Biden asks Congress to ban ‘weapons of war on our streets’

>Oh fuck. Not you again
Stay mad, Chang
>The Dem obsession with AR-15s is cringe as fuck but I don't know why you guys keep going on about confiscation squads sweeping the whole nation. That's not how any of this would work. Under his proposed legislation you would have to pay a $200 tax stamp and, if not, you would get in trouble IF you get caught. There are absolutely zero plans for any force to go door to door searching people's homes for ARs, user. I think Biden's gun laws are dumb as fuck but a) I think its a big neo-lib virtue signal and it will never pass and b) I don't have to make shit up in order to disagree with him.
Because the goal of registration is confiscation. ALWAYS. See NZ, UK, and AUS. Dems want a registry so they can confiscate.

>Stay mad, Chang
Good morning, schizo-poster.

>Because the goal of registration is confiscation.
Yes, yes, we've all been through this bit before - Dems are satanic monsters that want to turn your children into slaves and slaughter the entire country, guns are a basic human right and evil communist ghosts live under your bed. We know the whole routine, dude.

>Because confiscation is the main purpose behind registration.
I can't really speak on your slippery slope.

>Thats exactly how it would work, hence why they keep pushing for registration.
Again, I can't really argue against your paranoid delusions. This "they're gonna take our guns ree ree FEMA death camps ree ree" bullshit has been floating around your delusional info-circle since Obama. Nobody's buying it.

>So he wants to discriminate against the poor AND force registration? Lolno, keep dreaming.
I said I didn't agree with the law like three times already. Can you read?

>Yes, yes, we've all been through this bit before - Dems are satanic monsters that want to turn your children into slaves and slaughter the entire country, guns are a basic human right and evil communist ghosts live under your bed. We know the whole routine, dude.
This, but unironically
Anti gunners literally used registries for confiscation in NZ, Aus, and UK. What legitimate purpose would having a registry solve? Most guns used in crimes are stolen or straw purchased. More guns used in crimes are bought through a FFL and done with a background check than via a gun show.
bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

>Anti-gunners
So you mean sensible people.

>This, but unironically
Yes. We know, schizo-poster.

>Anti gunners literally used registries for confiscation in NZ, Aus, and UK.
Firstly, the political landscapes of these three countries are completely different than the U.S. Not only are their politics much different but they run on an entirely different constitution that doesn't even protect the ownership of guns. You're comparing apples to oranges.

>What legitimate purpose would having a registry solve?
You say this as though politicians put through policies simply based on their usefulness. What are you, 12? Politicians put fourth things that are popular and appealing to the ideology of their base. What fucking use was a hundred miles of gigantic border wall going to do? NOTHING. It was done for the purpose of satisfying Trump's base and giving the illusion of progress. Whether or not it worked was almost irrelevant.

I'm sure a national registry would serve a very small, nominal good, of course. It might solve a handful of cases here and there but the biggest purpose it serves is to appeal to Democrats' pansy, pearl clutching base that knows nothing about guns and are afraid of them. A registry doesn't have to be statistically effective in stopping gun violence to be worth it for Democrats - their voter base liking a registry is all it takes for it to be worth it. People have been legislating based on fear for centuries, user. Its simple and effective and keeps people loyal to their political party. I know you're schizophrenic and out of your fucking mind but I thought I'd spell this out just for anyone in the thread not familiar with the concept of politics.

No, Democrats aren't going to send death squads to your house. The fact that you think 80 year old, spineless, corporate Democrat shills actually give a fuck about their ideology enough to start a war and seize millions of guns speaks volumes about how delusional you are. They do what their donors tell them. That's it.

>Dems want a registry so they can confiscate
Yes, I've noticed registering and licensing vehicles results in widespread confiscations. The only reason vehicles are registered is so they can immediately be confiscated.

Unironically, you are exactly the kind of sicko who should not own guns and have them confiscated. You are living proof why we need common sense gun laws. Your paranoia and obvious mental instability shows you really need a shrink tuneup and quick.

>No, Democrats aren't going to send death squads to your house.
At least one person died from red flag laws in D.C.

No, I mean human rights deniers.
>Firstly, the political landscapes of these three countries are completely different than the U.S. Not only are their politics much different but they run on an entirely different constitution that doesn't even protect the ownership of guns. You're comparing apples to oranges.
I'm comparing apples to apples because they have the exact same goals. Confiscation.
>You say this as though politicians put through policies simply based on their usefulness. What are you, 12? Politicians put fourth things that are popular and appealing to the ideology of their base.
Nope, they are doing this because they want confiscation
> What fucking use was a hundred miles of gigantic border wall going to do? NOTHING.
To reduce illegal immigration.
>I'm sure a national registry would serve a very small, nominal good, of course. It might solve a handful of cases here and there
How? How would a registry solve any cases?
>but the biggest purpose it serves is to appeal to Democrats' pansy, pearl clutching base that knows nothing about guns and are afraid of them. A registry doesn't have to be statistically effective in stopping gun violence to be worth it for Democrats - their voter base liking a registry is all it takes for it to be worth it. People have been legislating based on fear for centuries, user. Its simple and effective and keeps people loyal to their political party. I know you're schizophrenic and out of your fucking mind but I thought I'd spell this out just for anyone in the thread not familiar with the concept of politics.
Nope, the registry is for confiscation and their voters are sheep who get lead by propaganda. Gun control is set by the 1% and the retards follow.
>No, Democrats aren't going to send death squads to your house.
Then why do they need a registry? Dems are the party that put Americans in concentration camps. If Biden had the choice, he would put Americans in death camps TODAY.

>At least one person died from red flag laws in D.C.
I have varying issues with red flag laws but, overall, the burden of proof is pretty massive to deem someone not mentally fit enough to handle their own affairs. The legal bar is set high for a very good reason and, so far, there has been no rash of normal, everyday people having their guns confiscated on a whim like delusional conservative gun nuts keep claiming. Regardless, red flag laws even in their worst interpretations are not equivalent to Democrats making guns illegal, confiscating millions of them nationwide and murdering the population. Not even close. I think its very telling that this weak false comparison was the only response you could come up with to my entire post. A judge deeming you not mentally fit to be your own guardian happens all the time. This is not equivalent to nationwide death squads, schizoposter.

