Upload
Login or register
Highest Rated Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds
Latest users (6): alimais, drastronomy, PopcornViking, whatley, whoozy, youregaylol, anonymous(1).
Anonymous comments allowed.
#122570 - asotil ONLINE
Reply +2
(07/22/2016) [-]
2016 summed up in one photo
#122578 to #122570 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Our fat guys are happier than your fat guys
#122566 - thumbfortrump
Reply +1
(07/22/2016) [-]
Alex Jones And Roger Stone Interrupt The Young Turks Republican National Convention Coverage

Some good entertainment.
#122563 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
"America isn't the only country with free speech"

Canadian comedian gets fined $30k for offensive jokes.
#122799 to #122563 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(07/23/2016) [-]
It isn't. We've been through this twice before, you were wrong then and you're wrong now.
#122804 to #122799 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(07/23/2016) [-]
That's not an argument
#122827 to #122804 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(07/24/2016) [-]
Nor was your statement.

We've been over this before though.....
Freedom of speech predates the US.
Other nations have freedom of speech in their constitution.
The press is not particularly free in the US when compared to other democratic nations.
#122843 to #122827 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(07/24/2016) [-]

"We've been over this before though..... "
>We have a couple times, and we've never come to agreement on most things
"Freedom of speech predates the US."
>This was one thing we did agree with when discussing the idea of "American Exceptionalism", which I think mainly is a misunderstanding of what that term actually means.

"Other nations have freedom of speech in their constitution. "
>I also agree, Britain especially has had free speech law for a long time, but these are very clearly being violated to suppress events and ideas in Europe.

"The press is not particularly free in the US when compared to other democratic nations."
>I would have agreed with this even a couple months ago, but the press in the US isn't denied reporting what they please. There is a huge monopoly on press in the US that serves to push certain narratives, and there is an attempt to drown out all smaller media outlets that fight these narratives. But I've never heard of a media outlet being told "you can't post that article, or run that story" by the government.
#123080 to #122843 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(07/27/2016) [-]
Free speech is being violated everywhere due to fear of terrorism etc. including by the Patriot Act in the US.

As we discussed before, this isn't the first time for the US, HUAC is another.

The press in the US is not as free as that in many other nations:

www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press-2014/press-freedom-rankings

rsf.org/en/news/united-states-ranks-41st-reporters-without-borders-2016-world-press-freedom-index
#122569 to #122563 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Do Americans genuinely believe that free speech is exclusive to them?
#122571 to #122569 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Most don't. But I believe we have it to a greater degree than most other first world nations. Especially now compared to Europe.
#122572 to #122571 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Really now?
I've been saying what I want all my life
Nobody has arrested me yet

The only thing I can think of is that it's illegal to deny the Holocaust in Germany (which I think is stupid bu the way)

Of course that doesn't mean that you can't get socially outcast if you say horrible things, but I've yet to see anyone arrested unless they make a literal death threat
#122574 to #122572 - marinepenguin
Reply +1
(07/22/2016) [-]
Also your personal anecdotes don't really disprove anything. I've done many illegal things in my life that I wasn't caught for, but that's doesn't mean that some people don't see consequences for those same exact actions.
#122573 to #122572 - marinepenguin
Reply +3
(07/22/2016) [-]
www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/04/15/merkel-allows-prosecution-of-german-comedian-who-mocked-turkish-president/

Maybe you haven't, but this guy sure did. Just don't be a decently popular comedian and mock a foreign president.
#122575 to #122573 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Yeah, I remember that
Thing is that was an outdated law to protect foreign politicians which is now being removed

She had to enforce it sonce it was there, but sonce tje law could ne abised by someone like Erdogan it is promptly being removed

Something like this is far more appalling to me
edition.cnn.com/2013/07/12/tech/social-media/facebook-jailed-teen/

The comedian in Germany will probably get a small fine
This shitty kid got prison for being retarded on Facebook. While threats are illegal one would think a fine would suffice
#122583 to #122575 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Threats and calls to action are not protected under free speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a call to action which can result in injury of innocent people based upon a falsity, that's why you can be an accessory for murder if you tell someone else to kill another individual and they go through with it.
#122584 to #122583 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
I know it's illegal
That wasn't the issue

The issue is the ridiculous sentence

#122585 to #122584 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Then that isn't a free speech problem, it's an issue with that areas justice system.
#122587 to #122585 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
It could be considered a free speech problem
If I could get 8 years in prison for saying something that could be considered a threat (like really crude humour or an angry post) I would probably be a lot more afraid of voicing my opinions.

If you slip up you loose a decade of your life. A DECADE for a Facebook post.
#122590 to #122587 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
That's not a violation of free speech, that's a violation of the 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). If the person is being punished for saying their opinion, that's a violation of the 1st. If they are being punished excessively or too severely for something that is actually illegal, that's a violation of the 8th.

The kid did do something illegal, but anyone knowing the totality of circumstances should have realized that 5 months in prison was excessive.

So again, problem with this situation? Yes

Was it free speech? Not one bit.
#122598 to #122590 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
When punishments become to cruel it can make people afraid to act within their rights
On paper this isnt' a free speech issue, but if this was where I lived I'd never post any form of morbid humour anywhere
#122629 to #122598 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
I still would.
#122580 to #122575 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
saying you're going to massacre children is better than critizing a foreign dictator apparently
#122582 to #122580 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
No
The reason I found the case so stupid was because of the sentence he got

Like you would think after driving home to the kid arresting and interrogating him finding out he's just a retarded shitkid a fine would be sufficient

I could do the exact same thing here and just be fined for it (if even that)
#122586 to #122582 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
He hasnt beenn sentenced or even found guilty, he spent 5 months in jail because he didnt post bond. Basically his parents let him stay in there because they didn't want to go into debt through a bail bond company, an entirely different issue.

