Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

We know now the woman had purchased seven guns, all purchased legally. Some of those guns were used to slaughter innocents. Between this woman, Uvalde, and the Crumbley's facilitating the Michigan shooting, when are Republicans going to do something about gun violence?

---

Obviously we need bigger stickers designating schools as gun free zone, or perhaps a ‘glasses for killers’ program so they can read the sign? I don’t know why these things keep happening in places where the intended victims are totally defenseless.

Red flag laws means a neighbor reports on someone else to the government, and then the government can seize firearms first without any burden of proof or trial in which the suspected person has an opportunity to answer the charges. I don’t see a way that can be implemented with due process as it wouldn’t be a red flag law any longer.

Our government should not be allowed to simply take someone’s property, without a warrant or being able to answer charges of a crime, simply because someone reported them to authorities. That is some USSR level KGB shit. Can you imagine how often someone like Seran would call the FBI to report on suspicious behavior simply because he doesn’t like them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOL BRIELUS

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Tie ownership to people who would be eligible for service. No criminals, mental health clearance(no mentally ill can own), basic citizenship/loyalty test (no radicalists), no drug use.

People who already own can be grandfathered in (no feasible way to just "seize" firearms ex post facto)

Harsher penalties for use in commission of crime and unlawful possession.

Red flag laws but with right to counsel, high burden of proof, short turn around times to ensure due process

SRO/community policing funding

Have to start conversation somewhere and come off hard positions and negotiate a solution my gemstone friends

Probably nothing will happen bc default position of ban assault rifles/infringing my rights will dominate media and talking heads

---

"shall not be infringed"

Makes a list of ways to infringe.

"loyalty test"

So, if you were not loyal to King George you couldn't own a weapon?

"Red flag laws but with right to counsel"

Basically, if you're poor you will never own a gun.

There's no conversation that can be had with people that want to disarm you if you don't pledge loyalty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet

Red flag laws means a neighbor reports on someone else to the government, and then the government can seize firearms first without any burden of proof or trial in which the suspected person has an opportunity to answer the charges. I don’t see a way that can be implemented with due process as it wouldn’t be a red flag law any longer.

Our government should not be allowed to simply take someone’s property, without a warrant or being able to answer charges of a crime, simply because someone reported them to authorities. That is some USSR level KGB shit. Can you imagine how often someone like Seran would call the FBI to report on suspicious behavior simply because he doesn’t like them?

---

We have already experienced how well this type of law works in the family courts. It's turned into a de facto police force for females against males, innocents be damned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet

Obviously we need bigger stickers designating schools as gun free zone, or perhaps a ‘glasses for killers’ program so they can read the sign? I don’t know why these things keep happening in places where the intended victims are totally defenseless.

---

They're also happening in places where people aren't totally defenseless, as in Uvalde. Armed police officer could have stopped it. The police officers who waited outside for almost an hour could have stopped it. You're trying to equate having guns with protecting everyone else from guns and that is a fallacy. Having a gun /may/ protect you, but it doesn't do anything for those around you. Particularly if you decide to go crazy and shoot up your work or school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

They're also happening in places where people aren't totally defenseless, as in Uvalde. Armed police officer could have stopped it. The police officers who waited outside for almost an hour could have stopped it. You're trying to equate having guns with protecting everyone else from guns and that is a fallacy. Having a gun /may/ protect you, but it doesn't do anything for those around you. Particularly if you decide to go crazy and shoot up your work or school.

---

So we should abandon everything that could hurt a person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

They're also happening in places where people aren't totally defenseless, as in Uvalde. Armed police officer could have stopped it. The police officers who waited outside for almost an hour could have stopped it. You're trying to equate having guns with protecting everyone else from guns and that is a fallacy. Having a gun /may/ protect you, but it doesn't do anything for those around you. Particularly if you decide to go crazy and shoot up your work or school.

---

I have the solution.

All those that want to confiscate guns are the ones that have to confiscate the guns.

https://media2.giphy.com/media/zhMwS...=200w.gif&ct=g

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

I have the solution.

All those that want to confiscate guns are the ones that have to confiscate the guns.

---

The rule of law only applies to people without wealth to overcome it, or the guns to overwhelm it. That really ought to be the slogan of the Republican party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

The rule of law only applies to people without wealth to overcome it, or the guns to overwhelm it. That really ought to be the slogan of the Republican party.

---

The rule of law is the 2nd amendment.

If the wealthy are escaping the justice system, why do you want to disarm the people?

The vast majority of people are not giving up their guns. You and your ilk should come and get them, unarmed and by yourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

They're also happening in places where people aren't totally defenseless, as in Uvalde. Armed police officer could have stopped it. The police officers who waited outside for almost an hour could have stopped it. You're trying to equate having guns with protecting everyone else from guns and that is a fallacy. Having a gun /may/ protect you, but it doesn't do anything for those around you. Particularly if you decide to go crazy and shoot up your work or school.

---

And your fucking piece of shit Leftist argument for trying to force people to take a vaccine was "If it saves one life, it's worth it." Except in this case, we KNOW firearm ownership saves lives and yet you are arguing against it. Fuck off you ghoulish piece of shit. You couldn't even wait for the bodies to be cold before trying to capitalize on the tragedy.