>Yes, I've noticed registering and licensing vehicles results in widespread confiscations. The only reason vehicles are registered is so they can immediately be confiscated.
What purpose do you think a gun registry would do? How do you think it would solve anything? It won't it is to be used for confiscation. See NZ, AUS, and the UK.
>Unironically, you are exactly the kind of sicko who should not own guns and have them confiscated.
Because I advocate for human rights?
>You are living proof why we need common sense gun laws.
define "common sense gun laws"
>Your paranoia and obvious mental instability shows you really need a shrink tuneup and quick.
"anyone who disagrees with me politically is crazy and must be murdered by the state"

>I have varying issues with red flag laws but, overall, the burden of proof is pretty massive to deem someone not mentally fit enough to handle their own affairs.
there is literally zero burden of proof to get a red flag order. Please show me any sources that require any proof beyond random hearsay.

Americans would be the quickest to adopt European Truck of Peace tactics. You burgerclaps just want to kill each other and just like life, you'll find a way.

>there is literally zero burden of proof to get a red flag order
You are objectively incorrect. I'm amazed how confidently you spew these lies.

>Please show me any sources that require any proof beyond random hearsay.
I can't post a link here but there's actually a very interesting article called "Firearms, Extreme Risk, and Legal Design" by the Duke Law department. I can't cite a specific law because they are different in ever state. In a lot of states, for example, only law enforcement can file petitions. In a few states a family member can petition the court themselves. Essentially what happens is that they file a petition and then have a hearing before a judge. You must give the judge compelling evidence that would reasonably lead him/her to believe that this individual presents a danger to themselves or other. This would require a combination of things like criminal/mental health history, recorded communications, social media posts, texts etc.,
Legally speaking, the burden of proof required to strip one of their autonomy is purposefully high. The notion that anybody can just file a red flag petition and there's no burden of proof for the judge to rule a person incompetent to own weapons is objectively, laughably fucking false. You have no idea what you're talking about.

>I'm comparing apples to apples because they have the exact same goals. Confiscation.
You're drawing comparisons between our country and countries whose political and legal systems you don't understand to get to the conclusion you want. You have no idea how the constitution of the UK or NZ works.

>Nope, they are doing this because they want confiscation
Again, I can't speak to your paranoid delusions. I can only go off of historical, legal precedent and basic common knowledge of how our country work.

>To reduce illegal immigration.
Wrong again. Most illegal immigration comes through ports of entry and people overstaying their visas. The wall was a symbol for Trump's pro-nationalist agenda.

>How? How would a registry solve any cases?
Tracing to where a gun came from, in theory, would be helpful.

>Nope, the registry is for confiscation and their voters are sheep who get lead by propaganda. Gun control is set by the 1% and the retards follow.
I already acknowledged that you're out of your mind. I wasn't appealing to your logic. I was appealing to the logic of anybody that doesn't suffer from the same debilitating mental illness that you do.

>Dems are the party that put Americans in concentration camps.
I've already gone down this Japanese internment camp road with you and you're completely and utterly incapable of engaging with any reality in which Democrats aren't the boogeymen that haunt your every dream. Comparing a Democrat in 1945 with modern Democrats is fucking retarded. Google the overton window. You're politically illiterate.

>If Biden had the choice, he would put Americans in death camps TODAY.
Please. Seek psychiatric help. You're absolutely fucking unhinged.

>but, overall, the burden of proof is pretty massive to deem someone not mentally fit enough to handle their own affairs.
Except for the case of Gary Willis, the guy who got killed over the red flag law. He got into an argument with his cunt of a sister and she got back at him by going to a judge to get his guns taken away. He had no criminal history or mental health evaluation.

>The legal bar is set high for a very good reason
Wasn't there a retired cop who got his guns taken away in NJ because he snitched on bad cops and judges? I swear Dab Forums had a thread about him earlier.

>so far, there has been no rash of normal, everyday people having their guns confiscated on a whim like delusional conservative gun nuts keep claiming.
Gary Willis.

>European Truck of Peace tactics
Already happened with the far right gun nut Timothy McVeigh truck bombing the Murrow Federal Building in Oklahoma City killing hundreds. He was one of Trump's "very fine people."

You're deranged if you think Trump's "very fine people" included McVeigh.

Yeah there was a thread on that, former NYPD living in NJ.
nj.com/news/2020/01/nearly-200-people-have-had-their-guns-seized-in-nj-under-new-red-flag-law.html

>Gun nut
>No guns used in bombing

>Registry tracing where a gun came from
>Gun recovered from gang shooting
>Not registered
>Oh well, better luck next time
>Glad we threatened all those regular people with felonies if they didn't register every gun on the naughty guns list.

He was a rightwing white nationalist/supremacist gun nut so he exactly fits the definition.

Meds.

Now.

From my cold dead hands, commie scum,

You won't have any hands left since you'll simply be a pool of chicken tendies/big mac/fry/pepperoni grease ;^)

>nj.com/news/2020/01/nearly-200-people-have-had-their-guns-seized-in-nj-under-new-red-flag-law.html
Thank you user.

So user who posted this what do you have to say about that legal bar being set high to enforce red flag laws? And these are just two examples. There's a third guy in California who admittedly is a racist skinhead, but didn't commit any crimes besides shit-talking on the internet. No threats, no plans, no I'm going to minecraft all the hispanics, etc. He got his guns taken away for trolling on the internet under Cali's red flag law system. Basically it's illegal to be a Dab Forumstard in CA now.

Or we can talk about Jeffrey Scott Kirschenmann who FOLLOWED the law, still got his guns taken away and went to jail for registering his firearms like he was supposed to under the new CA law. Yeah how 'bout that high bar?

>Shithole country Today
Nice blog Ivan. Better report this.

>Yes, I've noticed registering and licensing vehicles results in widespread confiscations. The only reason vehicles are registered is so they can immediately be confiscated.
I mean user they cant go around confiscating things without knowing that they exist. the whole point of a gun registry is to know exactly who has them and how many so that when they do go about confiscating said weapons they can spout about how many are left. why is that such a complicated concept for you?

>Wrong again. Most illegal immigration comes through ports of entry and people overstaying their visas. The wall was a symbol for Trump's pro-nationalist agenda.
the why are lefties so asshurt about the wall preventing people from crossing the border? The people you are referring to for over staying their visas are DOCUMENTED where as the vast amount of illegal immigrants who cross via the border are UNDOCUMENTED so there is no way to collect data on something that is unknown. what you just said was intentionally deceiving and retarded.

>the why are lefties so asshurt about the wall preventing people from crossing the border?
Because its a dumb, ineffective and expensive way to address the issue. I don't see why we should spend hundreds of billions of dollars to erect a symbolic monument to conservative nationalism. I want a method that's going to be the most effective, not the one that makes conservatives the most comfortable.