As soon as a donor posted bond he was released.

And yeah, im gonna say bullshit on the claim that you can threaten to kill kids on twitter in germany when you're throwing people in jail for criticizing brown people.
#122588 to #122586 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Yeah
Sit in jail and hope some random gives you half a million dollars

Tell me, in what world do you live. If it was reality the goverment would have to imprison all of pegida for life
#122592 to #122588 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Also it's illegal in germany to say anything "inciteful", basically bullshit hate speech laws on steroids. In that sense the government can punish you for almost any controversial opinion.
#122595 to #122592 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Do you come up with this garbage on your own or do you listen to some delusional right wing propaganda where everything outside the US is communism?
#122597 to #122595 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
"The most important and sometimes controversial regulations limiting freedom of speech and freedom of the press can be found in the Criminal code:

Insult is punishable under Section 185. Satire and similar forms of art enjoy more freedom but have to respect human dignity (Article 1 of the Basic law).

Malicious Gossip and Defamation (Section 186 and 187). Utterances about facts (opposed to personal judgement) are allowed if they are true and can be proven. Yet journalists are free to investigate without evidence because they are justified by Safeguarding Legitimate Interests (Section 193).

Hate speech or "incitement of popular hatred" (Volksverhetzung) may be punishable if against segments of the population and in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace (Section 130 Agitation of the People), including racist agitation and antisemitism.

Holocaust denial is punishable according to Section 130 subsection 3.

Dissemination of means of propaganda of unconstitutional organizations (Section 86).

Use of symbols of unconstitutional organizations (Section 86a) as the Swastika.

Disparagement of
the federal president (Section 90).
the state and its symbols (Section 90a).

Insult to organs and representatives of foreign states (Section 103).

Rewarding and approving crimes (Section 140).

Casting false suspicion (Section 164).

Blasphemy in the sense of Insulting of faiths, religious societies and organizations
dedicated to a philosophy of life if they could disturb public peace (Section 166)

Dissemination of pornographic writings (Section 184).

involving violence or animals (Section 184a).

involving minors (Section 184b & 184c).

Dissemination of writings depicting cruel or otherwise inhumane acts of violence in a manner that is trivializing, glorifying or otherwise injuring human dignity (Section 131)."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany
#122602 to #122597 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
We already talked about the holocaust
It's stupid and I agree

Germany have some problems in this regard due to WWII

Is it stupid? Yes
Does it make sense? Yes

Again the only real difference about the US and most of Europe is that Europe is stricter on hate speech
#122604 to #122602 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Hate speech is just a way for the government to censor speech they don't like. You can't have free speech when you throw people in jail for opinions. If your country does that, your country doesn't have free speech. Sorry.
#122607 to #122604 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Sure thing buddy.
We live in a tyranny because you can't yell that we should gas niggers on the street

You don't have hate speech regulation in the US?
What about hate crime?

#122610 to #122607 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
"We"

So are you a german or what?

Hate crime exists if you like lynch a black, yeah. But thats not hate speech. Hate speech codes are only enforced on campuses in the US because they want to be like enlightened eurofags.
#122613 to #122610 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
"We" reffered to Europe
quote: Again the only real difference about the US and most of Europe is that Europe is stricter on hate speech

Why should the punishment for lynching a black because you're a racist be any different than lynching a white because you didn't like his face?
#122615 to #122613 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
In theory it's supposed to crack down on hate groups, but I agree it's bullshit.

Still has nothing to do with free speech or what we're talking about though. Speech is speech, violence is violence.
#122623 to #122615 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
I can't speak for all European countries, but I know some of them have laws on hate speech
The irony is though that the punishment are much lower, so even if you say something illegal (like a threat) you'll get a small fine and move on
#122626 to #122623 - youregaylol
0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Or you can say something non threatening but inflammatory and get fined or thrown in jail, especially if you have a record.

Whereas in the US nothing happens to you.
#122617 to #122615 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
True enough, but hate speech here is limited to racicst slurs directly aimed at ethnicity so it doesn't bother me much

I could legally say that romanians are useless for example
#122622 to #122617 - youregaylol
0
(07/22/2016) [-]
It not bothering you personally isn't the point, the point is that european countries have measurably less free speech than the US.
#122591 to #122588 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
his parents could've got him out any time, bail bond companies serve gang members, I think they can approve a loan for this kid. But as I said, different issue. He was never sentenced.

But I can criticize the holocaust and foreign dictators all I want without being thrown in jail. Thats something you just cant do.
#122594 to #122591 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
He risked facing up to 8 years in jail and he was lucky to have someone pay bail

It's illegal to deny the holocaust (because yeah... history), and actually I can, since I'm not german.
#122600 to #122594 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
He didn't get 8 years though, thus your claim that the supposed "sentence" was appalling is negligent as he wasn't sentenced. He just didn't pay bail. Anybody who doesn't pay bail will remain in holding, thats the point of bail.

