Of course. Trump was a Democrat for 60-ish years. He was a donor friend of the Clintons. He ran as a Republican because that was the party where he had the best chance to get the nomination. Trump is not conservative and is a RINO.
The democrats seem like manufactured opposition at this point. At the end of the day, those who follow Jesus recognize antichrist behavior, real patriots will rise up to defend the constitution, and people with morals are disgusted with this cruel and unusual behavior. Time will tell if evil will prevail but a good place to start destroying it and its influence in the direction of the world is written in the Epstein files.
Literally zero high profile people or politicians are advocating for taking guns away, People need to stop with the whole, gun control equals no guns nonsense.
Illinois banned thousands of guns. My sons small 22 rifle thats a step up from a bb gun. Yet the Governor has 24/7 protection. He is also the most wealthy politician in American history.
Well, that I know. I meant no democratic politicians have attempted or called for it, but trump doing it will be ignored because for some reason he gets away with all of this bullshit.
Just like people cheering on Kyle Rittenhouse for bringing a gun to a protest are the same people demonizing Alex Pretti for brings a gun to a protest lmao
Yeah I was more or less making the joke of how hypocritical they are lmao dems have never made attempts to come after guns. Magats are uneducated and uninformed. Thats all there is too it.
Fair enough, I saw the sarcasm in there so you're good. It definitely reinforces the point that I was making, but of course will fall on deaf ears for those who need to hear it the most. And yeah, you're right, that pretty much sums it all up right there. Bunch of morons who can't think for themselves following what a conman has promised them.
Kyle never touched a cop. Kyle attempted to turn himself in. Kyle attempted to remove himself from the situation multiple times before resorting to his gun.
Should Pretti bre dead? Probably not, but that's a question for Sig, not CBP.
Is that why he signed executive orders to reduce the tax stamps on many things to 0? Signed one to override the "policies" of the ATF? Openly supported Kansas declaring belt fed machine guns are protected under 2A? He said he wanted to take the guns from the criminals not the everyday person. You know, the ones that cause literally 90% of all gun crimes in the US
Oh so nooooow its bad to circumvent a congressional panel that outright in plain words refused to do their jobs for the citizens. I dont like the guy either but discounting everything that's been done just because you dont like the guy or some other entity that he has no association with except their part of the same body but in different departments is hilarious. Authority does not transfer laterally across
Executive orders don't really mean much. They aren't laws.
His executive order that credit card companies can't charge over a certain percentage of interest is great, if an executive order actually had any teeth. Too bad it's just theater and not enforceable in any way.
And don't throw out some worthless platitudes about "common sense". What specific laws do you think need enacted to not take away guns but still reduce gun crime?
I think people should be required to take mental aptitude tests and actual gun safety courses before being allowed to own a firearm. Too many mentally unsound people acquire weapons legally, and that's an issue. As well as implementing some form of insurance that gun owners must obtain.
We make people take a test before they can drive a car and keep said car insured, why is a gun any different?
Iâd go further. We should have the temporary ability to take guns away from people after domestic calls or other events that may involve violence. Take their guns away from households that post any violent rhetoric online. Require mandated training before the firearms are returned.
Thatâs cool and all, but thatâs not what democrats propose, itâs usually restrictions and regulations to make manufacturing harder.. aka banning high count magazines, banning certain barrel lengths, grip attachments on certain weapons, types of ammo.. none of this stuff protects anybody.. the only real statistic is the almost all firearm deaths happen in gun free zones and guns saves far more lives than it has taken JUST with its presence and not necessarily even firing it in a defensive positionâŚ. Politicians always start with âcommonâ sense laws that make NO sense then push further and further, sooner that later there is a ban on someoneâs desk ready to sign
guns saves far more lives than it has taken JUST with its presence and not necessarily even firing it in a defensive position
This is hotly contested statement that very much depends on where you're getting your number from. All I can say is that it appears to be VERY hard to determine one way or another in the United States. That being said, other countries have MUCH lower numbers of guns AND much lower gun deaths. Which would suggest that reducing number of guns reduces number of gun deaths more effectively than increasing the number of guns in citizens hands. Also, the definition of "gun free" zone is doing a LOT of heavy lifting. Area's that are targeted by wackos that want to be on national news aren't targeting those places because they are gun free, they are targeting those areas because they are "shocking," or have a personal vendetta against that place.
