state that hunting firearms are not protected by the second amendment.
> I don't support poorly regulated gun ownership.
Define "poorly regulated" the gca and Brady bill both exist. Also what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand ?
>Deal with it gun nut
Hang yourself oath breaker. Enact justice for your oath breaking and hang yourself
> and go shoot up a stump with your illegal bumpstock and assault rifle
What do you think an assault rifle is ?
> you couldn't breakdown if your life depended on it, which it would if you were ever in a firefight instead of fantasizing about them.
Do you really think the average gun owner can't take apart their gun to clean it? How do you think they clean their guns you literal no guns retard?

>Why do you keep shitting on grunts?
I don't. It takes a special kind of person to be capable of barely passing the ASVAB (for civilians, that's literally retard level IQ) and willingly sacrifice themselves as mindless cannon fodder. They are the few, the proud, the gruntiest mouthdroolers any military in world history has ever seen.

>l-look, I'm a standard gun nut who is what "well regulated" was designed to protect the American people (2/3 of which households do not own guns) from
Can't wait until we rip your assault rifle from your hands, or regrettably in your case, collect it from the pile of goo in the aftermath.

>>l-look, I'm a standard gun nut who is what "well regulated" was designed to protect the American people
Once again, see heller. It refers to the militia and has nothing to do with private gun ownership. Also most guns used in crimes are stolen or straw purchased, oath breaker. bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf
> (2/3 of which households do not own guns) from
Do not admit to owning guns.
>Can't wait until we rip your assault rifle
What do you think an assault rifle is?
>from your hands, or regrettably in your case, collect it from the pile of goo in the aftermath.
Come and take it, oath breaker.

>Can't wait until we rip your assault rifle from your hands
How well did that work out for you in Kenosha? :D

>oath breaker
No, cowardly gun nut. I served my Country honorably in the US Army, upholding fully the oath I took, instead of attempting to overthrow US Democracy and the Constitution because rightwing echo chambers told me Democrat, vegan, trans, pedophiles were going to steal muh popgun. Now, even your Dear Leader as well as the vast majority of Americans show why you're on the wrong side of history, gun nut. Why don't you go join an African or Middle East mercenary band where you can have all the popguns you want as well as super duper missle type thingys with the added bonus of killing muh brown folk? Oh, because you're a coward.

>"Frankly, we need intelligent background checks," Trump told reporters Friday. He added, "On background checks, we have tremendous support for really common sense, sensible, important background checks."

>What all that means exactly isn't clear yet. What is clear, from public opinion polling, is that Americans believe gun violence is a problem, and they support more restrictions on guns. That sentiment spilled over Sunday night when a frustrated crowd chanted "do something" at Ohio's Republican Gov. Mike DeWine following the mass shooting in Dayton.

npr.org/2019/08/10/749792493/americans-largely-support-gun-restrictions-to-do-something-about-gun-violence

Pretty well, actually. A little twink cowardly back shooter had his assault rifle confiscated, was arrested on a murder charge, will never own another popgun in his life and be incarcerated for a significant amount of time being used and abused like your blow up anime doll. You should be so lucky, coward.

>2 dead leftists, one permanently disfigured
>shooter is free on bail
>>"Pretty well, actually."
LMAO

>will never own another popgun in his life
He will when he gets acquitted for defending himself from violent, wife beating pedophile leftists

>You should be so lucky, coward.
Try it, pedo, get shot like your buddies. Fuck around and find out ;)

>He will when he gets acquitted for defending himself
Hate to break it to you, but juries don't generally consider murdering someone by shooting them in the back "defensive." Hell, even in the wild wild west, someone who shot a notorious criminal "wanted dead or alive" in the back was shunned, branded with a capital "C" for coward and treated as a pariah.

>Try it, pedo, get shot like your buddies. Fuck around and find out
I'll be the first to pick up your hand from what's left and shake it (wearing PPE ofc, I know all about your white supremacist militia "brotherly love" sauna/hot tub bonding).

>but juries don't generally consider murdering someone by shooting them in the back "defensive."
They do when said person was trying to beat someone to death with a skateboard. Also, the first shot was from the front :).
Your pedo buddy died like a coward, the difference he was already dead when he tried to run away.