"lol the usa thinks theyre the only one who has free speech lol"
"but dont you actually throw people in jail for speech"
"ya but muh history is problematic"
#122601 to #122600 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
He risked getting i

Your argument is literally "he was lucky so everythings fine"
#122603 to #122601 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
He said he wanted to kill children and swim in their blood on twitter. Whether that warranted an investigation is up for debate, but we're talking about the legal system and US law. Unless he was actually convicted and sentenced you cannot say the US sentenced him as the court hasnt found him guilty.

Your head of state meanwhile let a prosecution continue on a man who criticized a foreign dictatorship.

The two cases are fundamentally different in so many ways.

The crimes were far different. Saying you're going to kill children is far worse than criticizing a dictator.
One is being prosecuted with the consent of the highest legal authority in the nation while the other is being prosecuted by a local DA.
One is likely to get a conviction while the other is likely to be let loose.

It's a false equivalency.
#122605 to #122603 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
I know what he said
He could have said all the terrible things in the world for all I care

The point is that a facebook comment could have absloutely ludicrous punishment. He already sat six months and had to pay 500.000$ for his freedom. That in and of itself is retarded. If he was unlucky, he could have sat for 8 years.

My head of state? How many times do I have to tell you I'm not german? Again it was abused by Erdogan and it's being removed as we speak.

I already said that the kids post was way worse, the punishment though is just pants on head retarded
#122608 to #122605 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
The punishment that he never revived is pants on head retarded?

If you're unlucky you can be murdered by the government right now if they think you're a bomber. If you're unlucky you can be convicted of a crime you never committed. "Luck" isn't an argument.

He sat in jail because he didnt pay bail. He got out as soon as bail was paid. Thats not a problem with the justice system in regards to free speech, if anything its about bail reform.

Also Obama never approved the prosecution.
#122609 to #122608 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Yes it is. The fact that this is a possible outcome is absurd
The 6 months and the half a million bail he had to pay was also absurd. Very few people have that kind of money

Good on Obama I guess
#122612 to #122609 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
It's a possible outcome that you can be tried for rape after having sex with any woman, if she says you raped her. Your justice system is absurd.
#122635 to #122612 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Yeah I agree
If you consider hate speech as free spech you would be in the right

Again, Europe isn't a country though so I don't know the spesifics for all of them

What I can say though is that punishments are usually very low, so you're not screwed if you do slip up
#122630 to #122612 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Yes and no
We try to avoid violence so some of us have some limits on hate speech. Punishments are always low if they exist
#122632 to #122630 - youregaylol
0
(07/22/2016) [-]
I think the debate in regards to free speech is settled though, I would say it's fair to state the America has "more" free speech that european countries.
#122625 to #122612 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
We don't have incitement laws here
I wish we did so police could arrest scum groups that tries to radicalize youngsters

Better on paper and worse in reality perhaps
#122627 to #122625 - youregaylol
0
(07/22/2016) [-]
And theres the difference between europeans and americans. In general we value free speech more than you do.
#122616 to #122612 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Being prosecuted for rape demands huge amount of evidence
Usually DNA

A lot of rapists get away because of that

The issue is when someone has sex and the girl regrets it later and blames it on rape. This is a problem in the US as well as it's very hard to prove either way unless you taped the whole thing
#122619 to #122616 - youregaylol
0
(07/22/2016) [-]
The point is there will always be breakdowns in the legal system. Unfair things happen, mistakes are made.

However, theres a difference between law in practice and law on paper.

Europeans in many different ways and forms lack free speech on paper in regards to hate speech laws or incitement laws, in addition to the breakdowns of the legal system in practice. This causes more crackdowns on free speech than the US which has a pretty resolute free speech doctrine on paper that sometimes fail due to the inherent fallibility of man.

Our lack of hate speech laws and banning of certain types of speech makes us a better nation for free speech, despite our mistakes in putting those laws in practice.
#122611 to #122609 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
A bail bond company will pay for almost any bail. If he wanted out he could've been out.
#122633 to #122611 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Interresting
I guess the UK has it worse than most of us
#122628 to #122611 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Do you have an example of this?
One that is not related to Germany's holocaust laws
#122621 to #122611 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
And they expect to be paid back, correct?
#122624 to #122621 - youregaylol
0
(07/22/2016) [-]
They do, at which point you work out a payment plan and incur debt.

The government is paying to put you through a trial, no court system would be sustainable without a way to recoup taxpayer losses and hold prisoners.

It's either A. We don't offer bail and hold the person indefinitely without trial and without a way to get out while paying for their housing and their future trial

Or B. Let them out with little to no bail at which point the tax payers front the cost of the trial and potentially violent peoples may be released into the general public and possibly flee.
#122618 to #122611 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
And if you can't afford it?
#122620 to #122618 - youregaylol
0
(07/22/2016) [-]
A bail bond company will pay for almost any bail
#122577 to #122575 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
and abused*

#122576 to #122575 - whoozy ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
since* the*

Phone unit
#122558 - lotengo
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
>>#122488, why did you blur out the name zaxplab?
#122778 to #122558 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
I wanted to preserve his dignity
#122581 to #122558 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
who are these faggots, never seen them before
#122519 - zanekin
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
My platform

Social issues:
Abortion- Allowed, promote free BC especially in cities with high teenage pregnancy. Encourage adoption for the preggers and for parents across the country as being more sustainable for our country in general. More people, more problems.

Gay marriage- Let them have it. Not a fan of how it was obtained but idgaf about any couple over the age of 18 getting their freak on and getting married as long as it is consensual. More weddings and divorces boosts economy and jobs as well even if just a little bit.

