The issue with getting a "reasonable debate" going is to stop with "lefty/righty" labeling. Until people can set aside the labels, nothing will get done.
Kate Steinle's murderer found Not Guilty in San Francisco
- Thread starter Wall Knight Teague
- Start date
He had no intent but he succeeded. Miss Steinle is dead and she is dead because he was given sanctuary before.
Your hero was in charge of the feds at the time.
You use assumptions as facts.
Last edited:
sounds good, but there is zero comparison on which side politicizes tragedy more which is sorta ironic because the acquittal is one of the few that really has backfired on the left
Not sure what your first sentence means as I never said anything like that. But hell at this point making up argument might be your best bet.
BTW, illegal crossings are down, no thinking to it. Just admit it, you want no push against illegal immigration.
You really have a tough time with addressing the direct point of my commenting here today, constantly diverting to things unrelated to my point.
Being illegal doesn't equate to being a weapon against American citizens. There are plenty of illegal immigrants from all over the world living in the US peacefully and with no intent to harm Americans. Just like there are plenty of sane people with guns that have no intention on killing other people. Should they be deported or held accountable by the law? Certainly! Should they be immediately labeled a weapon to American citizens? Hell no.
So tell me, if someone got a gun after a strict background check, then shot someone, and an immigrant made it into the USA after a strict background check, then drove a Home Depot truck through a festival of people, how is this different? Both were legal, both passed the stricter regulations/requirements, yet both killed. How would you suggest we deal with these cases?
you mean labels like, "racist, homophobe, islamaphobe. Those kind of labels? Or are those ok in your mind?
Anyone killed in Las Vegas by Stephen Paddock by a Ricochet bullet was not murdered by Stephen Paddock according to Perrin.
Firing into a crowd is intent.
Firing into a crowd is intent.
Zero? Didn't the president, a Republican, just tweet about this case today? Does that not count as "politicizing tragedy"?
I'm not going to try to follow your twisted logic. Just keep spinning your bs, I'm done with your nonsense.
zero as in not debatable as in Holy Cross has a national championship and UK has 8 thus there is zero debate they are not equal.
You normally not this stupid, are you drunk or high?
If he lived Perrin would say they would have to prove it was not an accident for him to be convicted. Just a simple travesty.
Despite your terribly uninformed opinions and simple-minded attempt to conflate, illegal aliens flooding our country and gun control for American citizens are 2 separate, complicated issues.
Ignorance with attitude. Not very becoming dude.
Strange that you, of all people, would miss my point, given our huge history of agreements on most things related to human nature. This isn't about "illegal aliens flooding our country". My point is the threat perceived by immigrants in this country and the idea that if we had stricter immigration policies, this woman would still be alive (although she could have been killed the next Saturday by an American mass shooter for all we know). Yes, the basic topic of illegal immigration and gun control are not related. But when you think about the perceived "THREAT" that people feel around each, and the solutions they offer to rid themselves of this threat, they become identical.
Let's narrow this down to exactly what (I believe) the concern is around both immigrants and guns (as they relate to violent crime, not just standard illegal immigration or illegal gun ownership):
To many in America, immigrants are a THREAT. There is a large group that strongly believes that immigrants from specific countries/ethnicities (non-American) pose a physical or material threat to the lives of themselves and their families.
To many in America, guns are a THREAT. There is a large group that strongly believes that the existence of guns, regardless of the mentality of the owner (which cannot be qualitatively evaluated), post a physical or material threat to the lives of themselves and their families.
So clearly both parties believe in the same type of solution to rid themselves (and America) of these threats - increased regulation (gun control; immigration control) or some other method of removal (taking our guns; banning/deporting immigrants).
However, and this is my core point, many who argue that toughening immigration controls coupled with banning certain nationalities (or religions) from entering America will have a huge impact on ridding them of the threat of terrorism, drug trafficking, theft, or other crimes that are or can be violent in nature, will immediately push back against the efficacy of the same type of regulation on their beloved guns - claiming it'll never get rid of crime, so why waste our time.