>The people you are referring to for over staying their visas are DOCUMENTED where as the vast amount of illegal immigrants who cross via the border are UNDOCUMENTED so there is no way to collect data on something that is unknown. what you just said was intentionally deceiving and retarded.
The argument is about how to prevent illegal immigration to our country, correct? So, if most of the people who are here illegally have come through legal ports of entry and overstayed their legal visas then how is putting a giant wall in the desert going to meaningfully prevent illegal immigration? It won't. The only reason the wall is so important to conservatives is the aesthetic. Its visually appealing and intuitively satisfying but, statistically, its disproportionately expensive in construction and maintenance in the context of its proposed benefits.

This isn't even including the fact that one of the primary reasons Trump cited for why we need the wall was illegal drug smuggling, sex trafficking and weapons smuggling. Guess where the majority of sex trafficking, drug smuggling and weapons smuggling occurs at? At legal ports of entry. How is a giant wall going to stop smuggling at legal ports of entry? It doesn't.

I haven't investigated the individual merits of the two cases you're citing. I don't know anything about them. Judicial discretion is, theoretically, always going to be imperfect. Even if I were to assume what you're saying is true it still wouldn't be a good argument against red flag laws. Our legislation against murder has arguably falsely imprisoned hundreds of thousands of people over the decades but that isn't an argument that murder laws are government overreach or that the bar for proving murder isn't set high. There are a lot of reasons people who shouldn't be targeted by certain laws are but in order to say that its because the laws aren't good you'd have to prove it. You would need to prove that the cons outweigh the pros and two cases of people who you've reported to be unjustly persecuted doesn't establish that - in my eyes, at least.

>The only reason the wall is so important to conservatives is the aesthetic.
The wall is important because contrary to what you believe it keeps out all of the undocumented illegals who have no other way to sneak into the US. Even if you are to believe that the majority of Illegal immigrants are here on expired visas (According to NPR its 62% vs 38% border crossers) it still cuts out that massive chunk (in this case 38%). As for the rest of that 62% you simply cut back on visas and deport the ones here illegally who once deported wont be able to cross back in. If anything the biggest problem with illegal immigration is that previously there was no effective way to prevent re-entry.

>Even if I were to assume what you're saying is true it still wouldn't be a good argument against red flag laws.
Here's a great argument against red flag laws: no due process. Much like the no-fly list, only worse because we're talking about an actual right - which funny enough people on the left (Obama, Hillary) have made the argument that "... If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous, by definition, to buy a gun." You don't have to break a law to be added to either list, you just have to be under suspicion - and good luck getting off of that list after you're added to it. Unlike the bullshit you've mentioned earlier, there is no high legal bar. No notification, no chance to defend yourself in court, no repercussions for the government if they take from the wrong innocent person. Where the hell are you getting this fantasy that the bar for red flag laws is high?

stop dude, you're killing him. Hes been btfo just let it go

>The wall is important because contrary to what you believe it keeps out all of the undocumented illegals who have no other way to sneak into the US.
Its not what I believe. Its immigration statistics that come from our own government.

>Even if you are to believe that the majority of Illegal immigrants are here on expired visas (According to NPR its 62% vs 38% border crossers) it still cuts out that massive chunk (in this case 38%
Yeah, if you're operating under the asinine assumption that a border wall is 100% effective against people crossing on foot. Again, I don't see how the cost to effectiveness ration is worth it. Why spend billions of dollars addressing the least effective way people illegally immigrate to the country when we could spend that money addressing the most effective way people do it? I don't understand.

>As for the rest of that 62% you simply cut back on visas and deport the ones here illegally who once deported wont be able to cross back in
I don't want to do that. Firstly, I believe its important to recognize international law in the context of asylum status. Secondly, I don't believe in nationalism. I don't want to cut down on VISAs. I believe it would represent a material harm to our economy. I don't see how that would be worth it.

Wow he should do that

>Its not what I believe. Its immigration statistics that come from our own government.
yes and those statistics point out that 38% are still border crossers and presumably have no other way to get into the US

>Again, I don't see how the cost to effectiveness ration is worth it. Why spend billions of dollars addressing the least effective way people
becuase contrary to what you believe is the "the most effective way" this is the best option we have. The billions of dollars going into that wall is nothing compared to the trillions of dollars going to support illegal immigrants thanks to retards like who you are sympathetic to them.

>I don't want to do that.
that is what we are talking about though, "prevent illegal immigration to our country" just as you said. Just because you dont like it doesnt mean it isnt the best way to handle the problem.

>Here's a great argument against red flag laws: no due process.
Ok, that's just objectively false. There is due process. I don't know why you keep saying there isn't.

>You don't have to break a law to be added to either list, you just have to be under suspicion
False. Whoever files the petition has to provide actionable evidence to a judge that you are currently a threat to yourself or others.

>and good luck getting off of that list after you're added to it
There is no "list". It is a temporary order filed by a judge that either expires if the petitioner doesn't provide compelling enough evidence to extend it. You actually have no idea how this works. As I said, in some states, only law enforcement can file the petition.

>Unlike the bullshit you've mentioned earlier, there is no high legal bar.
There is. I've already communicated this earlier in the thread. You either didn't read it or you just ignored all together.

>no chance to defend yourself in court
You have no idea what you're talking about. Even in cases where the order is filed ex parte a hearing is filed shortly after to provide the respondent to defend themselves and petition for the order to be revoked. How is it you're so confident about a subject you know nothing about? Is this the dunning kruger I'm always hearing about?

>Where the hell are you getting this fantasy that the bar for red flag laws is high?
Reality? Legal precedent? I'm sorry, I don't really care about your feelings about red flag laws. There just isn't any data at all to suggest that ERPOs are being unjustly ordered on "innocent" people at all. You've been factually incorrect about 80% of the things you've claimed in this post so I doubt your conclusion is based on any kind of logic either.

>yes and those statistics point out that 38% are still border crossers and presumably have no other way to get into the US
I'd love to see a source on them having no other way to cross. Also, "they are still border crossers" doesn't counter my point at all. This is a complete non-sequitur. If it turned out that 70% of child molester gain access to a school through the front door but 30% of them gained access through an underground tunnel, what logical sense would it make to invest hundreds of billions of dollars into building and maintaining a wall in the tunnel and ignoring the front door?

>becuase contrary to what you believe is the "the most effective way" this is the best option we have.
No, it isn't. If most people are coming in through legal ports of entry and overstaying visas why are we investing hundreds of billions into a wall?