>Hell, even in the wild wild west
Do you want to continue letting it slip you're not American and English isn't your first language? Or would you like to keep pretending a little longer?

Really heavy on the buzzwords, chang. Tell me again how we don't have background checks already?
>Shot in the back
Sweaty, that's been debunked. I like the "C" for coward story, that's new at least. Do your handlers let you improv like that?

>No, cowardly gun nut. I served my Country honorably in the US Army, upholding fully the oath I took,
Clearly you are not upholding your oath as you are attacking the constitution.
>instead of attempting to overthrow US Democracy and the Constitution
You literally are attempting to over throw the constitution, oath breaker.
> because rightwing echo chambers told me Democrat, vegan, trans, pedophiles were going to steal muh popgun.
You are literally posting in this topic that you plan to take my guns, oath breaker
>Now, even your Dear Leader as well as the vast majority of Americans show why you're on the wrong side of history, gun nut.
Why do you think you and the would be dictators you worship will win, oath breaker? No matter how much you lick his boots, Americans will not surrender their guns to your king, oath breaker.
> Why don't you go join an African or Middle East mercenary band where you can have all the popguns you want as well as super duper missle type thingys with the added bonus of killing muh brown folk? Oh, because you're a coward.
Why would I abandon my country? I will stay here and defend the constitution from human rights deniers like you and your king, oath breaker.

>>"Frankly, we need intelligent background checks," Trump told reporters Friday. He added, "On background checks, we have tremendous support for really common sense, sensible, important background checks."
Trump isn't president, oath breaker. And when did I mention trump, oath breaker. Trying to distract from your oath breaking and boot licking ?
>>What all that means exactly isn't clear yet. What is clear, from public opinion polling, is that Americans believe gun violence is a problem, and they support more restrictions on guns. That sentiment spilled over Sunday night when a frustrated crowd chanted "do something" at Ohio's Republican Gov. Mike DeWine following the mass shooting in Dayton.

>npr.org/2019/08/10/749792493/americans-largely-support-gun-restrictions-to-do-something-about-gun-violence
The majority of Americans supported slavery and jim crow. That is why we are a constitutional republic and not a direct democracy. Dont like it? Amend the constitution faggot. Until then you are nothing but a boot licking oath breaker.

When did kyle shoot someone in the back?

People don't stand always straight after getting shot, Rosenbaum also got hit in the hand and pelvis

The convicted homosexual child rapist who was clearly seen on video chasing after kyle to rape him and attempted to grab Kyle's gun so he could rape Kyle at gun point and rape him ?

Of course the first shot hit him in the front, but I'm saying he got hit in the back after reacting to the first hit. Or the DA is making up bullshit

Makes sense that a Democrat da would care more about a literal convicted homosexual Jewish child rapist than his would about a gentile kid with a gun literally protecting his life and butthole from said literal convicted Jewish homosexual child rapist.

>over throw the constitution.
No Cletus, a law has to go through the process of going to through the three branches of government. If they were unconstitutional the supreme court would have said something. They don't go to Frogballs, Arkansas to ask some random nut if they're constitutional or not.

SCOTUS has already affirmed that 1. the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, 2. arms used for combat/militia purposes are protected, 3. arms used for personal defense and that are in common use are protected, 4. arms for either of these purposes made after 1790 are protected, and 5. it is unlawful for federal, state or local government to ban these arms.

Ok then what the fuck are you bitching about?

Means we need stricter background checks then given he was clearly mentally unfit to have a gun.

Yeah, and then no one will come forward with their mental health issues if it means getting their rights taken away. Good job, twit.

cause oath breakers like you are trying to violate the constitution and confiscate guns. Dems have said multiple times they want to pack the courts to overturn heller. The current POTUS has said he disagrees with heller and thinks the right to own a gun is not an individual right
dailycaller.com/2020/09/21/joe-biden-told-voters-the-second-amendment-does-not-protect-an-individual-right/
Who and how will you test someone to be mentally unfit? seems like dems will just use this to ban people based on things like race and political affiliation.

