Why do USA liberal and conservatives party seem to share the same cognitive dissonances? For instance, liberals think you can ban guns, but you cant ban people. Conservatives think you cant ban guns, but you can ban people.
>both of these positions are retarded, right?
The redpill is a couter-culture bluepill. Whats the real redpill?
Other urls found in this thread:
law.cornell.edu
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>implying you can't ban people
The United States government has banned specific groups of people who posed a danger to the general public throughout its history and there are laws on the books that give the POTUS the unilateral authority to do just that.
Guns can ban people really quickly, Cletus. Our comfortable modern life may have made you forget that but in times, you'll see.
Your talking about objects and individuals, to which the same actionable policies would not reasonably apply. You're oversimplifying to a logical and realistic fault.
Faggot.
The left needs the people with guns. The right needs the left's distrust of the corporations. The two party system is designed to keep both sides fighting each other. That way both sides don't cooperate to take down the real enemies threatening America.
But thats actually not true. The wapanese were interned. Not banned. And it was found to be against the law
So are you saying people are easier or harder to ban than guns?
Guns can't shoot themselves.
How the fuck do I know more about US history than you, you troglodyte moron?
Incoming immigration from foreign threats is banned, not already legal US citizens.
What was unlawful and inconstitutional was interning Japanese US citizens.
Guns are protected under the constitution
Immigration from anywhere by anyone at any time is not.
Real redpill? You're a jew.
Are you serious right now?
Honestly, liberals need to stop talking about gun control. Talking about control could lead towards gun owners becoming radicalized and going on mass shooting sprees.
It's the same reason Malala Yousafzai gave when she said "The more you speak about Islam and against all Muslims, the more terrorists we create."
So for the sake of moderate gun owners everywhere, we need to stop speaking out against the NRA and we must stop using the term "gun control." Remember, gun owners are a people of peace and should not be defined or discriminated against due to the actions of a few radicals. #NotAllGunOwners.
>how do I know more about US history than you
You dont. The law for the chinese was only for laborers. Shop owners, etc, could still enter if they were chinese
Considering one is a constitutionally protected right and the other is just regulating the influx of undesirables into our country, I'd say the ban on immigration from terrorist hotbeds is easier than banning all guns.
But you're intentionally misinterpreting the argument because you're a Correct the Record shill so I don't expect this to make sense to you in your following posts.
Everyone knows that the only gun violence comes from basketball americans. and mudslimes are on the rise. Our founding fathers gave us the right to arm ourselves.
The real redpill is that life isn't black and white. It's ignorant to focus on a singular variable while not giving other variables their due attention. You gave a really good example OP.
It's not necessarily the people that needed banned, it's their religion. Islam is trash. AND AT THE SAME TIME there NEEDS to be more strict gun regulations. Stricter background checks. Background checks of associated close friends and family too. It shouldn't be so easy for anyone to get a gun, that's just a humane fact. But guns are necessary for so many real reasons, so we absolutely shouldn't ban them outright. Plus tens of millions of people are ALREADY gun owners soooo...
Islam is a different story. Islam is a conquerors ideology and religion. It's not peaceful, it's domineering and intolerant to those who do not submit. Guns don't brain wash people, but they certainly can defend against brainwashed people.
In this situation, people are easier to ban. There's a legal precedent for it and no constitutional amendment explicitly stating it can't happen, which is more than can be said about guns.
banning certain groups of people is a constitutional power granted to the executive branch
banning guns is specifically mentioned to NOT be legal
It's legal to ban people from entering the United States and illegal to ban ownership of firearms in the United States.
Pretty simple.
Sauce
Also nice full house.
not taking guns away from citizens, everything except that.
You are a fucking retard. Please stop posting.
>there needs to be more regulations
stopped reading
back to plebbit
thicc
Also SHALL NOT BE INFRANGED
The thing is, your actually not completely wrong. I think the anti gun rhetoric is a small slice of the pie. The other aspects are probably extended virginity in a hypersexualized area, and being told your "privilege," when in reality, your still eating tendies in your moms basement
>implying you can't ban people
Nobody here is a cuckservative. Go back to whatever shithole you came from, newfaggot.
You can ban both guns and people, those are both very possible things. Banning Muslims would be easy to do and would have less costs than not banning them. Banning guns would have more costs than more costs than not banning them.