>The billions of dollars going into that wall is nothing compared to the trillions of dollars going to support illegal immigrants thanks to retards like who you are sympathetic to them.
It has nothing to do with sympathy. You're just factually incorrect. Also, illegal immigrants represent a net economic benefit to our economy. The claim that we spend "trillions" of dollars to support them is objectively, economically false. You just made it up.

>Just because you dont like it doesnt mean it isnt the best way to handle the problem.
No, I don't like it because you're massively inflating the problem to justify an irrational response. I don't give a shit about nationalism. I give a shit about the people who live in this country. If sufficient data came out that suggested opening our borders completely would provide a net economic benefit to the people of this country I'd advocate for it. I'm not going to advocate for policies that will hurt us for the same of some irrational commitment to the concept of nationalism or ethnic/cultural hegemony or whatever weird reason you have for despising immigration.

>I'd love to see a source on them having no other way to cross. Also, "they are still border crossers" doesn't counter my point at all.
Youre absolutely retarded you dont need statistics to tell you that said border crossers would only take that route if they were able to do literally ANY other route. You dont think they would take the easier route via a VISA like the others did if they could?

>No, it isn't. If most people are coming in through legal ports of entry and overstaying visas why are we investing hundreds of billions into a wall?
because once said people are deported for violating their expired visas there has to be a way to keep them out. you keep ignoring that fact.

>You just made it up
ooookay then nice argument

>I don't give a shit about nationalism. I give a shit about the people who live in this country.
thats a conflict of interest there retard. we live in a time where everyone is struggling to get a job and we cant even provide for the people here legal or not illegal but "muh net gain for the economy" doesnt mean shit if it isnt helping anyone here regardless who they are. Even then just because you are physically here doesnt mean that you are obliged to do as you please and benefit from resources you have no part in.

>It has nothing to do with sympathy. You're just factually incorrect. Also, illegal immigrants represent a net economic benefit to our economy. The claim that we spend "trillions" of dollars to support them is objectively, economically false. You just made it up.
by the way a quick check says the cost of the wall is about 21 billion dollars for the entire project. the costs of supporting illegal immigrants in the US is anywhere from 60-110 billion dollars per year with an offset of 12 billion dollars made from taxes off of them.

>Youre absolutely retarded you dont need statistics to tell you that said border crossers would only take that route if they were able to do literally ANY other route.
Yeah, I base my opinions off statistics and data, not just really strongly feeling like I'm right. I don't really know how to argue with your feelings.

>because once said people are deported for violating their expired visas there has to be a way to keep them out. you keep ignoring that fact.
There already is a way. Current immigration law imposes a 10 year ban on people who overstay their VISAs.

>ooookay then nice argument
Yes. "You made this shit up and you're factually incorrect" is a pretty nice argument.

>thats a conflict of interest there retard.
No it isn't. I don't care about the "nation". I care about its people.

>we live in a time where everyone is struggling to get a job and we cant even provide for the people here legal or not illegal but "muh net gain for the economy" doesnt mean shit if it isnt helping anyone here regardless who they are.
Firstly, before COVID we had record employment rates. Secondly, wages struggling to keep up with cost of living prices has nothing to do with illegal immigration. Immigrants are disproportionately employed in key industries like healthcare, hospitality and construction which results in lower product costs for Americans. You're economically illiterate, user. Please. Stick to your appeals to emotion because you're dreadfully unequipped to talk economics.

>Even then just because you are physically here doesnt mean that you are obliged to do as you please and benefit from resources you have no part in.
Again, I don't really give a shit about your emotional arguments. I go off of economic data and the economic data shows that presence of immigrants drives up the demand for goods and services, employs more American citizens and produces a net economic benefit to our country.

>the costs of supporting illegal immigrants in the US is anywhere from 60-110 billion dollars per year with an offset of 12 billion dollars made from taxes off of them
Taxes are not the only way we benefit from immigrants. You see, when an immigrant moves here they need food, water, vehicles, clothes, goods and services etc., For every immigrant that moves here there is a construction company who needs to build them a house, a grocery store that sells them food and a department store that sells them clothes and household items. All of this money goes into our economy, creates new jobs and strengthens product demand in key industries. This is how we measure the economic benefit of a population, user, not just tax dollars. The way you've presented this data is purposefully misleading and incomplete.

>Ok, that's just objectively false. There is due process.
OK THAT is just objectively false. The judge who gave the order did so overnight, without any notification to Willis and not even enough time for him to obtain legal counsel. He was NOT in the middle of committing a crime, in fact he had NO CRIMINAL RECORD at all. Explain to me how he had due process.

>False. Whoever files the petition has to provide actionable evidence to a judge that you are currently a threat to yourself or others.
False. The order was brought over by his sister, likely over an argument. From his niece
>Michelle said her uncle “likes to speak his mind,” but she described him as harmless. “I’m just dumbfounded right now,” she said. “My uncle wouldn’t hurt anybody.”

> It is a temporary order filed by a judge that either expires if the petitioner doesn't provide compelling enough evidence to extend it.
Tell that to John Marchisotto, a retired NYPD cop living in New Jersey who had his firearms taken away because he reported on bad cops and judges. Snitches get stitches as they say.

>There is. I've already communicated this earlier in the thread. You either didn't read it or you just ignored all together.
Just like you've ignored every fucking example I've given.

>Even in cases where the order is filed ex parte a hearing is filed shortly after to provide the respondent to defend themselves and petition for the order to be revoked.
Who then have to pay to fight that battle in court, as was the case for Kevin Morgan in Florida after his ex-wife got his guns taken away during their divorce. He was able to get his back after spending about 5 grand and he still had the divorce to look forward to.

Too bad he wasn't a cop, like a police officer in Colorado. apnews.com/article/d57f8e59979f367ff6b7d7557aef5386

... comment too long.

>I go off of economic data and the economic data shows
nothing because not once have you ever shown anything either

>There already is a way. Current immigration law imposes a 10 year ban on people who overstay their VISAs.
yes because no one who was ever banned and deported tried to sneak back in via the border

>No it isn't. I don't care about the "nation". I care about its people.
its "people" is its nation and the citizens who are part of it not the entire world.

>Secondly, wages struggling to keep up with cost of living prices has nothing to do with illegal immigration.
wrongo buddy. the reason low income housing and rent is so fucking high these days is directly caused by illegal immigration. they create this high demand in low income areas fucking people over who currently live there. The entire state of California is the largest sanctuary state in the US with the highest pop of illegal immigrants and is seeing huge gentrification because of it.