>cause oath breakers like you are trying to violate the constitution and confiscate guns. Dems have said multiple times they want to pack the courts to overturn heller.
What they're actually trying to do is legally chang the laws through the democratic process. You're just having sperg fit. The second amendment can be repealed legally with out anyone being an "oathbreaker". The constitution wasn't handed down by god.

>What they're actually trying to do is legally chang the laws through the democratic process.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand chang? Fucking oath breaker.
>You're just having sperg fit. The second amendment can be repealed legally with out anyone being an "oathbreaker". The constitution wasn't handed down by god.
>swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution
>attempt to tear out one of the most important parts
>attempting to make laws that illegally violates one of the most important parts because you know full well you can't amend it
OATH BREAKER.

Again, the second amendment can be repealed legally and constitutionally. There's a process in the constitution for that. The second amendment is an amendment. It's not going to happen unless gun rights become incredibly unpopular for some reason.

Hey man, their just going to make a corporation take everyone's guns, because the constitution doesn't apply to corporations

They swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. The constitution very explicitly says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Doing anything against the right to keep and bear arms is oath breaking. Trying to repeal it, is oath breaking. You are an oath breaker
kek

>Trying to repeal it, is oath breaking. You are an oath breaker
Going though the legal process of repealing of an amendment is not breaking an oath to defend the constitution. This legal process is defined in the constitution. If you graduated highschool you would have had a civics class they explained how the Federal Republic actually worked.

>Again, the second amendment can be repealed legally and constitutionally
Good luck!

>It's not going to happen unless gun rights become incredibly unpopular for some reason.
So, never. Gotcha. Like I said, good luck!

I didn't say I was. I was explaining high school civics to you.

>I was explaining high school civics to you.
That was middle school civics for me, then again I didn't grow up in a urban leftist shithole full of gun crime "youth scholars" who dindunuffin, like you.

>Again, the second amendment can be repealed legally and constitutionally.
But that's not what they are doing, they are infringing without repealing or modifying it.

>Going though the legal process of repealing of an amendment is not breaking an oath to defend the constitution
Oh I didn't realize they were attempting to repeal an amendment. Can you give me a link to the motion? You should be able to find it on congress's website.
Thanks.

>Going though the legal process of repealing of an amendment is not breaking an oath to defend the constitution.
It literally is. Repealing one of the bill of rights amendments would mean removing protections of human rights of the people and would result in the constitution becoming illegitimate. What part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing to you, oath breaker?

Yes and I had government classes in elementary school, well done.
Well then it will get struck down in the courts if it's actually unconstitutional :^).
I've explained it enough times now dumb ass. Go out side and start yelling at passing cars.

>Well then it will get struck down in the courts if it's actually unconstitutional :^).
Not if the dems have their way. Clinton's daughter and Bloomberg have both made statements about the dems packing the courts so they can uphold unconstitutional gun laws.
>I've explained it enough times now dumb ass. Go out side and start yelling at passing cars.
Cool story oath breaker, it doesn't change the fact that the constitution explicitly states "the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" and that attempting to do away with any of the first 10 amendments is literally human rights denial and an attack on the constitution by making it illegitimate.

> the constitution explicitly states "the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
You are such a fucking idiot. That was an amendment There's nothing saying it can be repealed just like any other amendment.

Not to worry coward, in the not too distant future whether it takes expanding the number of seats on the SC or just attrition (I know you're a kid, but 30 years is not too distant), we'll be rid of a caveman conservative majority and will have a progressive SC that will go back to the original intention of the Founding Fathers who emphasised "well regulated militia" by having it qualify "shall not be infringed."

Bottomline, you'll either surrender your assault weapons arsenal peacefully which the vast majority will do or you'll end up fitting Charlton Heston's description ;) We'll let you keep hunting firearms and a handgun, but if you want to whack off to assault weapons you'll have to join the US Army or National Guard (aka well regulated State militia). But you won't because you're nothing but a blowhard coward. Now go finish your assignment of learning to hit the broadside of a barn from 30 metres.

A SPADE KILLED GOYS!

Stiiiiiil waiting on the link

Did you earn your bowl of rice today, Chang? We've been showing off a lot of our freedoms while you sit in your commie bloc crumbling cement building frantically typing away.

