MovieChat Forums > Politics > Illegal immigrants can now carry guns, a...

Illegal immigrants can now carry guns, a federal judge has ruled.


Illegal immigrants can now carry guns, a federal judge has ruled. At this point, it seems like illegals have as many rights as US citizens but without even half the responsibilities.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman has ruled that an illegal immigrant's Second Amendment rights were violated when he was charged with unlawfully possessing firearms.

The case in question involves Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, an undocumented immigrant who was charged under 18 U.S.C § 922, a federal statute prohibiting illegal aliens from carrying guns or ammunition. However, Judge Coleman determined that this law, as applied to Carbajal-Flores, infringes upon his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The defense team successfully argued that the government failed to demonstrate how the statute aligns with America's historical tradition of firearm regulation, a requirement set forth by the Supreme Court in 2022. They contended that lifetime disarmament based solely on alienage or nationality lacks roots in U.S. history and tradition.

Remarkably, Judge Coleman noted that Carbajal-Flores has no prior convictions for felonies, violent crimes, or weapons offenses. She even acknowledged his claim that he obtained and used the handgun exclusively for self-protection during a period of documented civil unrest.

The implications of this ruling are profoundly troubling. By extending Second Amendment protections to illegal immigrants, the court has effectively prioritized the rights of non-citizens over the safety and security of American citizens. It sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to a surge in armed illegals , further compromising the US' already strained immigration enforcement efforts.

Moreover, this decision raises serious questions about the consistency and coherence of the legal system. How can anyone justify granting constitutional gun rights to those who have willfully violated immigration laws, while law-abiding citizens face increasing restrictions on their Second Amendment freedoms?

Source: Newsmax

reply

Gun nuts will look like hypocrites if they speak out against this.

reply

Why?

I think the Constitution only applies to citizens. Since illegal invaders aren't citizens, they shouldn't be protected with the same rights.

reply

Constitutional rights have always applied to illegals! Don't see why the 2nd amendment should be an exception.

reply

What happened to the 'We the people ' bit?

reply

The 2A doesn't apply to criminal aliens.

You know they are trying to setup a foreign based police/military that will shoot you and me without a 2nd thought...right?

_______________________________________________
Current MC Posters with B1cKsurN Derangement Syndrome
Skavu
Keelai
robocat893
ThaiStickers
TrentnQuarentino
Satan2016
Information-Police

reply

B1cKsurN is right! This is part of the endgame.

reply

Exactly. A domestic police/military has homeland ties and will think twice or outright reject orders to fire on fellow citizens.

A foreign police/military has zero homeland ties and will not bat an eye at firing on American citizens.

We must never allow democrats to disarm us, and we also need to abolish the DNC. It's corrupted.

_______________________________________________
Current MC Posters with B1cKsurN Derangement Syndrome
Skavau
Keelai
robocat893
ThaiStickers
TrentnQuarentino
Satan2016
Information-Police

reply

we also need to abolish the DNC.

Agreed.
According to "The New Republic", it's in the works.

reply

You think that the Biden administration wishes to arm immigrants specifically so they can fire on American citizens with no consequences?

reply

The legal gun nut owners or the illegal gun nut owners....the violent 13% demographic love illegal guns.

Everyone else is a responsible gun owner.





reply

If/when one of those illegals kills someone else with his rightfully owned gun the Cons/Repubs will of course be going after the illegals instead of the gun because that is what they love more since they are racists.

"Look at all the illegals who are not breaking the law with their guns."
"None of them can be trusted!"
"And you trust white people with guns even though they commit more crimes with them than illegals?"
"Yeah, because they are white!"

Look at the case of Laken Riley.
A white girl killed by an illegal.
They only care because she was white.
If she had been black or any other race, crickets.

reply

Most victims of illegal invaders are hispanic.

But yeah, the cartels are linked to people from central America, so you can't pretend that fear isn't justified. The cartel is operating in all 50 states and has just been told that they can carry guns.

Also, whites do not commit more gun crimes than Hispanics. Per capita stats:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7226a9.htm

reply

I support his right to carry a gun. In HIS country. Here? i support his right to be deported. Other than that, get the fuck out.

Anyone that would cry "Racist" over illegal immigration are race baitingg assholes.

reply

race baitingg assholes


Bigoteer. The correct word to describe this behavior is "Bigoteering"

All the trolls in my signature are all bigoteers, too.

_______________________________________________
Current MC Posters with B1cKsurN Derangement Syndrome
Skavu
Keelai
robocat893
ThaiStickers
TrentnQuarentino
Satan2016
Information-Police

reply

But he has that legal right to carry a gun which you gun nuts have to all be OK with.
There is no middle ground on the gun rights issue with any of you.

So you are OK with a white, unarmed european illegal who never hurt anyone?

reply

You're the only one tryihng to make this about race, wp.

If i could wave a magic wand and deport all the illegals, brown and white at the same time, BOOM, I would do it without hesitation.


reply

I would also penalize all the people who employed them for cheap labor. Plenty of Americans would be in prison.

Tell me something. Why should I vote for that when some of my closest friends are illegal immigrants? Is it in my best interest to deport my closest friends?

reply

You would really imprison people for employing your best friends?

Oh, wait, no you wouldn't. That was shit talk.

What you really want is Open Borders and just don't enforce the laws, or care about the interests of your fellow Americans, or what THEY want,


and you talk shit like that, to avoid admitting your real position, because you know that you cannot defend what you want POLICY WISE, on moral or practical grounds.


So, you say shit you do not mean.

reply

If my friends got deported yes I would.

Now answer my question. Why should I support something that would hinder my closest friends?

reply

1. So, you DON'T want it, you were just shit talking, like I said. What you really support, like most lefties, is OPEN BORDER.

2. i'm not telling you what to support. I was just calling out the race baiting of your fellow lefty/open border supporter.

reply

Nope I just don't operate from a double standard or a self righteous standard. You want to place all blame on immigrants. The folks who employed them deserve deserve blame as well if we go that route. You only want immigrants punished. I take issue with that way of thinking.

I didn't race bait. You do that constantly. I guarantee if I ask you if what happened to George Floyd was wrong you will evade it. Notice I'm not asking if it's racist what happened to him, I'm not even stating he is a good person. I'm asking if what that cop did was wrong? Watch I bet how you side step and fold like a pretzel. If you ask me if I support blm I will without hesitation say no.

reply

1. Yes. You don't want the illegals deported. YOu don't want to imprison the employers. You want to keep the current situation where the illegals are pouring into the country at a super high rate.

OPEN BORDER. But you are too dishonest to admit it. SO you talk shit to try to muddle the issue.


2. More shit talk. I'm not telling you who to support. So.... what?

reply

Nope I'm fine if you do it, however it needs to be consistent. You don't get to demonize immigrants exclusively. You only want to target immigrants.

Nope I proved you are too much of a wimp to give a straight answer.

reply

1. You're lying. And no, I don't need to be consistent. That is you trying to muddle the issue. "Demonize"? Save the shit talk for someone that cares.

2. LOL. You pack your posts with shit talk and then whine like a fag that I don't address a point? YOu want me to address a certain point, make that point concisely and clearly, without the shit talk or filler.

reply

Since you want the double standard then yep I'm fine with open borders. If you people were consistent I would be open to your beliefs. Unfortunately you are not.

Was what happened to George Floyd wrong?

reply

1. Your support of Open Borders has nothing to do with me. The rest is shit talk.

2. I think that it is unfortunate that piece of shit criminals LIE so much that an experienced cop will ignore a middle aged drug abuser talking about how he can't breath and thus the middle aged drug abuser dies.


I think that the way that that incident was protrayed as "proof" that cops just go hunt and kill black men, because of the fun wacism, was retarded shit talk, and those that did it are scum of the earth.

I hope that is clear enough for you.

reply

And your support of deporting them has nothing to do with what's best for the country. So you shit talk as well. If you wanted what was best for the country you wouldn't support the drug war. So no spare me the self righteous bullshit.

I didn't ask for what you thought of racism or how Floyd was portrayed. Notice how I knew you would pull that bullshit before you did it? So let's try again. Was what happened to him wrong yes or no? No long winded answers. It's a simple yes or no.

reply

1. You are incorrect. My support for deportation is because I sincerely think that it would be best for this country and its citizens.

YOU don't care about what is best for this country or it's citizens. YOu care about what is best for you and your friends.


2. It's not a simple question. It touches on a number of issues as I covered in my answer to you. I answered honestly and seriously. That is my answer. Respond to that, build on it if you wish.

reply

Nope I am right. I don't believe you want what's best for the country. You wouldn't support the drug war if that was the case.

Nope you danced around it. It was a yes or no question and you evaded it. Your answer was a politicians answer. That seems to be your thing.

reply

1. YOur opinion on my opinions are noted. My statement stands. My support of deportation is based on what I believe is best for this country. I am honest about it, and willing to discuss it honestly and seriously. YOU are the one playing shit talk games.

2. It is a simple question, if you think simply. My answer was the answer of someone who thought about it seriously, instead of kneejerking with the mob.

reply

I do not believe you want what's best for the country. If you did you wouldn't support the drug war. As it stands I have no issues with immigrants being here. Your opinion and double standards only makes my stance on this firmer. You want people to hear you out and respect your view you need to be consistent. Otherwise why should anyone respect your view or consider it?

I asked for a simple answer. Yes or no? Or you going to evade yet again? Notice how I will answer your question directly without all the word salad? You give a word salad because you know deep down you are wrong. I wonder if you are one of those idiots that thinks Michelle Obama is a man? I have my suspicions since you fit almost every stereotype of a dumb conservative I've seen on here.

reply

1. Your position clearly puts the interests of yourself and your friends ahead of the country adn it's citizens. Mine does not.

Your pretense at not believing me is...not credible. You don't care about this country or feel any sense of loyalty to your fellow citizens, and refuse to be honest about that.

2. You are the one doing word salad, while I gave a clear and concise answer.

reply

I can say the same thing to you about your position on the drug war. I want to end it because that would benefit the country. You want it to continue when it hinder the country.

Nope, I asked for a yes or no answer. You evaded it.

reply

1. Except your position was shit talk, about wanting to put the peope that give your friends jobs, in prison. Mine is sincere.

See, i am actually comfortable sharing my honest position, while you are not. That is a real difference. You can deny it, but we can see that where your concern is, and it is NOT for this country or your fellow Americans.


2. Buddy. YOU are the shit talker here, and you know it. I gave you my answer. Respond to it, or not. Talking shit about it, is not goign to impress me.

reply

You telling me it's sincere doesn't make true. I don't believe you are sincere. I think you blame immigrants for everything. It's a conservative's favorite scape goat.

Nope you didn't answer. Let's try again. Yes or no? Very simple. If you evade it again I will take it as you conceding to my point. Last chance.

reply

1. Importing tens of millions of people, has a big impact on a society. That makes it a legit political issue. You clearly support the status qou. I want to change it. I am willing to discuss why. You want to play games like claiming to want to put people in prison for giving your friends jobs.

You KNOW that your policy of OPEN BORDERS, is bad for America and Americans but you want it anyways because it is good for your friends.


2. I did answer. It is unfortunate that low life scum lie so much. Such beahavior has consequences.

reply

That still doesn't mean you want it for sincere reasons. I want the drug war to stop you don't. I will gladly discuss anything and his it affects the country. You realize ending the drug war would help with immigration fight?

Nope it's yes or no. So let's try again. Yes or no? Your answer is addressing the actions of a lie not if the cop was wrong or not. Stop deflecting and answer the question.

reply

1. It shows I am being honest and serious and you are not.

I'm a Patriotic American. My goal is ithe interests of Americans and America.

You are loyal to your friends, not your fellow citizens.

2. I gave you my answer. Deal with it. Or not.

reply

Not when you support the drug war. That undermines you supporting your fellow citizens. You aren't patriotic at all if you support that which you do.

No you didn't. Since you didn't answer that counts as you conceding. You support cops being corrupt. You are a low life piece of trash.

reply

1. I disagree.

2. I did. That you want a simplistic answer is a you problem.

reply

Doesn't matter if you disagree. The point stands the drug war isn't good for the country or citizens. You supporting it shows you are not for the benefit of the country.

I asked you for a simple answer. Your failure to comprehend that is your issue not mine. Comprehend what someone asks you. If someone asks specifically for a simplistic answer that's what you provide. You know deep down I'm right here but you evade a simple question. Your denial is quite strong. Do you need a self help line? I have numbers I can provide you.

reply

1. IMO, drug legalization would be worse. IMO, that answer is to fight drug use better, not accept it as normal.

2. The question was simple, the answer is not. Deal with it. Or stfu.

reply

Lol! Explain how the drug war is beneficial? Did the prohibition of alcohol work? Provide methods in which we can fight it better. Enlighten me.

Nope bullshit! You failed to give a simple answer. You evaded doing that because you know I'm right. Typical conservative behavior. You know I'm right. I would love debating you publicly. I think it would be a good highlight reel of how stupid you are.

reply

1. My understanding is that alchol consumption did drop during prohibition.

2. I gave you my real answer. That it does not fit into your simple world view is a failing on your part, not mine.

reply

I didn't ask you if consumption dropped. I asked you if the prohibition of alcohol worked. Your understanding of it is also quite limited as you have demonstrated. By prohibiting it you gave more power to the black market and dealers. By ending prohibition we have more control of alcohol now than when we did when it was illegal. I want the country to have control of things not the cartel and gangsters. So do you think alcohol should still be illegal?

No you didn't. I asked you for a simple yes or no answer. You then didn't give that. That is your problem not mine. When I ask you a yes or no question you answer yes or no. You failed to comprehend what I asked, or you deliberately were evasive because you know you are wrong. I'm going with the latter.

reply

1. The goal of prohibition was to reduce the damage done to society by alchol. If alchol consumption was reduced, then the damage done by alchol consumption was reduced.

2. Wrong. That you did not understand all the complexity of the issue, is your failure, not mine.

reply

Wrong. Just because the consumption is reduced doesn't mean the damage is completely reduced. Part of ending the prohibition was about taking power away from the gangsters. During prohibition it created a gigantic surge in the black market, which then gave them more control over society. Which then in turn was more damaging to society. You are painfully misinformed. Also you again evaded another question of mine. So should alcohol still to this day be illegal?

Nope. I didn't ask for a complex answer. I asked you for a yes or no answer. You failing on that front is your fault mine not.

reply

1. "Completely reduced"? Of course not. Consumption was reduced not eliminated. Only a complete retard would think that reducing consumption would completely eliminate damage. So...why did you bother saying that?

2. Your not liking my answer is you being ...I don't even know what. It is pathetic beyond my ability to describe.

reply

I asked if prohibition worked not if it completely eliminated the damage. Which my original point stands. Prohibition did more harm than good. By getting rid of prohibition, we have more control over alcohol than the black market and the gangsters. Should alcohol still be illegal to this day? This is the second time you evaded that question. You going to evade it a third time?

When I asked you for a specific yes or no answer that's what I expect. You failing is your problem. It's not about disliking your answer, you didn't do what I asked.

reply

1. You made a point of making the point that damage was NOT completetly reduced. Why did you do that?

2. My honest answer was not a yes or no. That is not a failure on my part. You are being an asshole.

reply

I was talking about as a whole. Not just the consumption. It's negative affect on society. I wasn't expecting it to be completely at zero. That's not possible obviously. However more harm came from prohibition than positives. Damage was increased by alcohol prohibition. That point stands. So you evaded it a third time let's try once again. Should alcohol still be illegal?

I asked for a yes or no. That point stands. You are an asshole for not answering yes or no when I specifically asked you for that.

reply

1. Obviously it's not possibly. So, why did you present that as t hough it was evidence against my point of damage REDUCTION?

2. My answer was not a simple yes or no. I was not an asshole for that. YOu are being an asshole in acting the way you are.

reply

Because overall the damage of the prohibition era as a whole was more negative. It runs deeper than just the consumption. So if you want to say I misspoke or worded it poorly fine. However the point stands prohibition was more negative than positive. That's what this is all about.

My question was a yes or no. You dancing around that is you being an asshole.

reply

1. Really? How much did wife beating drop?

2. IMO, your question touched on more complex issues than you realized.

You are the one being an asshole, stonewalling on this.

reply

Irrelevant. The point stands prohibition did more harm to society than good.

In your opinion, key word there. I asked the question and specifically asked for a yes or no answer to my question. You evading that is you being an asshole.

reply

1. You don't know do you?

2. It's really not. My answer was my honest answer. You should be able to deal with that.

reply

I do actually. I just fail to see how that is relevant in the prohibition of alcohol being positive. No one is denying there are negative effects of alcohol. However the legalization gave us more control of alcohol and less power to the black market and gangsters selling it. The point stands prohibition was more harmful to society than good. Wife beatings is not exclusive to alcohol. You are throwing things at the wall in hopes it will stick. You know I have proven you wrong. Prohibition failed that point stands.

No it was an evasion. I asked you specifically for yes or no. That's you being an asshole.

reply

1. No, you don't. The point is to decide if something was good or bad you have to judge the good vs the bad. YOu don't know that good. You don't have the information to make an informed judgement.
AND, even more, you don't even seem to grasp the concept of judging by comparing pro-s vs con-s.

Which raises the question, HOW the hell do you decide what is good or bad?


2. That is incorrect.

reply

Yes I do. Correct but you also average it out. If there is more good than bad it's only logical to go with the better choice. It's why you evaded my question. Do you want alcohol to go back to being illegal? I made a point of negatives about gangsters getting more control and the black market rising. The only positive I've seen you say is the consumption was down. I have more pros in my favor than you do. It's why you evaded my question. So answer should alcohol go back to being illegal?

Nope it is correct. Only assholes evade when someone asks for a specific yes or no answer.

reply

1. BUt, you don't know the information on the pro-s so how did you compare them with the con-s?

Answer: You didn't.

2. My intent was not to evade but to answer honestly. My take away is very different than yours, or most. IMO, the assumption of racism as the primary cause was way off. The fault lies with the low life criminals that constantly lie. This creates a situation where anyone who deals with these lowlifes on a regular basis learns to ignore the constant shit talk.

reply

Um no I did. I asked you how wife beatings was relevant to the prohibition of alcohol. You had no answer. I then pointed out how the black market getting a boost and gangsters getting more power is a negative. You had no answer. I openly admitted a negative of ending prohibition was alcohol use went up. However overall on average there are more pros than cons of ending prohibition. I then asked you if alcohol should still be illegal. You evaded that also. You know deep down you have no grounds, so you evade.

I asked you specifically for a yes or no answer. You evaded it. That was deceptive of you and you know it.

reply

1. Oh, sorry, somehow I missed that question. The answer is that Wife Beating, and much violent crime, is often at least partially caused by alchol abuse.

This was a core argument of the prohibitionists btw.

2. You can request that. But my honest answer was not a simple yes or no. Your refusal to deal with that is kind of pathetic and weak.

reply

And my retort is how much was gang killings and violence increased during prohibition of alcohol? I have the stats. There was a lot more gang violence and deaths over prohibition then the harm caused by wife violence over it's consumption. That totally nukes your argument in bringing this up. Someone who supports the prohibition will use any argument they can because they want the gangster to have power over the country. That's like saying weed is a gateway drug. It's a tired dumb argument. Come at me with a stronger point than that please.

You not giving that when specifically asked is you being an asshole. Next time you ask a question I will not answer it specifically and evade it. Guarantee you won't like it.

reply

1. You've seen the numbers? Impressive. I have never seen such a comparison. So, how much did violent crimes such as wife abuse drop compared to the rise in gang crime?

2. No, it's not. My intent was to give a honest and serious answer.

reply

Wife abuse due to alcohol didn't drop. Domestic alcohol abuse went up because it became more available. Thing is gang deaths and crime is way worse than that. And gangsters crimes went on the rise during prohibition.

If you were honest you would have answered yes or no. You were a dishonest asshole.

reply

1. I doubt your claim. My understanding is that alcohol use did drop and thus you would expect that related violence would have dropped too.

2. IMO, innocent wives being beaten is worse than criminals killing each other.

3. Nope. A simple yes or no would have been a misleading response, not giving you an accuract understanding of my position on the issue.

reply

Yeah no retort. I figured as much. Don't speak on issues you know nothing about. You understand?

reply

That information is public knowledge. I don't care if you doubt the claim. You are assuming because alcohol consumption went down that all violence associated with alcohol dropped. You realize the black market and gangsters got more power during prohibition correct? So this made violence due to the prohibition more alive. So congrats consumption goes down but you trade in one problem for a bigger one. This is associated with alcohol. I also didn't bring up how alcohol poisoning was worse because there was stronger less safe alcohol due to the black market. Are you honestly unaware of this? This is common knowledge. This is associated with alcohol.

Criminals aren't the only ones being killed. Violence on the street made innocent people get killed also. So answer my question. Should alcohol go back to being illegal?

Nope that would have been answering my question honestly.

reply

1. is it? I've seen a lot of people expressing assumptions or conclusions but I have never seen any hard numbers seriously compared. If you have, i would be open to seeing the link.

2. Yes, I realize that it was not only criminals. But it was mostly criminals killing each other.

3. I don't know the actual results to know if it should go back to being illegal again.

4. I would have been giving you an answer that I know would have given you a FALSE impression of my position on the issue. It is insane of you to claim that that would have been honest.


reply

You are free to look it up. Whenever I ask you for proof you call me a faggot and complain. Therefore you look up the stats. It's out there. If you were more civil I would gladly link it, but you are not so do it yourself.

Doesn't matter. So innocent people being caught in the crossfire is worse than someone suffering from violence from alcohol? I think death is worse than suffering a violent assault.

So you don't know then. Why did you evade that question for so long? Look up the stats so you can have a position on the issue. I want no part of prohibition to return. I don't drink at all but I don't want gangsters getting more power. The cartel has enough power with drugs.

Bullshit! You evaded it because you are a dishonest asshole.

reply

1. BIG DIFFERENCE between us. So, whatever.

2. I said what I said. You can respond if you want. The bit where you change what I said and ask me to defend something you made up? That is you admitting that you cannot refute what I actually said.

3. I didn't evade the question. I was clear that I did not have good numbers on the results.

4. Nope. I gave you an honest answer. Youre being weird about that, is a you problem.

reply

Yeah you are right. I don't tell people to kill themselves.

You said you were aware innocent get caught in the crossfire but didn't care because it was mostly criminals. That is what you said.

No you evaded it. Now you finally say I don't know. Before you wouldn't even address it.

Nope bullshit. It was a yes or no answer.

reply

Cons/Repubs will of course be going after the illegals instead of the gun


The gun is an inanimate object, the criminal alien is a murderer... are we seriously going to have that discussion?

If she had been black or any other race, crickets.


Dude, your bigoteering is off the charts. Slow down there, Turbo...

_______________________________________________
Current MC Posters with B1cKsurN Derangement Syndrome
Skavu
Keelai
robocat893
ThaiStickers
TrentnQuarentino
Satan2016
Information-Police

reply

OK then where is the outcry for any black or any other non white race that has been a murder victim of any illegals?
C'mon man.
Cons and Repubs will not make them poster children for their cause unless they are white.
And make it a young woman.
OK so Laken is not all that attractive but she will have to do.

Just sayin that is how it is.

reply

Been plenty of stories of various minority citizens killed by illegals that we have spoken of.

Your claim that we only discuss it or care when the vic is white, is simply you race bating on this one.

reply

Not on purpose.

Just that Laken is the "Victim of the month," being put up by the racist Repubs.
Again, where is the outcry of non white victims of them where they could showcase any of them at any time as they do for Link?
Notice how it was Libs/The Left who cared that Floyd was murdered and not the right.
So don't be pretending that Cons care about non-whites when they never do,

reply

I think you are confused. We republicans are happy to discuss crimes where the victims are nonwhite and discuss how those crimes showcase pollicies that need to be changed.

It is YOUR LEFTY media that buries stories that don't fit THEIR narrative.

We cons are the ones that seriously want to reduce crime and violence in the nation as a whole and the black community specifically, while you libs accept it as the price of doing business.

reply

Got any examples to back up your claims of caring?

It was MTG who brought up Link., and not a black victim, to heckle Biden with at his SOTU.

reply

I don't remember their names, but i'm sure you could google some if you have time to waste.

reply

The burden of proof would be on you.

Just like B1cKsurN you also don't want to be bothered to prove me wrong.
I wonder why that is?
Could it be that it is easier to sympathize for a white victim and you refuse to acknowledge there could be black victims of illegal alien crime?

Take a look at the levels of denial of the right wing that a cop murdered George Floyd.
"He is a thug."
"He was trying to pass funny money."
"He once held a gun to a pregnant woman."
Sure he was no saint but an unarmed man who was not convicted did not deserve that death.
There is something wrong with anyone who disagrees with that.

reply

1. I have already acknowledged that black people are also the victims fo illegal immigrant violent crime. Twice in this thread right above.

2. "Easier to sympathize with a white vicim"? Depends. Been plenty of white victims of crimes that were doing stupid shit, that I didn't sympathize with as much as say, black or brown vicitms that were just minding their own business.

3, Here's the thing about FLoyd. He was a piece of shit and your side held him up as proof that cops are just targetting black men for being blacks. Ok, if you want to make that case, a better way to do it, would be to find an example of a black guy who was NOT a piece of shit, who got killed by a cop for no reason. Use THAT example. THAT would make your case far better than using a piece of shit.

reply

One reason why the reaction of riots we got from Floyd was because it was filmed and went viral.

Doesn't matter if he was a POS.
A cop does not have to have his knee on the neck of a vulnerable person with their hands cuffed making them die and denying them medical attention.
You may not sympathize with him but I do for those reasons.
What did he do that deserved this death?
Nothing.
Just for passing a counterfeit bill which no one can prove he did knowingly?
Seriously?
That did not deserve handcuffs or even a police call.

Chauvin is a racist barf chunk and knew what he was doing.
He is where he should be right now.

reply

As I already said, if you lefties want to make the case that the issue is racism,

then use an example where the person in question is NOT a piece of shit.


reply

OK I'll bite even though I expect that anything I show you will somehow discount it.
Maybe you will prove that wrong and I'll be surprised.

Ever hear of Charles Kinsey?
An innocent and unarmed black man who was doing everything with cooperating and ended up getting shot anyway.
Thankfully he wasn't killed.

On July 18, 2016, Charles Kinsey, a behavior therapist, was shot in the leg by a police officer in North Miami, Florida. Kinsey had been retrieving his 27-year-old autistic patient, Arnaldo Rios Soto, who had run away from his group home. Police encountered the pair while they were searching for an armed suicidal man. Kinsey was lying on the ground with his hands in the air, and trying to negotiate between officers and his patient, when he was shot. The officer who shot Kinsey said he had been aiming at the patient, who the officer believed was threatening Kinsey with a gun. Both Kinsey and his patient were unarmed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Charles_Kinsey

If you still disagree then you show me an example of something you can agree with.

reply

Wow. Sounds like one incredibly incompetent cop. I'm glad he is no longer a cop.

I see no evidence of racism.


reply

where is the outcry for any black or any other non white race that has been a murder victim of any illegals?


Your MSM buddies hide all those stories, so we don't get to hear about them. This isn't our fault. Take it up with the media people!

_______________________________________________
Current MC Posters with B1cKsurN Derangement Syndrome
Skavau
Keelai
robocat893
ThaiStickers
TrentnQuarentino
Satan2016
Information-Police

reply

Nothing is stopping any of you for bringing up non white victims on any of these boards.

reply

But we don't see the stories because they get buried by your beloved media!

What part of that do you not understand?

_______________________________________________
Current MC Posters with B1cKsurN Derangement Syndrome
Skavau
Keelai
robocat893
ThaiStickers
TrentnQuarentino
Satan2016
Information-Police

reply

What?
You never heard of this thing called, "Google, bing," or any of these other search engines?

reply

They do come up, they do get mentioned. BUT, teh media doesn't keep the story going. So, they don't get repeated to the point that it becomes a thing.


It is more like throwing a pebble into the ocean. PLop, and it's gone.


And that is not on us. That is the media.


reply

Damn.
And I thought I was lazy.

reply

LOL. Your failure to address my point is noted.

The fact remains. We do discuss crime when it is illegal on black, not just illegal on white. Your race baiting was based on a false claim.


reply

This is a discussion board where you can bring up any subject under the sun at anytime.

You don't have to rely on the media to make a case for you when you have the whole freaking internet right there at your fingertips.

Why you and others refuse to do a little search to bring things to my attention to make your points seems really lazy to me.

reply

Your...odd implication that we should be constantly scanning the internet for illegal on black crimes to discuss,

is a YOU thing, it has nothing to do with me.

I start some threads. Mostly I reply to threads other people start. If the topics that rise to the top of the screen don't meet your approval.... that has nothing to do with me.


My position on this topic is the same. DEPORT the illegal. I support his right to keep and bear arms, in his home country.

reply

Does this mean that Russian troops can legally station entire battalions of troops with assault rifles in Washington DC?


reply

Maybe not troops but illegal Russians?
Looks like it.
Oh wait.
They are now a threat?
Better stop them!

reply

Why would an illegal with a legal firearm commit a crime with it? They'll easily trace it back to them, then they get deported!

Hmmm, wait, I'm noticing a pattern here.

_______________________________________________
Current MC Posters with B1cKsurN Derangement Syndrome
Skavau
Keelai
robocat893
ThaiStickers
TrentnQuarentino
Satan2016
Information-Police

reply

EVERY firearm is legal at first.
Heck, there are even legal gun owners that become first time lawbreakers when they commit crimes with them.

reply

So you're saying the illegals will begin firearm trafficking rings?

Now we really need to deport them. Good call, man!

_______________________________________________
Current MC Posters with B1cKsurN Derangement Syndrome
Skavau
Keelai
robocat893
ThaiStickers
TrentnQuarentino
Satan2016
Information-Police

reply

Haiti gangs are running riot with guns from the USA . Somehow they're being smuggled out.

reply

Guns from the USA are used to shoot at people all around the world... USA #1!!

MURICA

_______________________________________________
Current MC Posters with B1cKsurN Derangement Syndrome
Skavau
Keelai
robocat893

reply

Perhaps this clause actually has some meaning: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Maybe those candy-asses that had their children killed by Redcoats knew what they were talking about...

reply

Biden's finished as a result of this and this is squarely his fault and on his watch, no blaming Trump for this shit

reply

Has the N.R.A. expressed an opinion on this ruling?

reply

This decision came down March 8. I don't know what to make of the N.R.A.'s silence...

...also curious why the Newsmaxx story was dated March 18... I would think it would be headline news the day of the decision...

reply