>Taxes are not the only way we benefit from immigrants. You see, when an immigrant moves here they need food, water, vehicles, clothes, goods and services etc., For every immigrant that moves here there is a construction company who needs to build them a house, a grocery store that sells them food and a department store that sells them clothes and household items. All of this money goes into our economy, creates new jobs and strengthens product demand in key industries. This is how we measure the economic benefit of a population, user, not just tax dollars. The way you've presented this data is purposefully misleading and incomplete.
people who dont have fucking money cant contribute to the economy in any meaningful way especially when they are reliant on aid. also said people are mostly illiterate and uneducated and can only provide the most basic of services which are disappearing fast these days. Im not saying that we have to stop ALL immigrants from coming here but it doesnt mean we should or are even able to support the millions of illegals who have been a burden on us for decades.

Gotta love how they're somehow simultaneously stealing our jobs and doing nothing but steal financial aid at the same time.

It's not impossible to do both. Patrice O'neal told a story how when he was a dumb kid with no game he accidentally got his mom caught when some welfare reps knocked on their door and asked if his mom was at work.

So she lied about having a job then? Because if she was "stealing a job" she would've just gotten fired for not showing up.

She was working a job and collecting unemployment at the same time. Just figure I'd chime in that it's possible. I'm not getting into the immigration argument you two are having in a guns thread.

>agree to get paid under the table way less than other workers who are citizens
>also collect welfare because technically you appear to be unemployed
It's really not that difficult.

>people who dont have fucking money cant contribute to the economy in any meaningful way
But they do. Its an economic fact. If they didn't buy food and shelter they couldn't survive. Now you're just folding your arms and pouting "No" because you have no counter to statistical facts.

>also said people are mostly illiterate and uneducated and can only provide the most basic of services which are disappearing fast these days
Ok but they're not. Our service economy has been steadily growing for the past 40 years. You have absolutely zero fucking idea what you're talking about. You're just making shit up.

>but it doesnt mean we should or are even able to support the millions of illegals who have been a burden on us for decades.
Ok but we don't support them. They represent a net economic benefit to our economy. Do you know what net benefit means? It means they add money. I'm sorry, user, I really can't argue with your feelings. Reality doesn't agree with you no matter how much you really WANT to believe that immigrants drain "trillions" of dollars from our economy. Its just objectively false. You live in a delusion.

This the most jewie sounding person I've ever encountered on this board. He must be some kind of fed.

Round up 20 Americans, just 20, strong enough and willing to pick fruit and vegetables 14 hours/day for minimum wage in 100+ F heat while living in a leaking trailer in the middle of nowhere with a porta potty for a bathroom and irrigation ditches to wash in. Find me another 20 willing to roof houses 14 hours/day for minimum wage in 100F heat or freezing temperatures. Find me another 20 willing to wash dishes 14 hours/day. Face it, Americans today don't have the right stuff to do the raunchy work required nowadays. This isn't the fucking 19th century anymore and even then it was 1st generation immigrants doing a lot of the shit work. Grow up and look around you or in a mirror if your mum allows you to have one in her basement, lol!

>nothing because not once have you ever shown anything either
I could look up the fucking hundred page economic reports if you like, I just assumed we weren't having a structured, citation based debate because you rattled off all of your bullshit without showing data either.

>yes because no one who was ever banned and deported tried to sneak back in via the border
It doesn't matter whether they tried or not. If they get caught they get arrested, imprisoned or sent back. You said that there must be some way to stop them from coming back and there already is. End of point.

>its "people" is its nation and the citizens who are part of it not the entire world.
I disagree. This "nation" is built of a massive, diverse population of people who traveled from all across the world to live here, work here, and build this country into what it is today. I'm not dedicated to the concept or construct of a nation. I'm dedicated to the material well being for the large majority of the people who live here in this country and the data definitively fucking proves that immigration is good for the people of this country. I'm not going to advocate for positions that hurt the people who live in this country to preserve some abstract concept of a "nation". That makes no sense.

>the reason low income housing and rent is so fucking high these days is directly caused by illegal immigration
Incorrect. The mass tech boom in densely populated coastal cities in combination with the stagnation of wages is why cost of living is so high. Texas has one of the highest population of immigrants yet its rural areas are among the most affordable places in the country. It has way more to do with population density and wages then the number of immigrants.

>they create this high demand in low income areas fucking people over who currently live there
They don't. There's no data to support this. You just made it up because it seemed intuitive. You have no idea what you're talking about.

I could care less about the pained groans of a degenerate nazi-poster. This isn't stormfront, comrade. Your groiping will not be accepted with open asshole here.

>also collect welfare because technically you appear to be unemployed
Illegals cannot collect US government assistance even though many with TINS pay income tax and social security. That's another rightwing echo chamber myth you bit hook, line and sinker. Now, if you mean a child spawned on US soil from illegal parents, since they are Constitutionally a US citizen are eligible for US govt. benefits. Surely being a pro-life sturmdrumpfer you couldn't oppose that, right?

Why didn’t gun laws work in Chicago? Do democrats even care about black lives?

I think every US citizen should be obligated to own a gun. Because guns keep people safe and never become the go-to solution for minor quibbles. Look how well ubiquitous gun ownership worked in Pennsylvania. If only we could get that ethic spread across the entire country all of the gun control problems would be solved.

3USCWE

>Round up 20 Americans, just 20, strong enough and willing to pick fruit and vegetables 14 hours/day for minimum wage in 100+ F heat
Sounds like my first job at 14, only I didn't have to live in a trailer and could only work 8 hours at most. Fucking government laws.

>Find me another 20 willing to roof houses 14 hours/day for minimum wage in 100F heat or freezing temperatures
Glad to know you want to fucking exploit your roofer so fucking bad you piece of shit
Fuck you for wanting to keep undocumented people around so you can exploit them you faggot
You are no different from the massive tech companies that do the same thing, use and throw out visa workers for cheap labor
You people did the same thing to China for so long and now it's coming to bite you back in the ass because all these cheap workers you exploited are taking everything they learned and making the same crap back in China

You're a piece of shit and I'll gladly pay my roofer well for a good job you faggot

>I think every US citizen should be obligated to own a gun
This. It needs to be mandatory.

>knows nothing about construction
There are serious time contraints in certain phases of contruction, of which roofing is one. There may be weather impacts in the near future that necessitate it being completed no matter what. Other phases and the entire project can be delayed considerably until the roof is covered. Your misunderstanding of the building process thinking it's exploitation is exactly why pussfag Americans still sucking their thumbs and hanging onto mum's skirts can't and won't do the job. Same goes for vegetable/fruit picking. There's a relatively short time window between harvesting a ripe crop and having it rot in the fields that demands busting your ass. Face it, you and the rest of the soft, weak, pasty white lazy asses can't cut the mustard sturmdrumpfer.

