He stated that we should not disarm ourselves because evil exists.
I’m not completely sure I agree with that answer, but it suddenly doesn’t excuse evil.
Also as immigrant I assure you that most of us are legal - please stop using us for your arguments in favour of illegal immigration - and would be unlikely to be arrested for a crime and would not try and flee if arrested, so there’s very little chance I will be eaten be alligators.
The argument is not in favor of illegal immigration, it’s in favor of allowing people to go before a judge before they are deported. Because otherwise you can take literally anyone off the street and deport them to a gulag in El Salvador, and we may as well not bother with society.
But this “right to go before a judge” can be misused because of how long the process can take. All immigrants are required by law to be able to prove their legal status, so the right to due process, fair trial etc becomes complicated if one is here illegally
You are correct. I reread how due process is supposed to work and the fifth and fourteenth amendments clearly say that it applies to “persons” and not just citizens or legal immigrants or anything like that. The requirements are more relaxed for immigration courts though e.g you have to pay for your own lawyer etc
But the person didn’t point out hypocrisy. Charlie would rather some amount of unnecessary gun violence in exchange for having the population be able to defend themselves.
Indiscriminately is a loaded term. There is always some reasonable suspicion. Usually law enforcement always knows which pockets of a city, neighborhood have more illegal activity and can act based on that prior information.
I'm a white country boy hick US citizen that was jailed by CBP on made up totalitarian bullshit that was completely false. No access to lawyer, shuttled around the state in a prisoner van, etc. No apologies, just unceremoniously dumped back out when no evidence found.
As a Canadian, I'm refusing to travel to the US right now, despite working remotely for a US-based company.
It's not fear mongering, it's real. But my motivation isn't even just fear; staying home or choosing to travel elsewhere (Europe, Asia, Mexico) is standing with my countrymen against a regime that doesn't respect our sovereignty or even its own laws.
Nonetheless, I will continue to choose to spend my travel dollars elsewhere until the US administration is crystal clear that Canada is a sovereign country, due process is a thing, and vanning people off of street corners (regardless of their skin colour or immigration status) is not the way.
> Your brain is rotten. [...] You degenerate, vile scum.
Obviously you can't post like this to HN, and you've done it repeatedly in this thread ("you propaganda pusher", "your last remaining brain cell", etc). This is well over the line at which we ban accounts. I actually banned yours briefly, but I took a closer look at your commenting history and I didn't see you being this abusive in other threads, so I've unbanned your account for now. But please don't post like this, or anything remotely like this, to HN again.
It's not a left/right divide, it's a violent/non-violent divide. There've been people across the political spectrum on the violent side, it's not correlated to the left or right.
I'll give credit to all the folks on the left condemning the attack. I think Cenk is a fantastic and refreshing example of that. But the the political persecution and violence is overwhelmingly coming from the left.
> Numbers [of deaths] for right-wing extremist violence are far higher, with numerous high-profile terrorist attacks as well as lower-level assaults, vandalism, and other forms of violence. Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, far-right extremists have killed 130 people in the United States, more than any other political cause, including jihadists.
Very intelligent argument there. It's a wonder why people don't respect you or your opinions. Clearly you're an unmatched genius, probably one of the smartest and most correct people that have ever lived
It's not unreasonable conclusion if you believe some of the stuff WSJ is putting out claiming the ammo/rifle had common leftist interest topics on it like anti-fascist and transgender interests, but those articles could certainly be a hoax or that evidence put there to throw off police.
none of this information was available when these comments were made. Essentially the entirety of the right-wing media apparatus had already made up their minds before any evidence was available
Loud minority for sure. Republicans are right about biological sex being real (it's based off of gamete size, not chromosomes exactly), but that's more of a broken clock being right twice a day.
Gender ideology had its run and is past the high water mark. When it's gone, Republicans won't even have that hobby horse.
The answer was pointing out how much of 'gun violence' is gang violence, which is a valid point but seems some gloss over the gang problem so they don't look racist, so they just tell you you're 'downplaying' for mentioning it.
Your statement is patently false; gangs do commit mass shootings. While there is no 'standard' definition of one, let's use the somewhat accepted definition of 4+ humans shot. Gangs definitely do commit shootings that fall into this category.
That said, it's absolutely disingenuous for 2nd Amendment advocates to point fingers at marginalized groups (trans, the mentally ill, POC, etc) as the reason for mass shootings. This is a standard Conservative trope; point fingers at 'the others' in order to ignore the root cause of the issue which would most certainly reduce the severity and frequency of these happening in the US.
I'd like to point out though it would be highly unusual for someone to characterize violent gangs as "marginalized groups" even if it might truly be the case. I don't know if that's what you meant but I was having trouble following the train of thought from the gang comment by Kirk.
Gangs are often made up of POC. But; no, I wasn’t specifically including them in my statement about marginalized groups, yet I see how my statement could be seen that way.
