Message from @Jym
Discord ID: 646140023980163158
Lol
I haven't watched LwC or Ben Shapiro in so long
Unironically
I watch them if it's a topic I care enough about, they have well thought out opinions and it's worth hearing it sometimes
It's so bad though
Crowder will wear a walther tshirt and have Dan Crenshaw, who's John McCain 2.0, and soft ball all questions at him regarding the taps act and all the red flag laws and stuff and practically agree with him Dave Rubin style.
No pressings or anything
fr...
steven is blackpilling
when the one who champions not being afraid to speak... is afraid to speak.
It doesn't have to be to blackpilled
Movement is still going n it's not the apocalypse till God says so
But there's people to watch that aren't richard Spencer spergs and aren't boomer media of LwC and Ben Shapio standards
I watch NOTHING on blaze TV or whatever
That also aren't fence sitters like tim pool lol
Nick Fuentes is pretty good, these guys are too.
Well Walther is their sponsor. Am I the only one who remembers radio programs having sponsors? And I'm not sure what you are mad at Crenshaw about TAPS is not a red-flag law it just sets up a committee to so threat assessment. The only thing on firearms I could find in the bill was 8-b where it says TAPS cannot spend funds to train people in firearms use. I'll link the bill;
https://babin.house.gov/uploadedfiles/babin_068_xml.pdf
Not even making a point I was just sending content I've seen for people to watch if they want that I think they'd really enjoy that's a breath of fresh air.
Yeah I sent the full text of the bill you were calling a red flag law. Which it clearly is not.
It looks to me (you know from reading the bill rather than listening to some woke YTer) that they are responding to the cries that we should 'do something'
About school shootings. So they produced a 'something' that has no ellement of restricting gun rights.
"Threat Assessment Prevention and Safety"
Almost as though Groypers seize on non-issues because it excites their dopamine receptors. Did you read the bill? Or are you just excited about the title?
I mean it's like when people got upset about the CDC studying gun violence. The last time they did that they found millions of defensive firearms uses.
Are you even in favor of the bill boomer?
I'm ambivalent. Merely pointing out that people are willing to spend hours calling it a red flag law without ever reading it.
> So they produced a 'something' that has no ellement of restricting gun rights.
It doesn't matter, it has the illusion of doing *something*, as you said. @Jym
Well we can agree that you are punching at illusions. And spending a lot of energy on it. I prefer to deal with reality but I am sure it is emotionally fulfilling....
Just smile and nod along with them. Let them push their empty solutions
Boomer summarize the taps act for me instead of sending me the pdf to read if you know it so much if the concept of it is so simple to you.
I'm not sure it is empty. But I must note at this time that while you tacitly acknowledge it is not a red flag law you are more not less excited about opposing it.
I don't achnowledge anything I'll get to that in a moment
Oh sorry summarize? Sure I mean I did skim it but basically it sets up a small taskforce with a small budget to analyze the small problem of mass shootings. With a lot of restrictions and legalese. But I could not find anything in the bill empowering anyone to take anyone's firearms.
I mean you could read it and prove me wrong *I* couldn't find anything like that.
"A grant program that allows local law enforcement to use the same analytical tools and training on behavioral threat assessment that federal law enforcement has been using for 35 years." -Dan Crenshaw on that LWC interview about the taps act when asked what they are.
So lemme tell you the "grant program" is not "hey we're going to give you more money for this great program" they take money from the state if they don't enroll in the program. That's how we have speed limits on major highways because the department of transportation says "You can't have speed limits higher than *such n such* on a major highway". Same with seat belt laws. The drinking age is a state enforced thing. But any state that has a drinking age under 21 loses a big chunk of their funding. It behooves your state to have it. If not they take money from you. This taps act is a roundabout way of passing a federal law when they can't.
The threat assessment thing: You know how the FBI has access to the NSA and everything you do? We also want to make sure your local sheriff can pull up a screen and have access to everything you've ever said online and everytime you've ever made fun of your local sheriff for being a dick head. Or everytime you've said "there's a speed trap over there". What you're doing is your giving the information- all this trickling down from the patriot act - now all this unfettered federal access, that used to just be on the federal level, every cop is going to be for this. You are giving them more money and giving them access to this huge database. The whole taps act is about pre-crime. You're trying to stop somebody. Who hasn't done anything illegal yet. You know what I mean?
Or what?
It's another example of you can't criminalize being a dick. It's unconstitutional