Search results

Gonna be super cool when we all just die of preventable diseases again.

She happens to be right, but I’m also having a hard time accepting some of the rather adamantly anti-gun left wade into the 2A argument instead of just focusing on use of lethal force. If you think we need tight gun control, it seems incongruent to defend him bringing a gun to a protest.

Of all the stupid ways the right has responded to the protests across the country, the “how could they have food or supplies if it isn’t all a fake, paid protest” argument has to be the dumbest.

If this were Joe Biden’s Administration going on national television to say this about a person legally carrying, I think the right would be talking about secession right now.

@thethe If we decided to peacefully maintain society by forcibly removing all Muslims from the country, would you object. How about trans people or gay people? Or socialists?

I’d think you would favor more legislative and executive restraint, not less/equal.

I think there are plausible motivations that run from overzealously applying statutes designed to protect those that commit crimes while not perfectly sane to judicial activism designed to reduce incarceration all the way to corruption/kickbacks from mental health facilities. I don’t think there...

Just not when it’s at the federal level apparently.

Oh

Won’t be pretty in this case meaning infringing on the right to bear arms. We can do gun control for deportations but not for school shootings or 40,000+ annual firearm-related deaths? I’m not an anti-2A guy to begin with, but I don’t know how I can square this logic.

The right is just doing “it’s the guns” now, but the only person who died is the citizen with the gun.

Back in the day we used to celebrate the fact that the United States Constitution protected us from this outcome.

Yet there remains baseline tariffs for countries actively playing ball with us.

I genuinely don’t, because I’ve seen them do it. If you consider being argumentative or filming an officer to be obstruction of justice that must be met with physical violence by the officer, then I suppose you wouldn’t see it as assault.

Unless it’s for COVID or January 6th or a Democrat law.

The fact that people in red states will happily cheer on militarized police forces assaulting and killing Americans in order to enforce immigration laws from the comfort of their rural communities is another excellent example.

I guess we’ll never know since they instead turned him into Swiss cheese.

Then the government could simply stop any protest they wish by beginning to pepper spray people.

I dunno, this actually seems like a question to ask conservatives before sending militarized police forces to big cities to “save” them. A whole lot of people have reasons for opposing mass deportations that aren’t nefarious at all: they just happen to like their fucking neighbors and don’t want...

Yes, the federal government isn’t doing crazy shit like sending in 3,000 officers to other cities.