LGBTQ Bathrooms- Dick=Men's room Vagina=Women's room. Don't give af what you were born. If this terrifies people who worry about their kids than go in the bathroom with them? Bathrooms should be based off your genitals not your social and sexual statements.

Black Lives Matter- Improve pay of all first responders thus improving qualifications for the jobs and the type of people that will apply. Encourage huge diversity programs so that cops reflect their community. These cop shootings have been exacerbated by the news and its hate inspiring coverage. Condemn acts of violence as means to obtain anything.

Women's pay- the women's wage gap is a fucking myth. That being said still ensure that the same job pays the same across the board with clear tangible incentives to promote performance.

Affirmative action- Horse shit. Scholarships, colleges, and jobs only obtainable if you meet a certain racial standard? Sounds like racism towards white people to me. Just creates more resentment and issues than it fixes. Remember, many empires over the years have pit the middle and lower class (typically two different races) against each other so they ignore the upper class pulling the strings. Don't drag down white people so that the others can catch up. Simply put effort into helping them catch up by helping themselves and understanding the options available.


Immigration
We have to get rid of the current illegals. Amnesty isn't an option because it sets a bad precedent. The system to become legal for South/Central/North Americans should be streamlined. While I don't want our numbers to increase, the income of people from around the world is a founding principle. So at least make sure they're paying taxes.

Refugees- sadly, Trump and Britain have it right. We already have so many issues with race relations currently; adding even more minorities that this country isn't acclimated to is foolish. Especially adding groups of people from violent areas with our current vetting process. The current FBI is drastically undermanned and underpowered to surveillance an influx of minority unknown citizens.


Economic
Taxes- Flat rate tax. As simple as it gets. There is no reason a starting teacher should be taxed as much as they are. Something inherently wrong about taxing someone paid by taxes...
Close loopholes that the top 1% uses to avoid paying what they owe.

Privatise as many things as possible. This creates competition in the market which drives down rates, improves quality of service, lessens the tax burden, and encourages more spending by the masses. Choice is an amazing thing and is why monopolies were so fought against.

Must crack down on offshore accounts and outsourcing jobs to other countries. NAFTA is also a joke. Super Pacs should be illegal and donors should be public knowledge.


Environment:
Short and sweet: this planet will die. However, we need to prolong that as long as possible. Global warming is real and it's obnoxious the entire world doesn't run on solar, wind, water, thermal energy.

Education
Simple, raise the requirements to be a teacher (from a Bachelor's to a Master's) and pay them one of the highest salaries in the US. This encourages the brighter minds to pursue this career and creates competition instead of complacency.
to be cont.
#122522 to #122519 - zanekin
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Education cont.
Remove companies like Pearson from the equation. It is ridiculous that tax dollars are sent to schools and then a private company makes almost billions from those taxes. Want to know how that company keeps its gig? Buying politicians undoubtedly.

Remove Common Core's fuckery

Don't pass kids along. They either pass or fail. Quit babying students in this capitalist society. The less people receive degrees the more they mean. That doesn't mean make it harder but don't lower standards so everyone can feel good about themselves.


Political Parties
Must be removed. People should run on what they believe in and not vote along party lines. There is no way you can divide people up into two different groups. Some will believe in gun control but not abortion, no gun control no abortion, gun control and abortion, and so on.

Each candidate's campaign should be given the same amount of money not from donors. They should be given air time to discuss what they believe and never their opponent. Immediately followed by a fact checker. Debates should consist of asking each candidate the same question instead of oddly personalised questions.


Middle East
We shouldn't be involved to begin with. The UN should be held accountable to help more. Preventing radical or unstable countries from nuclear capabilities is paramount. (North Korea should have never have been allowed to get to where it is but we need countries actually geographically close to the issues to handle them *coughchinacough*)

All of that being said, support Israel. They have been an ally to the US for the long time. Now we need to realise they'll do some brutal shit to retaliate to their unstable neighbors but they have the ability to gain a relative balance in the Middle East.

Shut their (ISIS) media recruiting the fuck down. I honestly think the government should work closely with people like Snowden.


Healthcare
As mentioned earlier, privatise it and repeal this shit ass Obamacare. Most social programs are a plague to this country and an utter burden to the middle class. No one should die for not having healthcare. However, the costs needed to save a life are obnoxiously inflated due to such a heavy handed federal government.

Final thoughts:
+Don't fuck with the second amendment but clearly gun purchasing processes are fucked up. It is hard to look at Australia and what they did and not wonder if it would work over here in the U.S.A. Background checks should be mandatory even when purchased at gun shows and the sort. Psych evals would be preferential but difficult to execute. This really falls back on the FBI's need for a stronger and better workforce/infrastructure.

+Supreme court and any other judges should have NO political connections whatsoever. Ridiculous, they should interpret the law as written not as they feel.

