Jump to content

Official Alt-Right Neo Nazi Thread


Recommended Posts

C3ReWexWEAAL6WQ.jpg

 

Wow, funny that the Pulse nightclub in Florida, Boston marathon, San Bernadino, Tennessee recruiting center, and about 3 dozen other muslim inspired attacks didn't make the list. Guess shouting allah ackbar while shooting someone isn't proof of anything.

 

 

Too bad the US government stopped all of these attacks, then it would be a different chart?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

yea because 200 jackasses are reflective of the entire country who voted for him...and the administration that he hasn't selected yet. Honestly this is a weak one that fails any standard of reason, it

Except for the blisteringly ignorant (that is to say more ignorant that the normal amount of ignorant - where they literally don't know anything about anything at all, and vote without any knowledge a

"all racists are Republican". Ah.. never been to Chicago, eh Bob?

Wow, funny that the Pulse nightclub in Florida, Boston marathon, San Bernadino, Tennessee recruiting center, and about 3 dozen other muslim inspired attacks didn't make the list. Guess shouting allah ackbar while shooting someone isn't proof of anything.

 

 

Too bad the US government stopped all of these attacks, then it would be a different chart?

 

Pulse nightclub: originally from Afghanistan which is not on the list

San Bernadino: originally from Pakistan which is not on the list

9/11: originally from Egypt, UEA, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon which are not on the list

 

On "all these attacks" look at their origins: Afghanistan, American, Pakistan, Bangladeshi, Albanian, Moroccan and in Obama's second term Americans x3.

 

All smoke and mirrors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you would support a ban on these countries, just not on any country UNTIL they kill someone.

 

Okay, good to know.

 

No. The ban is moronic and the icing on the cake is that he didn't even get the right countries.

 

If the GOP actually cared about saving American lives:

 

1. Actually do something about gun control. Pistols for self-defence, rifles for farmers / hunting etc sure... but extended mags , assault rifles, etc?

 

2. Actually give a damn about health care --

Strategy talk leading up to POTUS interview tonight has been weighing whether to publicly acknowledge that no Obamacare replacement planned.

 

I've seen estimates floating around that repeal and no-replace will cause 30-40k deaths a year. Even if that is overestimated by a factor if 100 that is still way, way higher than the Muslims that you are so worried about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama banned Iraq refuges for 6 months, Trump is only doing it for 3 until investigations on the process can be reviewed.

 

As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets. One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said. In 2011, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis were resettled as refugees in the U.S., half the number from the year before, State Department statistics show.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If the GOP actually cared about saving American lives:

 

 

 

If the government cared about every life, they would lower the legal speed limit to 40mph (64.37 kph )

 

Why do you not care about people in cars? More die by car deaths than by gun deaths every year.

 

 

We trade lives for convenience every day on a myriad of issues. From legal cigarettes and booze, to speed limits, to lawn mower sales.

 

Guns are just a rallying cry for easy to lead leftist who can't be bothered with facts.

 

Pretending that gun deaths are because we have high capacity magazines is silly.

 

It's against the law to shoot someone, why do you think that that law would be obeyed if only we also had a law that said you can only carry 10 rounds in your clip?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the government cared about every life, they would lower the legal speed limit to 40mph (64.37 kph )

 

Why do you not care about people in cars? More die by car deaths than by gun deaths every year.

 

 

We trade lives for convenience every day on a myriad of issues. From legal cigarettes and booze, to speed limits, to lawn mower sales.

 

Guns are just a rallying cry for easy to lead leftist who can't be bothered with facts.

 

Pretending that gun deaths are because we have high capacity magazines is silly.

 

It's against the law to shoot someone, why do you think that that law would be obeyed if only we also had a law that said you can only carry 10 rounds in your clip?

 

It is astonishing to me how stupid you are.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun control didn't work so well in Quebec tonight did it?

 

And it's a national event -- in the US let's call it Tuesday, or is it Thursday?

 

Also it looks like 39 people got out w/ injuries so tbd if they actually had automatics, etc..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Automatics have been banned in the US since 1986, and since 1994 even "scary" semi-automatics have been banned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys stood on the graves of women, children and gays to promote your false narrative of the need for more gun control.

 

Now you get to live with your rules.

 

No one cares if you can't handle it when the shoe is on the other foot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Automatics have been banned in the US since 1986, and since 1994 even "scary" semi-automatics have been banned.

 

Not to be the 'actually' guy, but that's kinda not really so.

 

The 86 law created a moratorium on new fully automatic weapons for civilian sale (which were and still are very heavily regulated) but did not 'ban' them. This caused a huge market force against the prices of grandfathered, 'transferable' machine guns that now sell for enormous premiums over their intrinsic value. That market existed under the radar until about the time the internet became common, circa 2000'ish. That's when a transferable M16 was still $3000. After that, it went bananas, now they're $15K-$20K and up.

