Godstud wrote:The discussion is not about illegal immigration.
Law is about legality and illegality and thus has broad scope. People with your political persuasion rely on the Roman maxim that the law has been obeyed. However, the opposite of the Roman maxim is also true. The law has been disobeyed without consequence.
Godstud wrote:More deflection
It's not deflection. Purchasing an assault rifle is illegal in California. That did not stop the San Bernardino shooters. You wax on as though you were sophisticated--musing that a city-wide ban isn't sufficient. Well, California is a nation-state that is part of the US federation. As a state, it is larger than many nations such as the UK, Germany, Japan, Poland or South Korea. Yet, banning assault rifles did nothing to prevent a couple of emigres from procuring AR-15s and going on the largest mass shooting spree since Sandy Hook. Obama called for a ban on sales to people on "no-fly" lists in spite of the fact that he knew as a constitutional law professor that such a ban is unconstitutional, because it violates due process.
Government watch lists are not enough. The government has to enforce the law, and then apply restrictions. Yet, the people who are most against law enforcement are the ones calling for gun bans. If they get enforced, the people most likely to face incarceration are black--something that would lead to more public outcry.
Godstud wrote:Note: No one is supporting illegal immigration, and you'd have to me a brain-dead moron to think that, and try to use it as an argument about gun control.
About 1/3rd of the US population evidently does. They do not care about enforcing border laws, because they believe in an end to the nation state. In fact, our governor just pardoned the violations of state law of 6 people facing deportation. A mayor not too far from where I lived tipped off a bunch of illegal immigrants about a pending ICE raid. If that isn't illegal, then it won't be illegal for gun loving states to thwart federal gun control enforcement too.
Godstud wrote:Laws, when enforced {sic} work.
Bwahahahaa! Sure they do. The shooter was an uncharged felon. Why was he uncharged? Obama didn't like seeing a school-to-prison path for young violent criminals. The left believes it can "educate the hate away." It didn't matter that the FBI puts out "see something, say something." The shooter said he was going to be a mass shooter online. The FBI did nothing. It's easy to trace an IP address--just ask the admins on this board, as they log all of our IP addresses. Yet, the FBI did absolutely jack shit. The Sheriff's office had been called to the shooters residence 30+ times, and they did jack shit. The school had a Sheriff's deputy on scene--evidently not to protect the students, but a place to put a non-performing officer without firing him, because he was black--and he took no action to stop the shooter. More deputies arrived, and they stood put as people were getting shot. I'm sure you are just welling with pride about the inaction of law enforcement.
The history of the failure of law enforcement is significant. The government wanted to fight the crystal meth trade, so they banned sale of mass quantities of the key ingredients without a license and stated purpose. Then, they banned the mass sale of OTC drugs like nasal decongestants that could be used to manufacture crystal methamphetamine. What happened? Did the law solve that problem? No. It just pushed it South of the border. Now crystal meth is manufactured in Mexico and brought over the US-Mexico border, where your beloved law enforcement turns a blind eye because they want to end the nation state, exploit Hispanic labor, and are perfectly fine with turning a blind eye on the drug trade to furnish that end.
What makes you think we gun lovers won't just take a page out of the Democrats book and simply refuse to cooperate with Federal gun control enforcement, just like the Democrats who won't cooperate with illegal aliens or federal bans on marijuana trade?
Godstud wrote:Yes, he is also an uncaring, melodramatic bigot, who loves guns more than people, just like you...
Who is reduced to
ad hominem attacks in this sentence?
Godstud wrote:You guys, @One Degree, @Hong Wu and @blackjack21 , think this whole discussion is about your precious guns getting taken away as some perceived punishment.
I have two registered "assault weapons" that are perfectly legal in most states in the United States, but I would be guilty of a crime if I sold them to someone in California. That law is based on the commerce clause, not the second amendment. I own the guns and owned them before this absurd bit of regulation in California that does nothing except put more black people in jail. You know... the ones Hillary Clinton dubs "super predators."
Godstud wrote:You are trying to blame the schools for what happened, and divert attention away from the gun control issue.