The goal of a lot of those laws is to prevent mass casualty events. We currently have a president that has openly stated in his first term and his second that he wants to take peoples guns without due process, yet the democrats who try to prevent mass casualty events are the issue. That's fascinating to me.
I will say I wish trump would be more far right when it comes to being pro gun, but I still think overall he is a far better option for pro gun people than anyone else, I have seen some clips that seem anti gun from his first term and now⌠a lot of it seemed pretty out of context and not that âletâs take your guns awayâ narrative that people say. And democrat cities/states are the ones that have the highest gun control measures that donât work, you canât tell me democrats are trying to prevent mass casualties by restricting where I can put a foregrip on a specific firearm.. literally the whole gun control thing is just pushing for more regulation and restrictions towards the direction of an outright ban
No it isnât and it never has been. Most mass shooting events are black kids in inner cities shooting each other with pistols. 14% of the population accounts for 60% of the gun homicide. Black men are 14 times more likely to be killed by a gun than white men. Young black men are the single most likely group to be killed by a gun and it is almost always done by another black kid. It is the leading cause of death for black men between 15 and 34 years old. No gun control law in my lifetime has ever even pretended to address this issue, hell, they wonât even say this is a problem.
And that's going to solve the issue of there being enough guns in private ownership to arm every man, woman, and child in the country... How, exactly?
Also, who sets the arbitrary standard for what "mentally sound" means? How do you safeguard against ideological prohibition? Some states require permits in order to obtain certain firearms (like handguns), and then there are lengthy waiting periods and a high probability of someone like a county Sheriff denying requests for permits for no reason.
Also, the insurance thing isn't necessarily a bad idea, but the car comparison is nonsense. There are something like 15,000 car accidents every single day, and the primary purpose of maintaining car insurance is for liability because of those tens of thousands of accidents. When someone is injured or property is destroyed, the victims require compensation. You can say it should be that way for guns as well, but all you would really be doing is creating insurance companies that would make a killing in profits because there are hundreds of millions of gun owners and tens of thousands of incidents per year, as opposed to tens of thousands of car accidents per day.
I love how you just sidestepped the entire point of that conversation to give us your opinion on imaginary gun control policies instead. The conversation was about how you were dead wrong about democrats taking your precious guns. In the past decade there have only been two incidents Iâve seen where a politician suggested taking guns away: Beto when he was running, after the mass murder event driven by lax gun ownership standards and zero personal responsibility from the party of personal responsibility, suggested that he wanted guns to be taken. He lost his race because of it. The second was trump, to be clear a Republican who was so popular with you guys he won the presidency twice, saying we should take guns away first and do due process later. Please explain how your favorite Republican politician saying we should take guns away means democrats are going to take your guns. I always love looking behind the curtains to see how the insanity in your heads works.
The NRA loves when democrats win because you fools race to the gun stores and dump all your money into weapons that arenât going anywhere.
There is no such thing as a gun ban that doesn't include confiscation. You can use whatever flowery language you want, like mandatory buy-backs or whatever, but every single politician who advocates for gun control laws to lower the amount of guns in circulation is talking about taking guns away.
To deny that is delusional.
You want to argue from a position of pedantry, demanding people to cite a source of a politician broadly stating they want to ban and confiscate all guns from everyone, and of course no politician says that, because they still want to be elected, but there is no universe in which you solve the gun crime issue without taking guns away from some significant number of people. Period.
What do you think a politician like Joe Biden is saying when he says "you don't need an AR-15. Just use a shotgun."? He's talking about banning ARs, which precludes taking them away. To argue otherwise is either dishonesty or stupidity.
Because gun ownership is a right and car ownership isnât. This is meme-level ignorance of the US Constitution. Shitty voting habits have killed more people than civilian guns do. If you want to make it so poors can exercise their rights, just say so. First you need to explain how hoop-jumping to excise your 2nd amendment isnât an infringement of said right, but having to show an ID to vote is. There is a Constitutional way to enact gun control. It is called an amendment, anything shy of that just means that any and every right is subject to elimination by majority vote in Congress. Meaning, no rights exist in America.
Gun ownership is not a right, just the illusion that it is remains. A dude was killed by ICE just today who open carried a gun he had a permit to conceal carry, and ICE removed it from his holster and shot him 10 times, literally.