>just allow me to exploit American workers like I do illegal workers
Its an interesting argument.

>nooooo just let me treat my employees like absolute shit! ur soft if u disagree!
The argument is less interesting the second time you hear it.

>Ok but they're not. Our service economy has been steadily growing for the past 40 years. You have absolutely zero fucking idea what you're talking about. You're just making shit up.
in case youve been under a rock our service industry just got blown the fuck out and a lot of those jobs will not be coming back due to changing times.

I remember when this was said in the early 2000s

And Britain didn’t do the same with it’s imperialism all over the world?

I would vote for dems if they didn't keep doing this retarded gun grabbing shit and running ex-CIA agent candidates.

user, we weren't talking about Britain at all. Go post a thread about Brits starving and lacking basic staples due to Brexit if you want to get your rocks off to bongs.

>B-but its justified having undocumented persons around because I need someone to exploit for roofing I can pay minimum wage to work 14 hours a day in 100° weather
Fuck yourself user

I also remember when Obama said it. Don't worry, in 4 years a Republican will come along and cut taxes and add liquidity to the economy leading to regrowth and then democrats will kvetch about it and do the opposite

>Minimum wage
Less than minimum wage, that's why illegals are so popular - they don't have any labour rights.

>dumb, ineffective and expensive way to address the issue

Thought you were talking about gun control for a second there.

>I don't see why we should spend hundreds of billions of dollars to erect a symbolic monument to conservative nationalism.
The people who work on the border, that being USBP and DHS both want the wall. Construction of the wall started under Bush Sr and every single president has dumped money into it, including Obama.

Your resistance to the wall is based on nothing more than Trumps advocacy of the wall. Its purely emotional.

>Don't worry, in 4 years a Republican will come along and cut taxes and add liquidity to the economy leading to regrowth
Too bad once Obama got Bush's disaster fixed he had the same GDP growth rate as Trump pre-Trump virus (after Trump virus ofc it went to Great Depression levels because Trump sat around with his thumb up his butt) w/o raising taxes or giving your friendly neighborhood megacorporations $trillions on a gold platter.

Too bad you don't know American history and that the greatest period of growth in the US occured in the 50's when the top tax rate was 90%. Know why? Corporations invest in expansion to offset some of those taxes in deductions. Know something else? Turns out the extra taxes could be used to develop the US infrastructure which is only fair since the corporations get the most benefit from it. Know something else? Trickle down is an abject failure which is why a Democrat always has to come in and spend 4 years cleaning up the economic mess Republicants leave behind from Hoover's Great Depression to now, the Orange Slime's Great Depression.

Re read his post. Any one that uses “mum” when referring to a mother is a Brit. Just like when they say bollocks, arse, defence, torch instead of flashlight. Why do Brits argue about US immigration policy? They exploited every colony they set up.

One good reason to never vote Democrat. Anyone who supports the Second Amendment and votes for a Democrat is out of touch with reality.

so you vote for the deathcult instead ?

Not that user but if you vote for an anti-gun candidate, you are not pro-gun.
>in before trump said this on twitter

>US occured in the 50's when the top tax rate was 90%
Because America was the only industrialized country on the planet that wasnt a bomb-crater, dipshit.

>Know something else? Trickle down is an abject failure
Know something else? There is no such thing as trickle down.

>Under his proposed legislation you would have to pay a $200 tax stamp and, if not, you would get in trouble IF you get caught.
So a tax on poor people, just like the O-care mandate

>Dems are satanic monsters that want to turn your children into slaves and slaughter the entire country, guns are a basic human right and evil communist ghosts live under your bed

It's no secret they are modeling their party after the CCP

I'm an Americunt and I use British words like mum, lad and arse just to make you redneck cracker inbreds seethe.

Do you think Jamal and Deshuan are going to fork over a nickle for their stamp? I’m in a Midwest college city and the vast majority of shooters caught are too young to legally own a handgun.

>I'm an Americunt and I use British words
Cunt being the operative word

I'm a Progressive who hunts with firearms and I support sensible gun control. There's a lot of Democrats and intelligent Republicans who are the same. In fact the majority of Americans support it. A smaller majority of Americans even support making possession or sale of assault rifles illegal as well. You're on the wrong side of history, gun nut. Go join a well regulated militia of mercenaries in swahililand where you can blow away women and children to your hearts content - the US doesn't want or need your "kind."

>I'm a Progressive who hunts with firearms and I support sensible gun control
Sure you do.

>I'm a Progressive who hunts with firearms and I support sensible gun control.
shut the fuck up and stop lying

>I'm a Progressive who hunts with firearms
That’s as ridiculous as a Catholic that supports abortion

Ok I can get the other people mocking him for the "Sensible gun control" bit but user are progressives not supposed to go hunting or something?

Progressives vs Conservative
Conservative chooses to go vegetarian, makes individual choice. Progressive chooses to go vegetarian, “everyone should be vegetarian, the meat industry is terrible and we need to ban meat processing”. Conservative decides to buy an electric car, does so. Progressive goes electric, “internal combustion engines are bad, they need to be outlawed”. Conservative decides not to be a gun owner, makes a personal decision, progressive, “guns are bad, no one needs a gun, we need to ban the public from having them. Only the government is responsible enough to have guns”. It’s like this one from a few years ago.
BERKELEY, Calif. - A self-proclaimed "vegan runner" from Berkeley, California received backlash on Saturday after asking neighbors to close their windows when cooking meat because the smells were 'overpowering and offensive.'
"always hard for me this time of year when the weather starts warming up."
"Several nights a week I'm out running around dinnertime and when people have their windows open I can smell what they are cooking," the request said. "I've noticed a sharp uptick recently in smells of folks cooking meat and it can be quite overpowering."
"Quite honestly the odor is offensive and I'm hoping our community can have some empathy for its #plantbased neighbors by closing their windows if they are cooking meat and only putting vegetables on their bbq," the runner added.
Conservatives just want to be left alone and have choices, it seems progressives want to dictate what one can or cannot do.
And the sensible gun control is based on Bloomberg’s common sense gun control. Which basically says if you don’t agree with these policies that infringe on Constitutional rights, you are lacking common sense.