So rather than just tell me "those are completely different, complex issues", how about one of the four of you that's jumped on this boat today explain exactly why they are so different, and why my analogy is not accurate.
Last edited:
But both Republicans and Democrats (and all of those parties in between) regularly politicize tragedies for their own agendas. There is no "Republicans = 0, Democrats = 10000" here - they are both equally guilty, and thus your "zero....not debatable" is apparently based on some alternate reality. Can you agree all politicians use national tragedies for political purposes? Or are you literally saying everyone else does except your "side"?
California is nothing but a chithole state. Crazy high taxes on everything. Liberal psychopaths.
Communists
Basically just a bunch of losers.
Communists
Basically just a bunch of losers.
That's what bothers me. Shows he is negligent in how he feels about law and order. If a dude who has always obeyed the law accidently found and fired a gun, perhaps I can believe it. But this is not the case here and his history proves it.
that is exactly NOT what I said. I said there was no debate that liberals do it more (and get ample help from celebs and the media). Of course Reps do it, they are doing it with this decision as I also stated earlier as it is a rare one that the left cannot control the narrative.
Guns are not inherently illegal.
Illegal aliens are inherently illegal.
It’s not complex. You want it to be to try to create a false dichotomy.
Nobody on the right says all problems will be solved by anything. You can improve things. It is the dude and others like him who believe in human perfection.
California....where politics will always come before evidence
Libs will burn down a city for a guy who just robbed a shop owner and attacked a cop but are totally okay with this verdict.
lol that's seven paragraphs dude. You are stoned and mad on the computer.
Hmm! I've never experienced such things here in the Paddock. [laughing]
Jesus Tap Dancing Christ.
Which ******* Amendment addresses the right of the world to enter our country at will?
If you don't like immigration law, seek to change the law.
If you want to compare immigration to the rights of gun owners, rally to add an amendment.
If that's too much work, then STFU.
False. The feds specifically asked CA to hold this dude so they could toss him out. CA ignored them because sanctuary cities are about pandering to immigrant communities.
Love me some Thomas Sowell.
So the President is responsible for everyone that dies on their watch...is that what you wanna go with here?
My point was federal officials have different agendas under different administrations.
Last edited:
In an argument you cannot just eliminate what a large part of the problem is that brought about the end point. That is a large part of the worlds problem today. Ignore the reason because the truth might hurt someone's feelings. Here is a good word....REALITY.
Last edited:
Change your sig to"Theseer73" because, like most on the left, you make assumptions built on the same labeling point you made in an earlier post. People who are for real justice must hate Mexicans or other immigrants because they want a wall built. You are basically saying people on the right are racist or bigots because of their stance.
His logic: We must hate people because we have doors on our houses and lock theme because we hate everyone.
If walls are racist then why do people live in gated communities? Why do we even have doors on our houses?
NorCal is the closest thing to the southeast I've found as far as the people and life attitude. It's a different world up there. I have a couple of military buddies out there, theyre both conservatives and devastated by what has happened to their state.
There's a big movement in Cal amongst the conservatives to band together, stay, fight and take the state back. Sadly, they're losing that battle and most are choosing to flee their home ground.
If you don't believe everyone in Central America (& every other 3rd world ********) should be allowed to move into the USA with no questions asked then the Leftists will label you "RAYSIS!!!!!"
"La Raza" ("The Race" aka racist Mexican-supremacy group) is a huge force in California politics.
It's obscene.
Not even remotely connected, in line with, or an example relating to any concept regarding a similar point. Completely off base.
My god some of you are thin skulled. Blown away that you jump on "illegal alien" and ride with it knowing my point is about the "THREAT" that people think any immigrants bring to America - illegal or not.
I know what the hell "ILLEGAL" means. Building a damned wall and making stricter immigration requirements won't matter. We'll still have illegals, and the threat that some people perceive that they bring with them won't magically go away. Yet the people who think this regulation will magically work somehow don't think the same increase in gun regulation will have the same effect on the threat of gun crime (that they think) as increased immigration regulation will have on keeping crazy criminal illegals out of the country.
Clear yet? Holy shitballs you guys are dense.