+Federal government has to shrink, Social Security needs to be corrected to not be such a financial burden (you get what you put in), military spending has to chill as well considering how much we outspend other countries. Could easily be streamlined as far as the bureaucracy goes.
#122528 to #122522 - pebar
Reply +4
(07/22/2016) [-]
background checks are already mandatory at gun shows.....
#122532 to #122528 - zanekin
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Not true. It is a common loophole to purchase guns at the shows from private dealers. Yes, licensed dealers have to conduct checks.
#122543 to #122532 - pebar
Reply +3
(07/22/2016) [-]
it's illegal for a someone to be a "dealer" and not be an license to be a dealer
the private transaction you're referring to is if you trade with just a guy who had a gun he wanted to get rid of.

which has nothing to do with gun shows
#122559 to #122543 - theism
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Isn't that recent though?
#122567 to #122559 - pebar
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
no
#122568 to #122567 - theism
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
That was Obama's recent executive order, banning private sales of firearms.
#122579 to #122568 - pebar
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
that's not how executive orders work
#122593 to #122589 - pebar
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
executive orders enforce current laws, or deal with management of the executive branch

#1 has flat out that the order is meant to to clarify the existing law, not create a new one
it was already illegal to be "in the business" of selling guns without a permit
#122548 to #122543 - zanekin
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
It is a known issue to happen at the shows but yes it typically relates to individual sales between buyers. Regardless, the bigger picture was more about the FBI's current abilities to monitor some of these purchases like what happened in Orlando. Earnestly, this topic has little efficacy. The NRA has such a clutch on preventing too much change to anything to do with the second amendment. Personally, I understand the original intent of the amendment but often wonder what true use many have for an assault rifle. What Australia has done with gun control is compelling.
#122551 to #122548 - pebar
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
the original purpose of the guns according to the 2nd amendment is to kill police
that is literally true; I'm not just being edgy

and what do you mean by "assult rifle"? The term assault rifle to fully automatic rifles that fire an intermediate cartridge. These types of weapons are never used in crime because they are so uncommon

do you mean an AR-15, pic related, and similar weapons? because this isn't an assault rifle. So what exactly do you mean?
#122552 to #122551 - zanekin
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
To specify, I mean semi-automatic rifles. The ban in Australia focused on semi-automatic in particular and had great statistical effects. Not saying it would do the exact same for our country but it is worth looking into.

#122553 to #122552 - pebar
Reply +1
(07/22/2016) [-]
Nearly every pistol, pic related, you will ever come across is semi-automatic
revolvers fire at the same rate

what's wrong with semi-automatic?
#122555 to #122553 - zanekin
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Regardless, I am heading to bed. I appreciate this chat though and the opportunity to discuss things at a level-headed manner. I would have to say I think either of us would make a better presidential option at this point.
#122554 to #122553 - zanekin
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
I think it is hard to say exactly. The thing is that, with recent events especially, there is a desire to make some type of change to the existing system to improve the safety of our people. However, there is a case to make that more people being armed could protect themselves.

Typically it is the semi-automatic rifles that appear excessive but even the handguns as you pictured have become common amongst these shootings. It is a difficult topic with no real answer for a solution that comes to mind.
#122596 to #122554 - pebar
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
it's hard to say because the position you're taking is indefensible unless you also want to ban ALL handguns
#122534 to #122532 - figatron
Reply +1
(07/22/2016) [-]
how are you going to force private citizens from exchanging firearms?
#122540 to #122534 - zanekin
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
That's the issue isn't it? Not much you can do in situations like that without overreaching the federal government's powers. Typically if some shady transaction is committed the serial numbers are filed off which becomes a serious crime. However, making the punishments severe doesn't serve as a deterrent. I don't claim to know everything so I would love to know what your idea may be. Also why I mentioned looking at other countries approaches to firearms and their effectiveness. Mostly you would have to make selling the guns back through the proper channels more appealing than a backdoor option.
#122521 to #122519 - youregaylol
Reply +1
(07/22/2016) [-]
what is your stance of memes

specifically meme proliferation and the right to bear memes in public
#122523 to #122521 - zanekin
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
All memes are created equal but their status in the world are determined by their own originality and humorous content. May they roam free but with caution.
#122525 to #122523 - youregaylol
Reply +1
(07/22/2016) [-]
communist faggot
#122531 to #122525 - zanekin
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Fair enough
#122520 to #122519 - pebar
Reply +1
(07/22/2016) [-]
where to begin.....

>abortion - "promote free" - considering how controversial it is already, this would cause an absolute shit storm
>for gays; do you think government should force a bakery to cater a gay wedding against their wishes?
why or why not?
>bathrooms - what do you think about the phrase "separate but equal"?
>BLM - pay doesn't improve qualifications; it's the other way around, higher standards do
>equal pay - what gives you the right to intervene in the private transactions of consenting adults?

>flat taxes are inherently regressive since income has diminishing marginal utility (poor people care more about an extra dollar)
>crack down on outsourcing jobs - you know absolutely nothing about economics. Of all the issues, you pick the most uncontroversial thing in the field. What you just said is akin to supporting creationism. It's really that retarded.
>super pacs - the reason donors are not public is so they can voice their opinion without fear of public back lash. It is the exact same philosophy "Anonymous" wears the guy fauks mask

environment - the only reasons we haven't switched is because fossil fuels are super cheap and people would go bananas if their utility and gas bills quadrupled

education - high standards lead to a lack of supply which leads to high pay
high pay does not create higher standards
#122539 to #122520 - thumbfortrump
Reply +1
(07/22/2016) [-]
I don't think they should be forced. If their offer for example says they don't want to sell to a certain group of people, fine.

However, if they do not specify in the offer, they should and are legally bound by it.
#122550 to #122539 - zanekin
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Now, I don't think a government employee should be allowed to refuse the service. If they can't serve the needs of their job then they should be removed from the job.
#122556 to #122550 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
I agree, I'm of course only talking about privately owned businesses.
#122530 to #122520 - zanekin
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
>Shit storms lead to real effective change.

