>banning assault weapons would stop some mass shooters from obtaining them, but not all. Therefore we must not ban them.
>building a wall would stop some illegal immigration, but not all. Therefore we must BUILD THE WALL.
Sup Forums sees no problem with this logic.
sauce
Nothing to disprove my argument huh, I guess Sup Forums was truly stumped today.
nice ass.. 10/10
I second this
I applaud your effort to point out their hypocrisy but its gonna fall on deaf ears. These inbred mouth breathers are so far down on trumps dick they part their buttcheecks so he can piss.
0/10 bait
also SHALL
Seeing as how Building the Wall does not infringe on any american citizen's rights, you seemed to has stumbled on to a false equivalency. Tough luck pal.
government
tyranny
i socialist or marxist revolution will kill so many more than this mass shootings ever will
basically the trolley problem, u wanna engage in actively killing a few or passively kill manny more?
We only came here for the pic sauce, enough with your baiting
Walls work. Just look at Israel.
Gun bans don't work. Just look at... everywhere.
THIS
One revokes the rights of American citizens, rights protected by the US constitution.
The other has no effect on the rights of citizens.
>2 posts by this id
can we go back to when 60%+ of Sup Forums threads weren't just generic bait
Ban assault lesbians
>right girl
NOT
Oh is the Israel border the same size as the US border? Does it have the same massive numbers coming in? I think not.
Give us the sauce, and wipe away the thread.
millions of illegals versus a handful of mass shootings
which one costs the country billions of dollars each year?
Nice bioshock reference but I don't have the source. Also STUMPED.
i think that's her.
Irrelevant. Both are problems we have to deal with.
@mnxo on Twitter is a dude.
A mexican dude
me on the right
@mnxo__
I fucked up
Then prove it colgate
A GAY mexican dude.
Not her
Yes it is
If I was on my desktop instead of my phone I would color the single tied up person brown and ask if it changes your decision.
Banning assault weapons infringes on my rights.
I lose something.
Stopping illegal immigration makes the country a better place.
I gain something.
Look jackass, we are going to make a law that will make killing illegal, and one for rape, robbery, and drugs. So just as soon as be ban all that , no more problems. .. oh wait, you forgot one important detail about your gun ban....... Gun laws only apply to law abiding citizens. ....
BE
g-guys?
we lost her
Fuck your bullshit OP, give us more
Mmmmmm that's a fine piece of chocolate though.
>* = all comments by this IP address are purely satirical in nature and do not reflect the views of Sup Forums or Sup Forums.
Are they Black ?
I cant find her profile.
Also
>Burn that coal
>laws only apply to law abiding citizens
So do borders and walls. Your point?
>Banning guns will take away law-abiding civilians right to self defense and criminals will still be able to obtain guns. We should ban guns
>Building the wall will stop most illegal immigration, but not 100% of it. Therefore, we should not build the wall, even though it will most likely have the desired effect
OP sees no problem with this logic
>building a wall prevents no legal citizens from using their rights while preventing most illegal immigration
>banning "assault weapons" prevents little mass violence while preventing most legal citizens from exercising their rights
Greater good, fuckwit.
>the wall will stop most illegal immigration
AHAHAHAHAHA for starters, most illegal immigration comes from overstaying visas. Second, unless you plan to man the wall for the entirety of the border, people will just go over/under it.
>>banning assault weapons would stop some mass shooters from obtaining them, but not all. At a cost of removing the most most popular rifle in America from all current and potential owners who have done nothing whatsoever wrong and for arbitrary and nonsensical reasons which will likely have minimal or no affect on the death toll from terrorists and spree killers. Therefore we must not ban them.
>>building a wall would stop some illegal immigration, but not all. At a cost of nothing because the outlays will be offset by reductions in the costs of benefits and police work spent on illegals. Therefore we must BUILD THE WALL.
Fixed for you
Will a wall be detrimental to those applying to immigrate legally? Because stricter gun laws will be detrimental to the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves.
really makes you think
Immigration is a privileged
Right to bear arms a say it with me now a
R I G H T
I
G
H
T
man, shills out in full force today
>thinks the wall is the only thing involved in Trump's immigration plan
>thinks "banning" guns will be simple and doesn't believe we can deport or control illegal immigration
Except for anyone's property that the wall impedes on.
But let me guess, you're going for >Muh eminent domain. Big daddy government knows best right? You should do as you're told and give up your land.
destroying the US economy affects my rights in a big way
Build wall illegals still illegal immigrants. Ban guns once law abiding citizens do nothing and becomes criminal. That's my point asshat....
Wtf is english even your first language? That made no grammatical sense. Back to school for you Tyrone.
two bi whores wearing men pants and acting like niggers.
>destroying the US economy affects my rights
>illegal immigration won't hurt the economy for Americans, let them flood in XD
Demasiado culo.
...
look at the shill
all shills are kikes, post holohoax busting anti kike memes in every shill thread while sageing
No hay tal cosa. GTFO fag.
wha'ever m8, just post the sauce
Back to Mexico for you José.
guns are an american right. undocumented pablo is not
Can't beat the argument, quick attack the person making the argument. Welcome to Pol my proud liberal friend....
save the cheerleader save the world
How can I attack the argument when he can't express it clearly?
>Walls only apply to law abiding citizens
I think you might be confused about the difference between a ban and a physical barrier. Think through it and then get back to me.
You red herrings and strawmen stump themselves, my friend. Those aren't the actual arguments, which I'll cover at the end of my post, but first of all:
>vaccinations would stop some childhood illnesses, but not all...
>euthenizing faggots would stop AIDS and other STDs, but not all...
>sending niggers back to Africa would stop most crime, but not all...
No one argues this way, because the arguments in all cases are cost-benefit arguments, not simple deductives as you've posed them. It isn't the argument form that is the problem, but the value of the premises; the argument for gun control is an empirical one as well as a value and pragmatism one. It doesn't get BTFO by counter-example as you assume it does.
A more honest formulation of the 2A position:
>personal safety, protecting the constitution from being weakened through revision and precedent, and balance of powers between the citizenry and the central government are all more important than a futile attempt to stop gun violence by removing guns; the violence is the result of ethno-social factors arising from hetergeneity of race and IQ, and the loss of high-trust societies, not simply from the availability of weapons.
But you can't ever deal with the 2A arguments straight on, so you have to use informal fallacies, and twist their arguments. Their arguments stand, regardless of whether you make posts, and Sup Forums is never BTFO. You should know that.
What is her fucking IG?
>TIL walls are an insurmountable obstacle and ladders have been un-invented.