How about no?
But MAGA people will defend it no matter what.
They treat zygotes than Mexicans. Go figure.
No changing their minds; it seems sadistic at this point.
Stupid bill
Posts
Total:
24
Seems sadistic?
If the alternative is imposing a chance that the mother dies, then yes. This applies to every pregnancy.If you think this is too cruel, then please state a minimum chance of death you would force the mother to endure in order to save her baby.But if I had to pick between killing a mother (100% certainty) or killing a 2 year old baby (100% certainty), I'm picking the person that won't be a burden to the state for 20 years.I don't want kids. I would rather have a 5 year old die than have me die. If you think that is too psychotic, then you haven't thought it through.You ask the typical person is they are willing to spend $1/day sponsoring the life of a child, and they would say, "No".If the typical person is unwilling to spend $1/day on a child, then why should I be willing to spend my life on a child?
This isn't derailing, you brought up zygotes and it relates to how you value life. You even have 2 upvotes on the post to be proud of.
Well that is what you get when you try to appeal to blind compassion in one case and some kind of collective utilitarianism in another.
Here is the bill without the propaganda and youtube commentator wrapping: https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/56leg/2R/bills/HB2843H.pdf
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Illegal Mexican invaders should be low on the totem pole. Less American babies means less American culture, until the nation eventually ceases to exist and is absorbed by invaders, willingly or not. See Rome for examples.
-->
@Greyparrot
*sigh* I know you're being tounge in cheek but I do not have faith that underdog can understand such things. In fact I fear he may just ignore the fact that he severely misrepresented the contents of the bill based solely on the opinion of Kyle Kulinsky who based his opinion on NBC.
-->
@Greyparrot
Immigrants can literally conform to the culture and improve/alter it.
-->
@RationalMadman
That rarely happens in the case of illegal invaders. Both in contemporary examples and historical.
-->
@Greyparrot
Invaders or assimilators?
-->
@RationalMadman
Assimilation. That didn't happen during the fall of Rome or in 2014 Ukraine.
The British in 1700 America also did not become teepee dwellers and assimilate.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Please provide me a citation that we support rounding up migrants and shooting them and there I something other than deportation or setting things up to discourage illegal immigration
Immigrants can literally conform to the culture and improve/alter it.
Yes they can and this is called a melting pot thing. We used to support a melting pot but it was always understood that it was a balance. We want to be welcoming but allowing too much immigration too fast creates enclaves and cultures sitting beside each other instead of intermixed and marrying the bst of both worlds.
Nobody on the left or right is against immigration. Both sides want a lot of it despite the strawmans. However we need it to be at a rate where intermixed of cultures happen and where enclaves become rare
-->
@WyIted
The link I sent was Arizona trying to keep their state red by shooting undocumented immigrants who tend to cause others to vote blue.
-->
@TheUnderdog
So your claim is that Arizona us crafting a law to murder undocumented immigrants randomly?
If you are being fair in how you portray this bill, no republican or Democrat will support it passing and if they do the Supreme Court will knock it down. I am not clicking the link. I trust 100% that you are being sincere with me and not being sensationalist or falsely claiming something is th intention of a bill that is not the intention.
-->
@WyIted
So your claim is that Arizona us crafting a law to murder undocumented immigrants randomly?
I’m saying if they are just traveling through your property (not breaking and entering, and I support stand your ground), then you can shoot them.
I’ve ran on private property before. It shouldn’t get you killed.
I am not clicking the link.
It’s a Kyle Kulinski Video. He is an anti woke free speech absolutist (credit where it’s due). If you don’t want to watch this video, it’s your choice, but being in an echo chamber is bad (even if it’s a right wing echo chamber).
I trust 100% that you are being sincere with me and not being sensationalist or falsely claiming something is th intention of a bill that is not the intention.
I am being sincere. I don’t grift. I only say what I actually believe.
-->
@TheUnderdog
I just read the bill. It did get shot down but it gave people the right to shoot trespassers. I don't know why there was a racist assumption that trespassers are all Mexicans.
I’ve ran on private property before. It shouldn’t get you killed.
I seriously doubt it would actually allow this and if it does than no wonder it was shot down. We don't support shooting trespassers merely because they trespassed . It isn't a capital offense
It’s a Kyle Kulinski Video. He is an anti woke free speech absolutist (credit where it’s due). If you don’t want to watch this video, it’s your choice, but being in an echo chamber is bad (even if it’s a right wing echo chamber
I used to be a leftist and got my opinions pretty much from Michael Moore. I also try to watch some amount of breadtube every week. I wish I didn't have to but the leftists on this site aren't good at defending their positions so I have to seek out the leftists on youtube. Kulinsky is not one I have watched. Most of the ones I watch lean communist TBH.