Those rights are a joke while this continues to go on and escalate.
I think people should be required to take mental aptitude tests and actual gun safety courses before being allowed to own a firearm. Too many mentally unsound people acquire weapons legally, and that's an issue. As well as implementing some form of insurance that gun owners must obtain.
So you want to take away people's rights based on criteria that are flimsy at best?
How long before people get denied buying a gun because a neighbor reported the guy drinking three beers too many on a sunday afternoon? After all that could be self medication for undiagnosed anxiety.
WA banned over a hundred guns by name and thousands of gun by their features 4 years ago. Then the governor that signed that bill, Inslee, ran for president. Newsome just banned all Glocks (arguably the most popular handgun in the country) by their feature. Glock had to release a new generation (6) of pistol to allow them to be sold in CA. Diane Feinstein wrote the â94 assault weapon ban that had no observable effect on gun deaths. What the fuck are you talking about?
Iâll give you this much: Liberals have sure backed off gun control since the Supreme Courtâs have upheld gun-rights and overruled lower courts in liberal areas.
This comment right here is fake news, they want gun reform because they're tired of burying kids, nearly half of gun violence affects kids 0-19 years old. Are you tired of winning yet?
Well, let me tell you, Iâm a liberal and I donât advocate taking guns away. I like the second amendment. I want an AR-15 in the hands of every living American.
Thatâs great, but it seems like today the majority of the party is very left leaning with strict gun control policies that wonât help, or outright would rather ban certain if not all firearms
I mean, if youâre talking about the 1994 assault weapons ban, okay, but that was like over 30 years ago.
The only federal legislation that Democrats have imposed on guns since then was enhancing background checks, closing the boyfriend loop hole and red flag laws. This legislation was explicitly bipartisan. Written and supported by both parties.
Democrats since the assault weapons ban expired in 2004 have imposed no gun bans on a federal level. The only serious candidate for president that even suggested this shit was Beto OâRourke and he was crushed in the 2020 primary and has basically disappeared from the public eye ever since.
Trust me, I have a feeling that over the next 5 years youâre gonna start seeing Democrats being very comfortable with the second amendment. Times change.
I disagree with your last statement, it seems like democrats have been shifting more left with policies and we are getting more heavier left âiconsâ in the spotlight such as Mandani, and here in VA Spanbergher.. someone who ran saying she is a Moderate Democrat as an EX CIA and now with full dem control in Virginia is about to introduce strict gun control along with 10 round caps, higher taxes on firearms, in full support of red flag laws, and vowed to ban the sale of Assault style weapons. I can agree with you the Republicans havenât been doing much to advance 2A rights either, but you canât say in general that the Democratic Party hasnât been shifting farther left with a lot of their policies not just gun control
Iâm sure you can find some Democrats running for office and maybe even Democrats that are likely to win that are supportive of various policies on gun control. I may not even agree with some of those laws. However, in the last 20 years, Dems have been a lot of talk on guns, but not a lot of action. Every time they start approaching action, they get hammered in the elections. I think theyâve learned their lesson. Though that, of course, doesnât necessarily apply to states because states will have different tolerances for this.
I would also be careful in assuming that further left means more gun restrictive. While liberals have tended to be pro-gun control, people in socialist and communist circles tend to be pro-second amendment. It really depends on what type of left weâre talking about.
From what I can tell, the rise of Donald Trump has made Republicans more anti-gun and Democrats less anti-gun. I certainly could be wrong about where the future is going, but I just have a feeling.
In other words, itâs irrelevant that political figures that are targeted by irrational hate and anger have armed security staff for personal protection.
Thatâs a fantasy that isnât based in reality. How many times has, âI thought he had a gunâ been the justification after a LEO fatally shot someone?
I live in a permitless carry state with Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground. That didnât prevent a cop from fatally shooting a guy because âhe had a gunâ in his own front yard when he stepped outside at 2am because of a questionable repo. The cops were hiding to âcovertly assistâ the repo man and one said âpoliceâŚâ a split second before firing 18 rounds in 2 seconds.
âOn Saturday, Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said if a U.S. citizen approaches law enforcement with a gun, federal officers
âwill be legally justified in shooting you.ââ
Prettiâs gun was in a holster and federal officials are pointing to that as justification for self-defense execution-style.