"Yes, I've noticed registering and licensing vehicles results in widespread confiscations. The only reason vehicles are registered is so they can immediately be confiscated."

Funny thing is, that's exactly what happens. They charge you a recurring fee and tax for the privilege of owning a car, if you fail to comply then men with guns take you to jail and impound your car.

What do you want me to go to /k/ and post my .22 rifle, .223 rifle, 30.06 rifle, 12 gauge and 20 gauge? Will you promise to whack off to them? They are fine guns.

Is your .223 one of those scary ghost gun fully semiautomatic capable of firing a detachable 30 round clip in half a second? Kevin Deleon. One of the buffoons wanting to ban ars. These are the people progressive voters put into office.

What a long, rambling list of retarded strawmen. Not only are half of these ridiculous, hyperbolic strawmen, its also a false dichotomy. Conservatives absolutely believe in forcing people to do what they want - whether it be banning people who they disagree with culturally or religiously from having access to the same resources or institutions as them or banning people from doing things they morally disagree, like getting abortions. Also, the argument that a moral/ethical position is bad simply because you think it should be legislated for the general public is retarded. That's all law is - codified morality. You and me may have different opinions on the topic of whether or not its okay to murder or rape but its still illegal to do it because we as a society have deemed it damaging enough to legislate against it. I could poke more holes in your stupid argument but I don't think you'd have enough brain wrinkles to comprehend them. Conservatives DONT want to be left alone. They want control over our culture, economy and social norms. They've proven that time and time again.

>Conservatives DONT want to be left alone. They want control over our culture, economy and social norms. They've proven that time and time again.
I’ll give you another example. Most conservatives don’t give a flying fuck what two grown adults do in the privacy of their own home. The left has to make an over the top dramatic statement. You ever been to a gay pride parade? Would you take a child to it?
Conservatives are against people getting abortions because they feel it is against their religious and ethical beliefs. They are really against having no say so that they pay for them with their tax dollars.

>lists calibers instead of actual makes and models
hahahaha fucking nogunz

These people stick out more than glowies.
Absolutely unable to blend in with the mannerisms or speech of those they are attempting to Influence
Remember, the Left knows best, knows better than you, and aren't afraid to force you to do what they think is best

Even if you are, you have to appreciate the irony of a gun owner who votes for anti-gun politicians.
>B-but I'm not a single issue voter
You're also not pro-gun.

Gaslighting - the post!

No. I'm a hunter. Those penis substitutes are worthless for hunting. Bolt action - far more accurate and the only thing necessary for hunting.

I'm not on /k/ you whacko gun nuts, why would I list makes and models. Go try again to learn how to breakdown and clean your penis substitute. Oh, you failed again because you have the attention span of a 3 yo.

ok, retard

>Guiz I totally own guns. I'm so down with the 2A.
>Go try again to learn how to breakdown and clean your penis substitute.
kek

>Most conservatives don’t give a flying fuck what two grown adults do in the privacy of their own home.
They absolutely do. Conservatives never shut the fuck up about degeneracy and the degradation of the modern family and social cohesion. They advocate against things like allowing gay and trans people to adopt children - an activity that takes place in the privacy of two grown adults' homes. Additionally, this point is irrelevant. I don't want to have to keep my life and my behavior secreted in the privacy of my own home because living publicly makes conservatives uncomfortable. That's the whole contradictory, illogical conservative ethos - the insistence that everyone's free to do what they want so long as all the things they disagree with are hidden away from the public and done in secret.

>The left has to make an over the top dramatic statement.
And conservatives don't? You ever seen a Trump rally before? Lets be honest - you don't give a shit about dramatic statements. You just don't like it when people you disagree with do it.

>You ever been to a gay pride parade?
Yes.

>Would you take a child to it?
My child knows gay people exist. I wouldn't take a kid to most street fairs for many reasons that has nothing to do with people being gay.

>Conservatives are against people getting abortions because they feel it is against their religious and ethical beliefs.
So much so that they want to ban people who don't agree with their religious and ethical beliefs from doing it - completely debunking this asinine claim that conservatives advocate for leaving people alone. They don't.

>They are really against having no say so that they pay for them with their tax dollars.
I don't think tax dollars should be used for the purpose of satisfying each individual tax payer's moral convictions. That defeats the point of societal responsibility. We do it for the greater good. If it serves you but damages society then we ought to tell you to go fuck yourself.

The best thing is that hunting is not protected by the second amendment. You can't list makes and models because you don't own any and were too lazy to google any.
>I base my view of half the country around a vocal minority
>How dare anyone associate me with the vocal minority of my own party

This is a bad larp and you need to leave talking about guns to people who know what they are doing

>I base my view of half the country around a vocal minority
>How dare anyone associate me with the vocal minority of my own party

I have a hard time believing this is the best strawman you could come up with. Try again, user. This was pathetic.

>I base my view of half the country around a vocal minority
Conservatives who believe in the traditional family unit, are against abortion and the legitimacy of trans people are the vast, vast majority, user. This isn't even a controversial opinion. Based on polling data this is like a widely accepted and well known fact. Either you're genuinely so fucking dumb you have no idea what you're talking about or you're pretending like you're dumb to avoid reality.

Conservatives don’t like your degenerate crap because you have to do shit like March down the streets with giant dildos shoved up your ass while jacking each other off. And to you, that’s ok but you have a problem with someone wearing a God bless America shirt because you’re offended by that because you’re an atheist?

>They advocate against things like allowing gay and trans people to adopt children - an activity that takes place in the privacy of two grown adults' homes.
>2 adults plus a child
>I wonder what the issue is
It's not like there's been any recent news about 8 year olds being pressured to change genders when they can't even spell it. Oh hi Texas, how's the winter?

Spoiler alert but if your issue is 2 adults and a child I hate to inform you what happens when someone has children.

>I'm a Progressive who hunts with firearms and I support sensible gun control.
>What do you want me to go to /k/ and post my .22 rifle, .223 rifle, 30.06 rifle, 12 gauge and 20 gauge? Will you promise to whack off to them?
>Go try again to learn how to breakdown and clean your penis substitute.

You tried so hard and got so far. But in the end...

Nice try slick. You know damn well what I was implying. Here let me be specific and see you weasel your way out of this.
>an activity that takes place in the privacy of two grown adults' homes.
>an activity that also involves a child
>so NOT an activity that takes place only in the privacy of two grown adult's home.
If two grown adults want to stick explosive dildos up their asses I couldn't give a flying fuck. Involving children into your degenerate fetish is where I draw the line. See unlike you I believe there's still a chance that child can grow up to be a credit to society if they're not being forced to cut their dick off before they hit puberty.