You're an idiot, stop trying to act like you know what you're talking about. Look at law.cornell.edu
>correct the record shill
kek. Whatever fits your narrative
Sounds fair. As an atheist, I dont understand why all the faggots are rushing to defend any religion--let alone islam
I actually disagree. I think they are both equally impossible to ban
>executive can ban groups of people
Can you reference some times its been done? Everything I've found so far makes your type of poster seem like your reaaaaaaally stretching the truth
Thanks
You are a fucking retard. Please stop posting.
Islam
Anarchists were BANNED from entering the US for 72 years until 1990.
Banning certain immigration for a time is entirely easier than banning guns. One will result in protests while the other will mean actual war.
What fits my narrative is you answering the fucking points I made in my post.
So since no one here is a conservative, we cant talk about them? Why so defensive all of a sudden?
>the bans were effective
Just like Australias gun ban, right?
So what do you suggest we do, if both positions are "shared cognitive dissonances"?
Just stop.
>8 USC §1182
>“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
Obama himself has used it.
That's called false equivalency.
A gun on its own is harmless.
People on their own are not harmless.
Wow. I'm sure all the anarchists checked "anarchist" and followed the rules (like we know anarchists do) and got in the country just fine
What point? You think the bans worked?
Shh. More butts.
>liberals think you can ban guns
The rightwing conservatives are planting the extreme false narrative that liberals want to ban ALL guns. We can ban assault rifles.
>Conservatives think you cant ban guns, but you can ban people
They love Trump for his vicious minority hate. They salivate when they hear the dog whistle.
I'm not talking about guns you fucking moron. I'm talking about immigration. And yes, Jimmy Carter's efforts to prevent Iranian citizens from entering the United States WAS effective.
>just stop
Okay, Hilary, Ill delete this account
>laws
And did it totally worked, and we have no asians or anarchists or mexicans, right?
You are conflating passing a law with actually doing something. Common mistake, but I usually expect that one from liberals, no Sup Forums
The point where I said banning certain groups of undesirables from entering our country is easier than infringing on US citizen's Constitutionally guaranteed natural born rights. Now stop purposely being obtuse.
LOW TEST
Shh. Only ass now
assault rifles are already basically banned though?
He didn't just prevent Iranian citizens from entering. He prevented any Shi'ite Muslims from entering and required a register of all Shi'ites already in the USA.
But that's okay because he was a Democrat and therefore above criticism.
Im not being obtuse. Sure, the ban on immigration may use less political capital to create. But that doesn't mean it worked...
nah fuck off, all military weapons are for the public.
Are you really this dense? If they checked the box, they committed perjury, since it's signed under oath. That gives grounds to immediately detain and deport them.
>What point? You think the bans worked?
I see you're now accepting the fact they actually existed. Baby steps.
Mah nigga, "assault weapons" are already banned. Its illegal to produce or own a firearm for private use in the US that can fire fully automatic or be modified to do so
Liberal definition of "assault rifle" is just a tacticool .223 plinking gun
I was simply correcting the ignorance you predicated this thread upon. Have a nice day. :)
fuck off with these low T skelly girls, here's a real woman
There is no constitutional amendment protecting foreign people's rights to enter our country.
There is a constitutional right to protect citizens gun rights.
Congrats on being too stupid to see the difference.
>they committed perjury
Is there a box to check for committing perjury too, or are you really that "dense"
>rifles are responsible for less than 1% of gun homicides
>WE MUST BAN THEM
You know what, you changed my mind. I see that you can now ban both guns and people easily, and that governments laws work.
Thank you so much
Let's do both. Ban guns, ban people, and give the world an ultimatum: Unconditional surrender or the apocalypse.
100% OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT ARE CRIMINALS
>But that doesn't mean it worked...
This wasn't the topic of discussion. What was the topic of discussion is that banning groups of undesirables from entering our country will be easier than banning guns, which you admitted here:
>Sure, the ban on immigration may use less political capital to create.
Now go away. Your thread is shit.
>Its illegal to produce or own a firearm for private use in the US that can fire fully automatic or be modified to do so
This is false. You just need a license to own one and like $20 grand and a willing seller who has an automatic weapon made before 1986.
Okay but both "ISIS" shooters were US born
How do we ban them
>mfw you guys
The real redpill is anti-Internet.
The whole Internet needs to be shut down as it's the biggest public health crisis in existence right now.
Sup Forums and internet anonymity is degenerate by nature, the Internet needs to either be removed from private use, or controlled with real identity just like public life. It allows degeneracy without shaming. This is the root of most modern problems.