The American People, Founding Fathers and Uncle Sam: Go join a "well regulated militia (aka National Guard)" where your "right to bare arms shall not be infringed" according to our wishes and stop killing innocent Americans or trying to overthrow Democracy, Billy Bob. American lives and Democracy are more important than your Rambo fantasies. Grow up.

I'm a snow Mexican you 55-percenter. Your guns were used in a few shootings over here. Keep your issues to yourself.

>hint, AIDS kills way more than 500 people per year
You can take pills or wrap your dick to prevent AIDS. But there isn't anything you can do to prevent stupid. Well, at least not as easy as taking meds.

Human rights are not those decided by 55 people. Hand em over kid

If you prefer your hands to be cold and dead that can be arranged. Don't call us, we'll call you.

>Where do you fags think food and water comes from ?
Cargo ships and corporate farms?

>>>he thinks the same military that lost vietnam could occupy the USA.
>he thinks expeditionary wars are the same as civil wars.
Enjoy the no-knock raids and martial law, Cletey

>On the freedom fighters home turf.
And subject to all the laws and legal institutions of said turf. You're a loooong way from the rice fields boy.

>So an oath opposing Biden and the dems?
Disobeying your commander-in-chief is not a wise move friend.

>They are kicking gun grabbers out of the army?
Indeed. Once these people stop grabbing their own guns and crying civil war the moment their fee-fees get bruised, the quicker others can continue their lives.

>How does leadership lead if they have no men?
By court martial and summary execution. Desertion means death.

>Are you worried some 17 year old zoomer is going to shoot you with his ar and fortnight dance on your corpse when china sends you to invade the usa?
Yes. Can't even go to school in peace before some edgelord incel decides to shoot up the place. Same for the "invasion forces" who got gunned down at El Paso and the like, though they're called "immigrants" outside of your education system.

>Majority of white men with college degrees voted for trump
Gunna need a citation on that. Here's mine

>theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/11/education-gap-explains-american-politics/575113/
>msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-diploma-divide-in-american-politics/ar-BB1bsSJH
Diploma divide is the name of the game. In short, stupid people tend to vote red though that doesn't mean red voters tend to be stupid. Same for 2020, 2018, and perhaps the 2016 elections.

>Not really sure how you can call someone who helped gun rights a dictator but someone who wants to ban guns is not a would be dictator
This "dictator" of yours doesn't want other people to "dictate" who lives or dies by their own hands. He's getting rid of all the tiny dictators with a chip on one shoulder and a pistol under the other.

Your white women whore themselves to wealthy Chinese. Follow the money!

We shouldn't allow people the means to kill others so easily, for any reason. It's not about whether it's smart or not to ride on the back of a hungry tiger, it's about declawing him. We don't have to fear the tiger, but that doesn't mean we ignore his fangs. Much less do nothing about them.

Gun control does not go against the constitution. No rights are unlimited. True freedom is anathema to law. Lawbreakers must be punished. Oath is kept.

If they would prefer their guns taken away via red flag laws that's OK too, you twit.

Fuck the couple for being trashy and argumentative, and double fuck the killer for deciding to commit murder because of an argument over snow removal. All of these people were fucking classless animals, but anyone willing to assault someone, much less outright murder, has no place in society and is little better than a wild animal.

Seriously, what does it cost people to not be fuckers, and to not be violent beasts?

no they dont. cope, microdick dog muncher.

Indeed, I'm mistaken. It's poor black men instead

Based for killing the cucks, cringe for killing himself like a fag

did you actually think this was a brilliant comment or something dude. Are you retarded.
Yes it would also be good if anyone adopting a child was evaluated for their fitness first.

>weapons of violence
As opposed to weapons of peace?

I still don't understand how they just stood there after he fired a gun at them. I'm an idiot but is anti anxiety medication so strong you it could suppress you fight or flight response?

It just doesn't make any sense.

...

If you cant act politely without the gun pointed at you, then maybe you need it to be so.

I thought that was a phone

sure, hapa freak. stay mad that your chink mom gets fucked in her hairy gook cunt,by white men.

This is a popular thread.
seems like A lot of Yanks wanna kill their neighbors, doesn't matter if they have a Trump flag or a Biden flag.

The alienation of the American dream