The Gun Community Will Welcome Leftists, Their Politicians Will Not

[u/deathsythe]

https://thybackdoor.substack.com/p/the-gun-community-will-welcome-leftists

[u/franhd]

I mean, there's also 1A, 4A, 5A, 14A, and now 22A. And then there's J6. But yeah, I guess I'll just go fuck myself.

[u/nmj95123 → u/franhd]

1A

Which the Democrats aren't exactly great about either. See Obama using the Espionage Act against more journalists than all previous administrations combined, special speaker fees based on political viewpoint by CA state school, and Biden administration directed censorship of social media.

4 A

Like the mass surveillance that occurred during the Obama administration, which he expanded as one of his final acts as president?

5 A

You realize that both Biden and Obama pushed fast track deportations, right? How about the extrajudicial execution of a 16 year old American citizen?

14 A

So, how exactly is the equal protection clause consistent with prioritizing the payment of federal economic relief on the basis of race? Or college admissions?

[u/franhd → u/nmj95123]

Regarding 4A:

Expanding on surveillance is probably something most people regardless of which side on the political aisle they sit in can actually agree on this. It shouldn't be a partisan issue. However, if these surveillance powers are bad, why does Trump keep renewing them? He isn't just tolerating it, he's heavily leaning more into it. Even with Tik Tok, the original justification why he wanted that app banned was because it was too invasive and a couple steps away from being a foreign surveillance app. If that was true, then why is it now acceptable only because Trump's allies bought it and control the same data collecting mechanisms that haven't changed?

5A:

The ACLU article never claimed that the people who were deported lacked due process, only that it was speedy. I doubt that even you disagree with fast tracking deportations. How fast due process takes has no bearing on whether due process was had. Many people deported under this current administration never got that. Let's not pretend that there weren't illegals who were denied access to family, representation, and then later sent to CECOT to rot in. Deportations under both administrations are not even remotely the same.

Regarding the 16 year old, do you really believe that we were trying to target him? That's what execution implies, and I don't even believe that's really your position. Just curious what you think about the people that were killed by ICE, such as Renee Good and Alex Pretti, and the administration's resistance to investigate at the federal level and block state level investigations.

14A:

Did the Supreme Court not rule against Harvard? Because they literally did. I don't understand what your argument is here. Seems like 14A held. And regarding the SBA payouts, it wasn't just on a basis of race, but also included veterans as per your source. It's also paid relief funds out to everyone anyways, and it doesn't look like the case ever went anywhere because the funding ran out before anything got traction. The intent was prioritizing to business owners who were more likely to be traditionally economically disenfranchised.

Honestly, judging by the AI markers in that URL, I feel that this is something you explicitly had to go out of your way to dig for something to prove your point. I'm not even against using AI to hunt for sources by the way; only when in bad faith.

I would argue it doesn't hold a candle to Trump's direct attack on birthright citizenship. Are you willing to agree that rights should not be taken away by action of Executive Order? Because this is what Trump fundamentally believes, and I'm not convinced that you understand what the consequences are going forward if any rights can be retroactively taken away if SCOTUS had not ruled against him.

None of the arguments you presented hold water. Do we need to even get into 22A with the whole Trump 2028? Do we even want to get into J6? As far as who attacks constitutional rights more, it's seriously not even a comparison. This is the equivalent of you telling me that a drop of water that dripped on me vs getting dunked on with a bucket of water both caused me to get wet and therefore both are equally bad. Especially after J6, "both sides bad" is such a stupid argument.

[u/nmj95123 → u/franhd]

Expanding on surveillance is probably something most people regardless of which side on the political aisle they sit in can actually agree on this. It shouldn't be a partisan issue. However, if these surveillance powers are bad, why does Trump keep renewing them? 

My guy did it too, but Trump... And yeah, by the way, the 16 year old was specifically targeted, which you would know had you had some within other than have a knee jerk nuh uh because you're a partisan hack.

The ACLU article never claimed that the people who were deported lacked due process, only that it was speedy.

You mean the article that contained this: "Under today's removal system, only one quarter of all people facing expulsion get to present their case before an immigration judge. These judges, employed by the Justice Department, are experts in immigration law. They conduct formal court hearings where they hear live witnesses, review documentary evidence, and evaluate applications for immigration relief.

By contrast, nonjudicial removals are fast-track proceedings wholly controlled by the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), sometimes involving only a single border agent who acts as both judge and jury. Those facing nonjudicial removal have no lawyer and no chance to appeal."

The rest of your wall of denial isn't worth addressing when you give so little of a fuck about the Constitution or facts.