Gun control doesn't work. The shooter said plainly online that he intended to become a mass shooter. What did the FBI do? Nothing. "We can't identify who he is, even though he used his real name and the site logs his IP address and we could get that, trace it back to the ISP, pull their logs and identify him within about 30 minutes. There's nothing we can do!" Fuck me running.
Do you people really think we're going to fall for this bullshit? The same government does nothing about mental health issues, which are a problem in almost every single mass shooting incident. We've got all sorts of "don't haze the transgenders" shit out there. Yet, there was plenty of hazing of the Parkland shooter, the Columbine shooters (who were subject to the assault weapons ban in the 1990s, which did nothing), the Sandy Hook shooter, etc.
You guys don't want to deal with mental health issues, because you know that people who believe in communism are mentally ill.
Horror on streets of Germany: State of emergency declared as 80 men brawl with MACHETESSee? The problem here isn't flooding Germany with refugees who don't have marketable skills, don't speak the language, don't share ideals like equality for women or the democratic vote. The problem is a lack of machete control laws.
Godstud wrote:The shootings have nothing to do with school policy on bullying(which is already heavily enforced).
Who was punished for hazing the shooter? He was kicked out of school, but who else? No. We cannot have middle class white kids punished for bad behavior. That is not the purpose of the rules.
Godstud wrote:Why do you think that stopping kids from getting guns means that you can't have your dick extension?
People with your political ideology wanted to stop the Vietnam War by getting more young people to vote, so they lowered the age of majority from 21 to 18. So the shooter was within his legal rights to purchase a guns, because even though he had the rights of an adult the law deliberately elected not to enforce it against him for making terroristic threats, because they were impossibly lazy and he was such a precious little baby that using the law against him would be really super duper mean.
Godstud wrote:It call{sic} comes back to protecting a right to kill other Americans if you choose? How fucking stupid is that?
It's not as stupid as not editing your grammar before calling someone stupid. People can kill you without a gun. Just ask the guy who killed a bunch of people in NYC with a rented truck. He didn't even buy the truck. He rented it.
ingliz wrote:Over the past quarter-century, on average about 10 students are slain in school shootings annually.
Not counting school-age blacks and Hispanics who kill each other outside of school routinely...
Godstud wrote:Drugs that are dangerous, and can cause overdoses ARE illegal. You picked a bad example.
Yeah One Degree! That's a bad example, because crystal meth and heroin are illegal. Laws, when enforced, work. So there is no problem with heroin deaths or crystal meth epidemics. Once the government makes something illegal, everyone just automatically obeys the law and enforces it too. It works just like magic.
Godstud wrote:There is mountains{sic} of evidence supporting this.
Godstud wrote:It doesn't matter if you have an AR-15, since the police and military will always have your horribly outgunned.
The American people out gun the US military by orders of magnitude. The US military has 1.2M people under arms. The American people have over 100M guns. The US military would not stand a chance against the American people, and most of them would likely defect to the people and leave the government in the lurch if the government tried to make war on the people.
Godstud wrote:See Tanks.
Oooh. That's super scary to infantry soldiers.
Try artillery. Tanks are effective against other vehicles--armored or otherwise. That's why they were essentially useless in Iraq after the Iraqi army fell--except as protection against IEDs. That's why they've played almost no role in Afghanistan.
Godstud wrote:Guns do not guarantee democracy.
Democracy doesn't guarantee democracy, as the deep state does whatever the fuck it wants anyway.
Godstud wrote:Guns are not a basic human right.
In America, they are.
Godstud wrote:Extremely few people on earth would agree with this faulty premise.
We don't require your agreement.
Godstud wrote:Guns in the home are no defense against foreign invasion, especially not in this era.
Yeah, then why do invading armies make it a priority to disarm the citizenry as their first measure?
Godstud wrote:Foreign policy, allies, diplomacy, etc. determine how safe any country is.
Sure. The utterances of John Kerry will make us safe. Anti-terrorism policy kept us safe on 9/11.
Godstud wrote:Canada doesn't have oodles of guns for home defense, and I can assure you, Canadians do not fear foreign invasion.
Countries that don't fear invasion don't last long. Canada has been transformed into a multi-cultural shit hole just like the UK, France and Germany without so much as a shot fired.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden