https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVNw03gyLmk&feature=youtu.be

until level 10, plscomment your Links....

@Mana posted a Link to the Shapiro Sunday Special with the last good President that Canada had.
Before the Hair and Sock Model...

Tim, there can be no gun control debate because there is no debate.

Just like there is no free speech debate. You either recognize that they are rights embedded explicitly into the Constitution, or you are wrong.

And if you look at Europe, you know why you want to have guns.

It's like having a slavery debate.

Just look at Rotherham. Would such a situation be possible if the Population would have been armed?

i'd go further and say that the rights exist whether or not the constitution exists.

A right for humans to arm themselves? Eeehh.

if the radical left seized power and burned the constitution tomorrow, i'd still have my rights.

I wouldn't go that far.

I would. At least for the native population.

i'd have a tyrannical government to fight, but they can't take my rights away. they are inalienable.

Sadly we don't have too many guns in public.

It depends if you're talking about law or philosophy.
There are things that are considered human rights, but that doesn't mean every human on earth has them.

And I wouldn't say that every human has an intrinsic right to bear arms.

They certainly have an intrinsic right to self defense

Yes, I would agree with that.

But what does it really say if someone can deny you from exercising a right through action?

Take an example in Thailand
We aren't allowed to have guns
Then there was a woman stubbing 4 students to death

Question for Tim or whoever idfk its late

Is it really correct to call every retard in the left wing (not that they're all retards) "the regressive left"?

Regressive just seems like a fancy euphemism for "bad" as a posturing to distance yourself and your left wing beliefs from them

If you are advocating for regressive policies then yes.

I think the idea is more so that many on the modern left wish to change things to revert what was previously agreed upon as progress.

yeah but i see it used basically whenever anyone says some random shit like blm extremists or crazt feminists

It's a play own their self labelling of 'progressive'.

Any political term is going to be misused by idiots who just want to insult others

fair point i guess though when you describe it like that it sounds like a petty insult

yeah

It's the same as 'cuck' ppl will grab it and run away with it. Thre's nothing you can do to stop that.

the way ive seen it cuck just means someone who lets others walk all over them like migrants taking their jobs or men allowing women to take power at their expense in a similar way to letting them sleep with their wife

though ive also seen it used as a go to insult for general leftism

though with modern democratic party beliefs n shit like with immigration it kinda fits all of them

with some exceptions

The point here is learn not to miss use words. And try not to insult ppl when pointing out there actions or ideas will have the same effect.

Ideas that I would consider 'regressive' would be ones like "Minorities are oppressed so they need their own spaces away from whites" - This is just sugar coated segregation; "Women can't find success in the patriarchy so we need affirmative action to help them" - This is just seeing women as less competent than men; "Men have historically held more power over women, so it's time for women to take total control" - This is just straight up sexual discrimination.

tru

So what you're saying is...we need to keep women in the kitchen to keep them safe? /s

yes