Cancel 2020.2 (08-23-2019)
Cancel 2020.2 (08-23-2019)
RINO is the term for that rare Republican who puts country above party.
Right wing = lie, lie, and lie some more.
"When I am president I'm going to be working for you. I'm not going to have time to play golf" Donald J. Trump, world class snake oil salesman and compulsive golfer August 2016
The definition of "racist" as "anyone who is white" is itself racist.
Originally Posted by Colin Powell
Trespassing isn't as universal as you are trying to make it. Anyone can, quite legally, walk through your neighborhood and the streets of your home town, as long as they stay off of private property.
citizenship has nothing to do with it. Are you claiming that those rules are different for tourists and other noncitizens?Correct, so long as you are staying on property that the city/township has designated as public property, abiding by any laws relating to such, and so long as you are a US citizen.
No, you are acting as if all property is private property. The fallacies, as usual, are all yours.No, that's what you are doing. You are acting as if trespassing and immigration laws do not exist outside of yourself and your own property.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
RINO is the term for that rare Republican who puts country above party.
Right wing = lie, lie, and lie some more.
"When I am president I'm going to be working for you. I'm not going to have time to play golf" Donald J. Trump, world class snake oil salesman and compulsive golfer August 2016
The definition of "racist" as "anyone who is white" is itself racist.
Originally Posted by Colin Powell
Sounds pretty universal to me.
Doesn't it? A citizen of my private property is welcome on my private property.
Yes. Yes they are. You should read them sometime.
All property IS private property. Even so-called 'public' property, such as national parks, the white house, and the halls of Congress. Each of these are owned and operated by the federal government.
Fallacy fallacy. Void argument fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.
I may be wrong. but doesn't shooting people require a gun or a rifle? If we did not allow the gun lovers to punch up their manhood with weapons, we would have much,much fewer Americans killed by guns. Some of us think that would be good. Gun nuts think a few thousand deaths a year is a low price to pay for the metal dildo.
"Isn't as universal as you are trying to make it." ... "ANYONE can... ..." That seems to be universal, no?
Yes, it does. Only citizens of my home are allowed into my home.
Yes, they are different. Tourists are legally allowed into the country. They have a passport. They are supposed to temporarily be in the country. This process is similar to you temporarily inviting me into your home. Illegals are not supposed to be in the country. They trespassed. That is akin to me trespassing into your home and property rather than me requesting temporary presence inside your home and you reviewing and accepting that request. See the difference?
All property IS private property, though. Somebody owns/controls it, whether that be a person, a foundation, an organization, or the city/township/state/etc... Those owners then designate parts of it to be for public use. Other parts they don't allow the public to access. This is even seen at state parks, for example. Hikers can go on specified trails, but they must stay off other areas of the property. Those areas are only for the land owners...
Cancel 2020.2 (08-25-2019)
Which really has nothing to do with trespassing.
Your home does not have citizens.Yes, it does. Only citizens of my home are allowed into my home.
But illegals are not military invaders.Yes, they are different. Tourists are legally allowed into the country. They have a passport. They are supposed to temporarily be in the country. This process is similar to you temporarily inviting me into your home. Illegals are not supposed to be in the country. They trespassed. That is akin to me trespassing into your home and property rather than me requesting temporary presence inside your home and you reviewing and accepting that request. See the difference?
And as long as you stay on the parts designated for public use, you are not trespassing. No matter who you are.All property IS private property, though. Somebody owns/controls it, whether that be a person, a foundation, an organization, or the city/township/state/etc... Those owners then designate parts of it to be for public use. Other parts they don't allow the public to access. This is even seen at state parks, for example. Hikers can go on specified trails, but they must stay off other areas of the property. Those areas are only for the land owners...
Your entire argument is a false equivalence fallacy.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
RINO is the term for that rare Republican who puts country above party.
Right wing = lie, lie, and lie some more.
"When I am president I'm going to be working for you. I'm not going to have time to play golf" Donald J. Trump, world class snake oil salesman and compulsive golfer August 2016
The definition of "racist" as "anyone who is white" is itself racist.
Originally Posted by Colin Powell
Nope, not at all. One could instead use a bow, crossbow, or a slingshot, for example.
Not all gun owners are aiming to "punch up their manhood". Some gun owners want guns for target practice, some for varmint control, some for hobby, some for self-defense, etc...
No, we wouldn't. Criminals (you know, the people who are actually behind the homicide statistics) would still have their guns all the same, and murder people all the same. The only difference is they would need to acquire guns via another market instead (such as the black market). Prohibition of alcohol didn't work, the "war on drugs" is not working, and neither will the "war on guns" work... You can't kill the free market.
Gun owners are not "nuts"; they are people.
Not all gun owners use their guns as a "metal dildo".
Not everybody shares your unhealthy obsession with sex.
Freedom is worth it.
Bookmarks