Thousands of gay couples adopt every year without issue, just shut up and admit your scared of something you don't understand.

Hell, do you even have any idea how much shit actually goes into adopting? Adoptive parents have to basically undergo a full evaluation to make sure nothing will happen to their wards, the process can take literal years before the child is officially added to the household. If anything bads gonna happen to that kid you'll be DAMN sure the social workers will find that shit out beforehand.

Yeah that worked for these guys.
nydailynews.com/news/crime/gay-conn-couple-accused-rape-face-trial-article-1.1310010

>If I site a one example, that means it's the rule not the exception

>If two grown adults want to stick explosive dildos up their asses I couldn't give a flying fuck. Involving children into your degenerate fetish is where I draw the line.
So firstly, its already illegal to sexually abuse your child. Secondly, there is zero evidence to suggest that children of gay or trans parents produce children with any more negative outcomes than straight parents so basically what you're advocating for is limiting the rights of other people to adopt and start families because you personally disagree with their completely legal lifestyle choices. This is a classic conservative "feels" argument. You've managed, in your own words, to completely validate my argument that conservative absolutely want to limit the personal rights of people they disagree with and frequently, vocally, advocate for the opposite position of leaving people alone.

>See unlike you I believe there's still a chance that child can grow up to be a credit to society if they're not being forced to cut their dick off before they hit puberty.
Children aren't undergoing sexual reassignment surgery. On top of having no factual basis to your argument now you're making shit up that doesn't happen to justify your bad argument.

>implying I only have one example
This shit is so prevalent that Netflix and HBO have shows for it. Look up "Transhood" documentary (Seriously don't do this if you're a normal person).

If I post an article about a straight couple raping their child could we start talking about the efficacy of banning straight people from adopting children?

>Secondly, there is zero evidence to suggest that children of gay or trans parents produce children with any more negative outcomes than straight parents
I'm looking at the evidence right now. youtube.com/watch?v=TxKAI3gIVRU

You'll pull up your dozen cherry picked examples from over the last 20 years and then proceed to ignore the thousands that have no issues.

Do you know what survivorship bias is btw?

The fact that you think this video is evidence says pretty much everything I need to know about your intelligence level. Its beyond unsurprising that YouTube videos are your main source for statistical analysis.

Yeah, again, I don't get my data from cable entertainment. I'm talking about actual statistics. Do you have real statistics or is the movie you saw on HBO the best you got?

>Do you know what survivorship bias is btw?
About 40%?

Have it been possible for trans to adopt for 20 years?

You do the same thing for gun control.

2000? What would you need 1400 for? Getting Trump convicted is more important than your 800 dollar check

$2000?, we told you $1400 goyem. The $600 better be enough for you because you aren't getting that $20.00 we promised you.

my lawyer will be in contact about that 2000 in student debt that you owe

It's being held up by repukelicants like always unless it's a mere $trillions to megacorporations then they all vote full speed ahead!

They are each a wing of the same bird. The Dems aren’t shy from taking and giving to mega corporations now.

>Anyone who votes for a Democrat is out of touch with reality.
This is true.
Also true: Anyone who votes for a Republican is out of touch with reality.
"Just throwing your vote away" has become the only reasonable option.

>You do the same thing for gun control
They absolutely do. I emailed Bloomberg’s every town for gun safety last year when they were trying to ban ARs in VA. I asked how they differentiate between a firearm being used to stop a rape, robbery, car jacking etc., and two gang bangers shooting it out over a drug deal. They count each as equal. They ignore the fact that actual crime goes down when the muggers, robbers, carjackers find out that they have a good chance of getting shot. The left cherry picks these instances and says oh my, gun crime is up 500% in the last 10 years. They fail to say that guns stopped, or the felon got shop while assaulting another. Remember that church shooting in TX? When the good guy shot the bad guy, they chalked it up to just anther case of gun violence.

Ask Moscow Mitch and the rest of the Republicants, bootlicker. I already got my $600 and since I was educated in a blue State I know $1400 added to it equals $2000. Biden will steamroll it through over the Republicants with reconciliation if they force him to.

what was it that Putin was saying years ago about American citizens should be keeping their arms in case the government start something on them

remember weapons are never illegal, just undocumented
americanactionnews.com/politics/2021/02/17/biden-to-ban-use-of-term-illegal-alien-because-its-not-inclusive-enough/

>I already got my $600 and since I was educated in a blue State I know $1400 added to it equals $2000
Debunked damage control.

$200 was was explicitly promised by Biden. The $2000 was entirely separate from the $600 and was literally conditional on Georgia voters turning the state blue. Biden said this verbatim.

He tried to compromise with Republicants but even $1400 is too much for them since it's not $trillions to your friendly neighborhood megacorporations. Never fear, they'll be staring down the steam roller in the near future. He's just building political capital for those Dems running for Congress in 2022 where they can clearly show Republicants don't support the working middle class. Smart, politically savvy move, Biden is no fool.

>He tried to compromise with Republicants but
There's no butts. He lied, you believed it, now you want to blame Republicans because you're an NPC.

>Smart, politically savvy move, Biden is no fool.
Lmao, cope

Fuck off britard

Limbaugh is dead you homo

Suck my dick retard

They want a blanket ban on all firearms. That has always been the goal.

>Lmao, cope
You'll be coping as your dreams of taking back the Senate and House are dashed as the Democrats hammer over and over again to the middle class voters that the Republicants attempted to block their stimulus check because they only support giving $trillions to megacorporations. Your tears will be sweeter than they are even now, lol!

Nope, that's your rightwing echo chambers and the Orange Fool talking who equate all Dems to the @ 2% of the population who are female vegans. Your boogeyman has no wings, paranoiac.

user I don't believe in any of that shit. It's just obviously what they want, both democrats and republicans. I've already accepted that guns will be completely illegal in most countries, including America, 50 years from now. Gun laws always get stricter, they never get relaxed or repealed.

Based

This isn’t far off, the wealthy elite want a blanket ban on firearms for the public. The party connected will always be given access, as will their private security services. They don’t necessarily want to ban firearms, they want to ban them from you. Try to get a carry permit in NYFC, or parts of Cali. The Sherrif of the county Apple is hq’d just got caught in a bribe to give Apple’s corporate security ccw permits. Look at Mike Bloomberg, runs every town for gun safety, wants to ban guns, yet travels with bodyguards carrying fully automatic H&K sub machine guns. Another case of one set of laws for thee, another set of rules for me.