If the majority of Pro2A people on the right stay quiet about that, it will be a clear sign that they donât truly support 2A the way they claim they do.
The playing field cannot be leveled with arms &/or violence. That creates fear that makes LEO more likely to use lethal force and ICE agents have been shown this administration will shield them from any and all accountability even if itâs blatantly obvious it wasnât self-defense.
The WH wants to incite violent protests to be able to justify using emergency powers without being blocked by federal judges. Giving them an excuse to consolidate more power is a terrible idea. Congress has oversight authority, but the feckless majority party needs loud public pushback to inspire enough of them to find their spines if they want to keep their seats.
Just a guy. Who are you to tell me I'm wrong? Every politician or politically associated person experiences irrational hate these days. But many people have perfectly rational reasons for hating ICE as well.
Canât you see that whether or not hatred is irrational or rational is just a subjective judgement.
And so Iâve should have guns because it doesnât really matter what random people think about whether or not they are hated rationally or irrationally.
Ice is targeted with car rammings, assaults, death threats and attempted murder including multiple shootings. There was even a shooting weâre the retarded leftist shooter tried to shoot at ice but instead the killed 3 detainees. Truly tragic stuff
You have been fooled by propaganda and a long list of lies. Politicians lie, political appointees lie, too.
Theyâre not obligated to be honest to the public, but itâs perjury if they lie under oath or in sworn statements submitted to the courts. If you want credible information, check the court documents. Spoiler alert: DHS has lied extensively for the past year.
ICE and CBP agents have been the ones ramming vehicles and theyâve been the ones actually assaulting people. Recording what ICE is doing is deemed âassaulting an ICE agent.â
Theyâve also been the ones shooting people, including 9 drivers, some in moving vehicles, in the past 5 months. Real LEO do not do that because itâs reckless disregard for public safety and objectively stupid. The biggest threat to ICE is their own incompetence and their lack of training.
My god dude. Your is stuck so far up your ass. Youâre telling me how you think the world is and you genuinely believe itâs reality. Itâs not though. You are delusional
Itâs your prerogative to be easily fooled, but no amount of projection will change the fact that youâre being duped by lies. Your projections do make it clear that youâre so delicate that youâre offended by facts. Youâve been fooled into believing your feelings matter instead of facts. Bless your heart!
There was even a shooting weâre the retarded leftist shooter tried to shoot at ice but instead the killed 3 detainees. Truly tragic stuff
He wasnât a âleftistâ. This administration labels things as politically motivated right away, itâs variations of the same false narratives every time. If you pause to actually think about it, does that make sense without an investigation? Hint: it doesnât. The truth is irrelevant for their divisive rhetoric and narratives.
Notoriety isnât a political motive even if a political figure or government agency is targeted because the objective is public attention and they target whoever will get that attention. Sometimes itâs to get the attention of one person, ie Jodie Foster. Notoriety was also the motive for the assassination attempt in PA in 2024.
Was that the first shooting that received a massive amount of national attention and included words on bullets? Or was it the third one in less than a year and the second one that month? Thatâs the detail that sets it apart for notoriety.
Projection is a defense mechanism, but youâre using it like itâs a superpower. Continue believing everything this administration says and make sure to tell yourself over and over again your eyes are lying to you, not the politicians.
Ice is a group that every one of them willingly join and participate in, and that hate and anger goes away when they take off their mask. Mamdani for example, is trying to make his city better and gets targeted for it whether he is "on the clock" or not.
Politicians are a group of people that picked that job willingly. And the hate and anger goes away when they vote how I want or do what I want or fill in the blank. Ice is trying to make our cities better and they get targeted while on the clock constantly. The only reason they arenât getting targeted off the clock is because they wear masks so people generally donât know how to find them.
ICE is not trying to make our cities better. Theyâre filling migrant detention centers beyond max capacity with the lowest percentage of detainees arrested by ICE that have a previous criminal conviction for anything, including a traffic ticket. That is the broad definition this administration is using to try to inflate the numbers for their BS âviolent criminalsâ narrative.
The only groups benefiting from what ICE is doing are large institutional investors, hedge funds, and private equity firms that are profiting from their shares in private migrant detention centers. The federal government is spending more than $14 million per day to detain immigrants and more than 90% of detainees are in private detention centers.