>Nope, private companies have a right to refuse service and always have. Don't be dicks about refusing the service and if you're turned down you should go elsewhere and you have the freedom to shit talk that establishment all over yelp. Personally, if I'm a business owner, I'll take your money even if you're a neo-nazi. Not my place to judge your hitler cake.

>I don't think anyone is equal in the first place. We may be born equal. But our circumstances, genetics, cultures, etc. separate us. No life is lesser than others and all deserve the same rights but physically I am not equal to Michael Phelps, mentally I am not equal to many, and so on. But yes, all should be treated equally IT IS THE GOLDEN RULE.

>Both higher pay and higher qualifications is what I proposed. I have seen my peers entering the education major and it is not a bright group. Most of the intelligent people tend to go towards the higher paying jobs but I know many who would teach in a heartbeat if the money was better. Agreed with your point overall though.

>Nothing. Like I said with private businesses, that is there right. However, as far as government ran jobs go that is something that can be controlled.

>That is true but flat tax often brings more out of the upper percenters and provides a more 'fair' feeling than the current flawed bracketing system where sometimes you make less by getting a raise into the bottom of a bracket. People shouldn't fear more money.

>Economics is an admitted weak point but I think that your response was a little excessive and harsh. Typically, I would look at countries that are successful or plans that have been historically successful and emulate those.

>I understand where you're coming from with the anonymous protection of donating but it causes more harm than good. Typically businesses are donating large chunks for an unjust reason.

>I understand that as well but as a long term solution there is almost no debate to be had.

>A mix of higher pay and fair standards leads to a better education and an honest product. If the standards are set instead of continually lowered than it is known what is expected and that each year has a certain benchmark.
#122541 to #122530 - pebar
Reply +1
(07/22/2016) [-]
>Economics is an admitted weak point

the most successful countries have open trade
#122544 to #122541 - zanekin
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Lol nice picture included. That's the reason I skimped out on the economic section. I'm not well versed in it and it is such a broad topic to delve into. I have some required reading to do on free trade in general no doubt.
#122545 to #122544 - pebar
Reply +1
(07/22/2016) [-]
Milton Friedman  Imports Exports  Exchange Rates I hope this isn't too advanced for you
#122546 to #122545 - zanekin
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
The music leading into this video is spectacular. Currently watching.
I do enjoy my continued polite and conversational tone I am maintaining with you while insist on coming off as antagonistic
#122547 to #122546 - pebar
Reply +1
(07/22/2016) [-]
people against free trade are my trigger
libertypen, the uploader, does that with all their videos
#122549 to #122547 - zanekin
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
I was earnestly ignorant on the subject. Inherently, it seems to be negative due to shipping out jobs. A quick read on some articles and the video makes a lot of sense on its benefits. Hell, the numbers speak for themself. Now tax loopholes with businesses are real issues but a completely different topic.
#122517 - thereasonableperso ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
www.texastribune.org/2016/07/20/appeals-court-rules-texas-voter-id/

That's it. I'm officially in favor of Texan independence. Washington is fucking trampling us. If this continues we're gonna end up a bitch-state like California.
#122560 to #122517 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
I've never gotten the argument of how requiring voter ID is racist. Is there even an argument for how it might be? Because having IDs, and race, seems like two entirely separate issues.
#122561 to #122560 - thereasonableperso ONLINE
Reply +2
(07/22/2016) [-]
It's how the democrats keep their voter base. By allowing illegals to vote.
#122562 to #122561 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
That I understand, but how does the argument of "it's racist" even have any sort of weight or merit?
#122565 to #122562 - thereasonableperso ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
It doesn't. Remember the liberal creed? "If I don't like, it's racist."
#122564 to #122562 - asotil ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
"You're only asking for his ID because he's Mexican and you think he's here illegally you racist"
Does he have a drivers license
"No but-"
Is he here legally
"No but-"
Well there ya go
"RACISM CALL THE NEWS NOW"
#122518 to #122517 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
How is requiring a photo ID racist? I'm pretty sure blacks are allowed to own ID's in this state.
#122557 to #122518 - anon
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
It's "racist" because it keeps the liberals from cheating the vote system!
#122513 - anon
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
**anonymous used "*roll 2, cah answer*"**
**anonymous rolls Multiple stab wounds.**
**anonymous rolls Keanu Reeves.**

Donald Trump is _____.
Hillary Clinton is _____.
#122504 - braus
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
Wasn't Cruz's speech pre-approved by Trump? Why would he agree to that?
#122507 to #122504 - thereasonableperso ONLINE
Reply +3
(07/21/2016) [-]
He went off script.
#122511 to #122507 - braus
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
Oh damn, and then Trump came out in the middle to wave at the crowd. That was hype. I think the convention was set up by the WWE
#122512 to #122511 - thereasonableperso ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
He stole the show because the audience was becoming hostile to Cruz.
#122489 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
#122488 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
pppfffffff
#122505 to #122488 - pebar
Reply +3
(07/21/2016) [-]
the only reason it's illegal is because it harms kids
molestation directly harms them; child porn creates a demand for images where the production harms kids

which is why lolicon, anime porn which has nothing to do with real kids, is protected free speech, according to the supreme court
#122508 to #122505 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
i dont think it is protected actually

some dude got investigated by the fbi for underage jap porn awhile back, it was a big story at the time
#122524 to #122508 - pebar
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
the supreme court said flat out that "virtual child porn" (their words) is protected
but government goes against the courts all the time so that's not surprising
#122526 to #122524 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
i want to google the wikipedia article on its legality state by state but i dont want that shit on my computer

whats the case number
#122527 to #122526 - pebar
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
"the CPPA prohibited speech for a different reason than anti-child pornography laws. Laws prohibiting the distribution and possession of child pornography ban speech because of the manner in which it is produced, regardless of its serious literary or artistic value. But speech prohibited by the CPPA "records no crime and creates no victims by its production." Child pornography is not necessarily without value, but it is illegal because of the harm that making and distributing it necessarily inflicts upon children. Ferber expressly allowed virtual child pornography as an alternative that could preserve whatever literary value child pornography might arguably have while at the same time mitigating the harm caused by making it."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber
#122533 to #122527 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
Apparently "obscenity" is the defining factor, and I can't imagine any law enforcement agency or judge not finding tiny jap cartoon porn obscene.
#122529 to #122527 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
nah mate, i looked it up

