President Trump

Yup. It is extremely worrying. The only
chink of light that I see is: democrats win both legislative bodies and the White House, pass very strong gun legislation. Just a small start.
Problem with that is in places that have very strong guns law happen to have rampant gun crime. Go figure.

As a side bar some mope tried to carjack judge sotomayors security details vehicle. He got shot for his trouble. Ironically, the judge is a strong advocate of gun control ie anti gun in citizens hands. Yet another case of rules for me but not for thee.

Any politician/celebrity who advocates banning guns should not be able to have any and that goes for their security detail as well.
 
Oh dear, so now you're a Fascist

For what, for accepting that free speech has legal limitations? Because it does. if maffia Don orders someone to be shot and its on tape he was deffinatly free to make that speech and he deffinatly is going to jail for it. The same applies to any Amircan genneral who orally passes nuclear codes to the Chinese i imagine. There are always points where words can justifiably wind you down in jail or convicted which is not necessarily incompatible with having free speech for certain political purposes. But the way you'd like to frame it i guess is that everyone who recognizes such potential consequences and limitations to what you can say is hence a facist ... because it would justify your dear orange in chief say whatever he wants even if it should have legal consequences and yet get away with it, aka to facilitate him the right to break the law when likely the would cry murder and blood over the least perceived error by their political opponents, just like many of the orange man supporters would not mind making him dictator even by their very words....

Just more gaslighting narratives that are complete BS when you look into it with a more nuanced and educated view, but which you can make shallow as to function for the purpose of political denunciation. And everyone who gets that, looks down on you for even trying that low brow nonsense.

Because your not really looking for truth, your only looking at ways to discredit your opponent as a means to look better for it.
 
Last edited:
second person in 2 days telling me to ‘look it up myself’ instead of providing it themselves to back up what they’ve said. Stop embarrassing yourself PhPhilpot.
I said look it up because i can't be arsed with the bollocks that you guys talk whilst i go fetch you Internet links for proof. That you then dismiss as fake news.
It's not discussion. It's a closed conversation with you guys.

(At least, I think it was you?!)
 
No, I just don’t believe causing unrest and harm to the world is a good thing.
Is that what a fascist is?
You need to understand that all rights have limits, they are not unfettered. The limit is where the exercise of a right impinges on the rights of others. Thus stating that free speech enables the creation of harm is just not accurate.
 
Problem with that is in places that have very strong guns law happen to have rampant gun crime. Go figure.

As a side bar some mope tried to carjack judge sotomayors security details vehicle. He got shot for his trouble. Ironically, the judge is a strong advocate of gun control ie anti gun in citizens hands. Yet another case of rules for me but not for thee.

Any politician/celebrity who advocates banning guns should not be able to have any and that goes for their security detail as well.
Your first sentence is nonsense. Britain for example has draconian gun laws and hardly any gun crime; it is largely limited to drug gang rivalry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PPT
It’s a strange take isn’t it.
Me being mentally unhinged because I think a man who has a list as long as the Great Wall of China of wrongdoings and corruption is a a bit of a ****.
It's fucking bizarre mate. He's a proper wrong 'un and a narcissist at the extreme end of the spectrum. He's got no redeeming features whatsoever and being an overt narcissist rather than a covert narcissist means his cuntishness is right there on show for all the world to see. The kind of **** that no-one would want to hang around with, yet for some reason he's got an army of supporters blowing smoke up his arse.
 
Problem with that is in places that have very strong guns law happen to have rampant gun crime. Go figure.

This is demonstrably untrue. Here are several highly reputable reviews of per capita gun violence by state. Per capita rates should be used as it helps to normalise data, given the most crime of any kind is going to occur where there are the most people, so you can’t base comparisons on nominal rates of crime; i.e. New York is going to have many times the total instances of gun violence than Wyoming because New York City alone has 13x the number of people than the entire state of Wyoming.

The states with very strong gun laws generally have to lowest per capita rates of gun violence. The states with very weak gun laws generally have the highest per capita rates of gun violence. There are a few exceptions, but nonpartisan researchers have attributed relatively higher rates of gun violence in those few states with strict gun laws to gun trafficking (illegal activity, which ironically often starts with legal gun purchases in states with week gun laws) and organised crime (which is aided by state-by-state gun laws, rather than federal-level laws, allowing bad actors to source guns from states where they are easy to acquire and hold, often en masse).




Additionally, states (and countries) that have the highest rates of gun ownership also generally—and unsurprisingly—have the highest rates of gun violence. Here is a rundown of the phenomenon from an Ammo supplier (which is fairly accurate, unfortunately)!


As a side bar some mope tried to carjack judge sotomayors security details vehicle. He got shot for his trouble. Ironically, the judge is a strong advocate of gun control ie anti gun in citizens hands. Yet another case of rules for me but not for thee.

Any politician/celebrity who advocates banning guns should not be able to have any and that goes for their security detail as well.

That incident actually highlights the need for stronger nationwide gun laws, as the person who shot the carjacker (who was an untrained civilian) was part of Sotomayer’s security detail (trained member of security/law enforcement). Even the federal gun laws that the most progressive Democracts want to pass would not restrict gun possession by trained members of law enforcement, government security, or military personal engaged in official duties (unless they have been disqualified due to illegal activity in the course of their duties or private life, like in cases of convictions for domestic violence or instances of gun crime).

It is not a case of “rules for me but not for thee”—Sotomayor and other progressive Democrats support strong gun laws for civilians that have no need to own or use a gun as they are not a member of a “well-(state)regulated militia”.

Perhaps if the US had implemented stronger federal gun laws two decades ago, the attempted assassination of Trump would not have occurred.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top