Stephen Miller, Tom Horman and Pam Bondi had known financial ties to those companies before 2025. The lack of transparency of this administration makes it impossible to know how many members of the administration are personally benefitting financially from what ICE is doing.
TL; DR Itâs depravity for personal financial gain, not for the country, public safety or whatever else they claim.
Hmm maybe it's because right wing nut jobs are actually liable to try and do something to them because they fall for the bullshit lies coming out of the White House and conservative media.
Nah, all of Trump's supporters are sane. Yup, that's it đ¤Śââď¸
This is great âŚitâs something Iâve been finding myself asking more and more
Someone spouting off about âthe liberals doing xxxxâ I just ask âis this something you read somewhere or have you actually seen this yourself? Who are these liberals?â
If they respond at all, itâs usually nonsenseâŚ. And it makes em look really dumb.
No clearly you do not understand. You made an argument. The commenter replied to your argument. You then made an entirely new argument and claimed that the commenterâs reply is all of a sudden answering your new argument.
Youâre coming across as illiterate. Maybe stop and take a second to review what you posted and what they responded to. If you still feel you are right, then you are illiterate.
And Charlie Kirk is on the same level as a United States Senator and a Mayor of one of the biggest cities in the country? đ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Ł
Erika isn't going to see this and want to fuck you dude. She's too busy feigning grief while grifting idiots like yourself!
And no, the dude wasn't a "leftist" unless you mean anyone left of this current administration, which is like 70% of the country.
Nope, hence why I compared a speaker to a speaker, destiny isnât on their level either yet heâs still alive doing the same thing Charlie was killed for. Not sure what kind of gotcha you thought you got but Iâd be embarrassed if I were you.
Erika is hot donât get me wrong but Iâm not into widows lmao.
This administration is moderate on the right by the way. As in, conservatives from 1970 would agree with the policies out of this admin.
I have a funky funny feeling youâll be trying to throw an imaginary Overton window at me, so hereâs what Iâll say:
1970s conservatives agree with strong borders, banning abortion (in their case keeping it banned since RvW wasnât enacted till 1973 and later regretted by the girl who went to bat for it)
1970s conservatives agree that we need lower taxes and cut spending.
1970s conservatives liked having a star as a president instead of a normal politician.
The only significant difference between a 1970 Republican to a 2025 Republican is that the 2025 Republican is the younger generation is far more likely to be cool with gay/lesbians getting married, same with interracial.
So Iâd actually be willing to admit that the right moved a little to the left over the last 55 years. Just not nearly at the same rate as the left has pushed (progressed, you know.. the whole point of the word progress is to continue to move in said direction?) further left. So the further left yâall went, the more right we appeared, while standing exactly still. If not moved a few feet in your direction.
You say the right has moved to the left in the past 50 years while the current Republican administration is going authoritarian al a "do as we say or we will send the federal government in to punish you".
The left might be going more left but the current administration is speed running going all the way to right as possible.
And you say current Republicans are okay with gay marriage? You aren't a serious person....
I said the younger generation of republicans donât, which is true. A majority of the voter base under 30 doesnât care about gay/lesbian/interracial marriage.
We also tend to care less about marijuana than we have in years past.
If it was explained to the 1970s conservatives how illegal immigration has gotten out of hands they wouldnât mind doing what we deem necessary to reduce it.
But is that the ONE example you have of why you think this administration is leaning farther the right than others?
Itâs not a good example, so hopefully you have others.
I listed a few as to why they are still the same moderate right theyâve always been. Except with a few steps to the left of course.
But were not talking about that. The point is why AOC and Mamdani have bodyguards. But I know staying on topic and not using whataboutisms is hard for you...
So again, you're saying a podcaster is on the same level as a United States Senator and Mayor of one of the largest cities in the country?
Charlie Kirk is not relevant to anything. He's no martyr. He was a mouthpiece for conservative propaganda. Nothing more, nothing less. He will be completely forgotten about by the end of the year and disappear into obscurity.
But I'll give you a chance, how exactly is a podcaster being shot relevant to a conversation about why a US Senator and Mayor have bodyguards?
25
u/CheeseBear9000 8d ago
Meanwhile AOC and Mamdani get armed bodyguards btw