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003

Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code).

Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition. The law does not explicitly state that images of fictional beings who appear to be under 18 engaged in sexual acts that are not deemed to be obscene are rendered illegal in and of their own condition (illustration of sex of fictional minors).

The first conviction of a person found to have violated the sections of the act relating to virtual child pornography, Dwight Whorley of Virginia, was upheld in a 2-1 panel decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2008.[13] This decision was consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition in which the Supreme Court held that virtual child pornography was protected free speech, provided that the virtual depictions are not obscene. Obscenity, including obscene depictions of children, either virtual or real, is unprotected speech.
#122536 to #122529 - pebar
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
>that meet the Miller test of being obscene

that right there is the phrase that makes the law virtually powerless. In order for something to be considered obscene it has to lack literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.
But government is not in the position to determine what has literary or artistic value. So a porno with the most cheesiest plot would be considered to have literary value as long as it still has a plot.
#122542 to #122536 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
That seems like something a judge would have to decide on a case by case basis.

You're still gonna get arrested for having it by police who are going to go with their gut instinct.

And honestly odds are that the judge is going to find it obscene no matter what. There have been convictions for this you know, at least since 2012 apparently. Granted most of the cases that wikipedia listed are connected to dudes who also had actual kid p00n on their computers and the cartoons were basically secondary charges.
#122537 to #122536 - pebar
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
>>#122529, dunno why the image wasn't posted
#122538 to #122537 - pebar
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
the fuck....
#122494 to #122488 - anon
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
>purposely causes a misunderstand to look smart
#122485 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
#122472 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
I haven't regretted any vote I've made since voting for Ted Cruz as senator, what a goop filled monster baby.

He's never getting elected in Texas again if Hilary wins.
#122476 to #122472 - marinepenguin
Reply +1
(07/21/2016) [-]
I was actually impressed that Cruz stuck to his guns. Better than being a sellout like the Bern man.
#122484 to #122476 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
The problem is Republicans are too principled in many cases, the democrats continue to sell out their values to win elections.

Bernie is a sell out, but Ted framed himself as anti establishment, if trump wasn't in the race he'd probably be the nominee. He should be the most willing to join Trump and would be the most forgiven of all the bowed candidates.

Instead he's playing politics, and he's shitty at it.
#122473 to #122472 - pebar
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
god forbid someone has principles
#122482 to #122473 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
The principle of trying to destroy your parties chances of winning so you can say " i told you so" and possibly get elected after shillaries first term.

He miscalculated though, if she does win hes going to have to move back to canada.
#122486 to #122482 - figatron
Reply +2
(07/21/2016) [-]
If you're only argument is we need to beat Hilary, then your candidate is shit. At some point it's not enough to beat Hilary you need a president who actually has good policies. Outside of immigration Trump doesn't have a single decent policy position. And many suicidal ones like protectionism. Trumpkins are all butt hurt that Cruz chose standing by his principles over being a sheep. He's the only one to not abandon constitutionalism for populism. At the convention anyways. Btw, Reagan never endorsed Ford.
#122487 to #122486 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
Thats not my only argument for why I support Trump, therefore the rest of your comment is bullshit that I can ignore.
#122463 - braus
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
*Trump makes a mistake*

IT WAS ALL PART OF HIS MASTER PLAN TO GET MORE COVERAGE! HAVEN'T YOU READ HIS BOOKS? I HAVEN'T BUT I KNOW SOMEONE ELSE WHO HAS!
#122469 to #122463 - thumbfortrump
Reply +3
(07/21/2016) [-]
>implying he makes mistakes
#122479 to #122469 - braus
Reply +1
(07/21/2016) [-]
Well he did choose Pence.
#122509 to #122479 - duudegladiator
Reply +1
(07/21/2016) [-]
Pence is a relatively strong choice, its just that he needs to start talking about himself more and more.

He hit it off at the Convention.
#122510 to #122509 - braus
Reply +1
(07/21/2016) [-]
I'll look into him more. All I know is that he's one of those "pray the gay away" people
#122514 to #122510 - duudegladiator
Reply +1
(07/21/2016) [-]
I think he wasnt that kinda guy, but instead he supported the Religious liberties aspect, and then some nuts pushed the rest in.
#122515 to #122514 - braus
Reply +1
(07/22/2016) [-]
Well as long we legally use our nuts to help push things in I'm okay with it.
#122459 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(07/20/2016) [-]
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36842940

I can hardly believe that even a UKIP councillor would be stupid enough to say Remain voters should be killed.
#122457 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(07/20/2016) [-]
ITT:

Things that the liberal left advocates that you actually agree with.