>He prevented any Shi'ite Muslims from entering and required a register of all Shi'ites already in the USA
Wow, didn't even know that. This is considered a minor footnote in the progressive legacy of Jimmy Carter, if progressives even know about it at all. The hypocrisy of the left is painful.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>implying objects are the problem no the people pulling the trigger.
Here you go fucking up the argument again. It isn't banning muslims. It's banning immigration from terrorist hotbeds. Stop being obtuse.
Guns don't need to eat or drink or breathe or shit, people do.
That makes it far easier to hide a gun than a person.
You kill them dummy!
Because it's easy to hide a gun, but rather hard to hide a human bean.
False dichotemy, gun rights are a constitutional right. Immigration and massive welfare and catering to terrorists and Mexican nationals is not.
The left's groups want to reduce constititional rights in many forms. The second amendment is just one of them.
We are consistent with our nation's policies and laws the left wants to sacrifice those things to make us third world so that they can feel good for being egalitarian.
never, death befo0re disarm.
If people like the ones here didn't obsess over Internet "Freedom" this guy would have been stopped a long time ago. His dad would have been found posting radical stuff
You're gross.
but not t.v right?
Easy. Don't let his immigrant parents in.
The ban on immigration *uses less political capital to create the law.* That=/=easier
>go away
Yes Hilary
ok you little turd. It seems to me that you dont understand what our constitution is. Our constitution is based in the basis of Classical Liberalism, in which you have three basic rights that belong to you and no one can remove them from you: 1st The Right to Life, 2nd The Right of Property, And the 3rd the Right of Liberty. The right to bear arms is to protect all of the 3 basic Human Rights that people like to preach so much, and if people wants to destroy your basic principles, you have the absolute right to defend them and no one will question you. If Muslims are a threat to our basic Human Rights, you must ban them because once your rights are removed, you will never get them back.
The Islamist terrorist who have carried out attacks in the U.S. have almost always been the children of immigrants from the same countries that Trump wishes to ban immigration from. This is a phenomena found throughout Western countries with large Muslim populations. It's almost always the children of immigrants who become radicalized. Had Trump's policy been in effect, these people would not have been allowed entry into the country and thus their children would never have been born here.
That vagina is so fat it could be crushed balls.
His dad encouraged him. His dad is also a radical Islamic terrorist sympathizer.
TV too.
The problem is that these days most "redpilled" people realize that TV is mind control (hell even many liberals say this) yet they don't realize the Internet isn't "Freedom" from TV, it's worse in every way. It's the next stage of control.
>post disgusting skelly girl with horse ass and pussy
>calls me gross
Hang yourself my man
>used obtuse 5 times ITT
Did you just learn that word today?
>isnt banning muslims, its banning immigration
Explain how that would have helped in the San Bernadino example, for instance
People commit the crimes, not the guns.
lol it's pretty funny that's for sure but there's a presupposition underlying these arguments i.e. that the liberal position presented in the op is morally equivalent with the conservative position stated in the op.
that's completely and utterly fallacious because guns abd people are two totally different beings/things. they're literally different.
a position that advocates for humans will always be morally superior. so, in this instance, it's clear that the liberal position does not share the same stuff.
pretty sure carter or reagan banned Iranian immigrants during the hostage crisis
those bunnies
I really appreciate the wonderful aesthetics of this beauty.
>Explain how that would have helped in the San Bernadino example, for instance
Ah, this is a bait thread. Well played OP.
Why is it then that American citizens keep massacring Americans? With guns they bought legally as is their American right?
How about if we added an amendment that made it so anyone who wants to purchase a gun, must have a thorough psychological evaluation at least 3 days prior to purchasing?
Does this sound reasonable?
>inb4 of course not. The mentally unstable are entitled to their guns too.
American education, ladies and gentlemen.
...
What about like all the non muslim terrorists. I mean, you got plenty of white boys shooting up schools and niggers shooting up playgrounds
I really do believe the amount of this shit done *in the US* by snackbars is exaggerated
nikyee heaton is a dumb slut
you can't ban guns because there'd be a mass insurgence with 60% of the population involved and half of the remaining people will support the insurgence after seeing the government brutalities.
you can ban religion of peace'rs, they're a disorganized rape mob and barely 2% of the us pop, it would damage us public relations but it's possible.
...
...
Are we posting our latina masterrace gfs itt or what?
There are many booties, but this one is mine.
Anyone who uses the Internet for the majority of their day should be barred from gun ownership.