 

The 1994 law sunsetted in 2004 and is no longer in effect.

 

But... the whole idea of "AT LEAST THEY DIDN'T HAVE (some kind of gun)" is intellectually dishonest bullshit.

Sadly, some maniac going on a turkey shoot inside a room of unarmed people is going to kill a lot of them. It's not like his using a hunting shotgun to kill 12 or an AR15 to kill 28 is going to result in otherwise anti gun rights people from tempering their position on anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys stood on the graves of women, children and gays to promote your false narrative of the need for more gun control.

 

Now you get to live with your rules.

 

No one cares if you can't handle it when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

Gun-related homicides per capita for the US versus Canada (and pretty much everywhere else)

 

QED

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun-related homicides per capita for the US versus Canada (and pretty much everywhere else)

 

QED

 

It's the accidental shootings as well. (think about all those armed toddlers for example) As well as suicides.

 

More people are shot in accidents and suicides than in deliberate shootings. Having a gun in the home statistically makes that home less safe.

 

There are a lof of guns in Canada but far far less accidental shootings per capita than in the US and that is because of the regulations around gun storage plus the fact that most guns in Canada are long guns and not hand guns. In Canada it's basically impossible to get a permit for a gun for self defense and or to be allowed to carry it outside the home and when a gun is in the home it has to be locked up. Having a loaded shotgun in the closet or a pistol next to your bed even if the guns are legal are crimes here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a loaded shotgun in the closet or a pistol next to your bed even if the guns are legal are crimes here.

 

Which is good minimizing domestic violence. We have the whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" line -- to which you could reply "motive and opportunity". If you don't have a loaded gun sitting next to you that's a whole lot less opportunity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The numbers indicate that an increase in the amount of guns in a society does not increase violent crime, and this is what the gun-lovers will tout to support their case. However, the numbers clearly indicate that access to guns makes it way more likely that a violent or volatile situation will result in homicides/manslaughter/accidental death. Also, the availability of guns has a very noticeable affect on suicide rates. Guns quite simply make society less safe. Having a gun in your home makes it more likely that you or somebody in your household will die by gunshot.

 

Unfortunately, to the 2nd amendment simpletons, facts and studies are always going to be less compelling than anecdotes. So the story about a grandmother protecting her grandchildren by fighting off a home invasion with a handgun is all you are going to hear about when the gun control issue comes up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those grandchildren should just die at the hands of an armed intruder because then someone who wants to commit suicide will have a harder time?

 

You cannot be trusted to have a gun because you are not capable of dealing with the responsibility. The government will handle your safety. They are like a Big Brother, always there to help.

 

 

I thought you liberal nutjobs were all about helping people in assisted suicides if that's their choice? is that only if they pay a union doctor to do it?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

recap:

 

BG just reacted with indignation in defending an imaginary grandmother in an imaginary anecdote, then did his straw-man thing and went of on a rant about liberals that bears only passing resemblance to the topic at hand.

 

Well done. You continue to outdo yourself.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a gun in the home statistically makes that home less safe.

 

It does, but that's because 'statistics' categorize well balanced, sane, capable, intelligent people as Group A and divide them by the actions of retards in Group B to form some kind of 'ratio' that doesn't control for the fact that the people who skew the curve shouldn't be dictating policy for everyone else.

 

The Y factor in "gun crime statistics" in the United States are blacks. You really don't have many of them in Canada... but even if you did, it is indeed true that the scale of gun ownership in the United States plays a role in gun misuse. It's just that we're too far gone on that issue to really do anything about it. There are too many guns, there's no amount of idealists with aggregate statistics or even school shootings that will cause anybody to give up the gun they have, so our reality is what it is.

 

If we could go back in time, we'd probably be better off not letting things get to this point but at this point, there's nothing we can do. It's too late.

 

Unfortunately, to the 2nd amendment simpletons, facts and studies are always going to be less compelling than anecdotes. So the story about a grandmother protecting her grandchildren by fighting off a home invasion with a handgun is all you are going to hear about when the gun control issue comes up.

 

Be that as it may, the "you're statistically less safe if you have a gun in the home" is kinda like how you're statistically less safe if you own a car or you're statistically less safe and more likely to drown if you own a pool.

 

You manipulate idiots with authority.

You manipulate the average with anecdotes.

You manipulate the average who believe they're 'above average' with statistics.

 

YOU may be less safe if you own a gun because you're irresponsible and prone to suicide or unable to control your emotion. That's really your problem, yet you project your own inadequacies onto the rest of society.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

lol. I don't own a gun for the same reason I don't drive an F350 truck. I don't need symbols of power to prove my self worth. And the actual utility of either for my day to day life is zero.

 

And let's not carried away with the responsibility level of the average human being, regardless of the colour of their skin. The "smart gun owner" in your scenario is a small minority.

 

Also, lol @ "prone to suicide". I know you are just trolling and you aren't actually that stupid, so we don't need to get into that comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...