>development of alternative sources of energy such as solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, etc just don't punish current energy industries such as coal, oil, and natural gas

>suspicion of large corporate entities it's too bad that they don't realise that a large corporation can only really exist with the presence of a large government entity

>critical of unnecessary government intervention into other nations affairs and imperialism in general
#122471 to #122457 - figatron
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
The left hates nuclear energy because of environmental concerns that science has already disproven
#122503 to #122471 - anon
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
Yet ironically their anti-nuclear activism CAUSES environmental problems when they block new reactors from being built and force the continued use of older reactors built on earlier safety standards.
#122475 to #122471 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
Yeah I always forget that.
#122470 to #122457 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
Business should be more environmentally aware. Not only is it good for future mankind, it also benefits businesses long term.
#122474 to #122470 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
Do you think that businesses should be forced by the government to be more environmentally aware via regulation?
#122480 to #122474 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
In terms of serious polution where it is possible to drastically reduce it, yes.

In terms of small differences, no.
#122465 to #122457 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
-Pot should be legal
-Higher standards for protecting the environment

That's about it, really. I know I sound like a hippie right about now
#122466 to #122465 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
Oh I forgot about drugs. I'm for drug legalization, or at the very least decriminalization.
#122458 to #122457 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(07/20/2016) [-]
"it's too bad that they don't realise that a large corporation can only really exist with the presence of a large government entity "

Why do you say that?
#122460 to #122458 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(07/20/2016) [-]
As a business grows larger it struggles to cater to smaller groups of people, and eventually are beat out by smaller business that are more flexible in their services to their local populace. Large business usually advocate for more regulations because they discourage the growth of smaller businesses that can't afford it, while the larger businesses can continue to monopolize their particular markets and grow their revenues even though they may pay a bit more in terms of regulatory costs.
#122461 to #122460 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(07/20/2016) [-]
I don't think it's as simple as that - Governments also create anti-monopoly legislation to reduce the likelihood of exactly what you describe.

Some smaller nation's economies are entirely dominated by large multinational corporations and they don't have large government.
#122462 to #122461 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(07/20/2016) [-]
That's true, but most governments don't solely have regulations to break up monopolies, and many companies can cooperate with each other to overcome those regulations. We can see this with the internet providers parceling out sections of the US to where they agree to have monopolies over certain areas and don't infringe on each others customers.

And the term you're missing there is "multinational", these businesses don't grow in the smaller and poorer nations, they grow in the larger and richer ones, then spread into the smaller nations, beating out the local businesses with their much greater resources.
#122493 to #122462 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
So you're saying your argument is only true for countries in western Europe and north America?
#122495 to #122493 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
No. I'm saying if you have a larger corporation begin doing business in an area with smaller businesses, those larger businesses will usually be able to outcompete smaller businesses as they have far greater resources and don't necessarily rely on those outside markets to hold themselves up.

A good example would be Chinese corporations heavily investing into many African economies and trying to monopolize their energy industries.
#122498 to #122495 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
Unless it's lack of anti-monopoly regulation
#122497 to #122495 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
That has nothing to do with regulation though, isn't that economies of scale?
#122501 to #122497 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
Larger corporations created from nations with greater amounts of regulation could monopolize foreign industries, is what I meant to say.
#122502 to #122501 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
Oh, OK.
#122500 to #122497 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
Regulation plays into it. A larger business will be able to apply more resources into an overseas investment, so if regulation actually benefits larger corporations like I claimed earlier than that would mean that larger corporations could more successfully monopolize foreign industries more easily.
#122443 - theism
Reply 0
(07/20/2016) [-]
If you outlaw tennis balls only outlaws will have tennis balls.
#122456 to #122443 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(07/20/2016) [-]
No no no, if you outlaw tennis balls you'll just see a rise in golf ball related incidents.
#122447 to #122443 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(07/20/2016) [-]
Why are you talking about tennis balls.
#122448 to #122447 - theism
Reply 0
(07/20/2016) [-]
The RNC banned tennis balls but not guns and there's tons of salt over it.
#122477 to #122448 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
The sign as you enter the RNC said "Firearms" as one of the banned items for the convention though, along with "weapons".
#122481 to #122477 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
Why are you thumbing me down for asking a legitimate question lol.
#122483 to #122481 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
Oh I didn't mean to. I'm on my phone a lot so sometimes I'll swipe and accidently thumb somebody.

secretly I hate you and wish for your downfall
#122490 to #122483 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
Oh okay, I also thought it was odd since it was from you.

pls dont kill me
#122449 to #122448 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(07/20/2016) [-]
Sweet.
#122450 to #122449 - theism
Reply 0
(07/20/2016) [-]
Tbh, if you're afraid of tennis balls guns might be a bit more of a problem.
#122499 to #122450 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
Maybe they smuggle the drugs inside the tennis balls
#122451 to #122450 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(07/20/2016) [-]
I think it's more to make sure no one shows up and throws tennis balls at people.
#122452 to #122451 - theism
Reply +2
(07/20/2016) [-]
What if someone shows up and throws guns at people?
#122453 to #122452 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(07/20/2016) [-]
Those are the questions that keep me up at night.
#122446 to #122443 - anon
Reply 0
(07/20/2016) [-]
If you outlaw laws than only outlaws will have laws.
#122437 - braus
Reply -1
(07/20/2016) [-]
Trump really choked during that 60 minutes interview. Pence was a horrible choice.
#122434 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(07/20/2016) [-]
I'm not a Boris fan but this made me smile

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36839721