I am being sincere. I don’t grift. I only say what I actually believe.
We don't want to shoot immigrants in fact Republicans usually are aware we need high immigration levels but just want to secure the border and the left calls us anti immigration for thinking border security should be a thing. We have deep empathy for immigrants. Even the illegal immigrants we are aware that they are typically doing nothing wrong and just escaping bad situations. We just have to balance co sidering those things with national security and try to open up routes to take them in legally and with some sort of vetting process and in numbers that don't overwhelm out infrastructure or create large enclaves that don't integrate.
I dont know much about this topic. I will listen to he full video of his when I get to work. I hope he provides a balanced perspective where can know what the precise wording of the bill is and if it is just some crank pushing for it or a serious movement.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Just to know where we draw the line. If it is night time and I see a few people ducking behind my daughters window. It is acceptable for me to open fire on them right?
If they are just accidentally over my property line and it is broad daylight yes it would be wrong to open fire
-->
@WyIted
I just read the bill.
Where is it and where are the relevant quotes?
We don't want to shoot immigrants in fact Republicans usually are aware we need high immigration levels but just want to secure the border and the left calls us anti immigration for thinking border security should be a thing. We have deep empathy for immigrants. Even the illegal immigrants we are aware that they are typically doing nothing wrong and just escaping bad situations. We just have to balance considering those things with national security
What is national security? If they r**e or murder, then they should get beheaded, their blood and organs taken from them, and that goes to save the lives of American Patriots. There are other ways to prevent terrorism besides deportation (just protect the things you would expect terrorists to go after).
We just have to balance co sidering those things with national security and try to open up routes to take them in legally and with some sort of vetting process and in numbers that don't overwhelm out infrastructure or create large enclaves that don't integrate.
What does it mean to integrate?
Just to know where we draw the line. If it is night time and I see a few people ducking behind my daughters window. It is acceptable for me to open fire on them right?
If they are using your daughter as porn material, I would shoot them over that; it's child porn at that point. But I don't think that's what happening.
If they are just accidentally over my property line and it is broad daylight yes it would be wrong to open fire
This was the situation I think the Arizonian government was trying to do.
-->
@TheUnderdog
@WyIted
I just read the bill.Where is it and where are the relevant quotes?
If only someone had found it and posted a direct link in post #4 of this thread.
I didn't read the bill. Not sure why I posted I did but now that adol linked it I might
I also don't see how op can not properly imagine what is happening in his head. Your residence is close to the border.
He can't put himself in a property. Owners shoes. Your 13 year old daughter wakes you up at 3 am
"Dad I am scared I heard people outside of my window"
You look outside and see 17 people running next to your house. Shoulders brushing up against your walls to hide from border security keeping low.
These immigrants are scared. They have heard stories they will be separated from their children if apprehended. Perhaps they are human traffickers hoping to exploit these new immigrants. Perhaps they are cartel members.
Either way the fact you noticed them definitely puts you as a scary person who stands between them and freedom. Perhaps they will need to commandeer your house if the border security gets even closer.
We have an option here. We ca make a law that makes the homeowner feel a bit safer in this situation so he doesn't have to fear for his own freedom should he need to defend himself and his 13 year old twin girls and wife.
Or we can do what op suggests and not adopt laws to keep the homeowner safe so in the event he has to use lethal force or the threat of lethal force to remove dangerous scared people that perhaps he hesitatesjust long enough to be held hostage or worse by an armed group of people.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only 13 in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-405 14 and 13-406.
Where is sections 13-405 14 and 13-406?
-->
@TheUnderdog
Those were preexisting to this falsely described (by you) amendment.
It (407) would go from:
A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.
B. A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-405 and 13-406.
C. In this section, "premises" means any real property and any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, adapted for both human residence and lodging whether occupied or not.
TO
A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of7 premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in8 threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent9 that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent10 or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass11 by the other person in or ON the premises.12 B. A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only13 in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-40514 and 13-406.15 C. FOR THE PURPOSES OF this section, "premises" means any real16 property OR any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or17 temporary, adapted for EITHER human residence OR lodging whether18 occupied or not.
You can tell what is different because they put it in all caps. I've bolded the original words that were changed.
So somehow your brainwashed media layers managed to take some inconsequential logical union operators changing to "YEeeea ha lets kill us some illegals" and you repeated this lie. That is what a party puppet does.
Here is a summary saying the same thing: https://fastdemocracy.com/bill-summary/?billsummary_state=az&billsummary_id=AZB00017885&billsummary_session=56th-2nd-regular
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If the bill was merely protecting, "self defense", then wasn't this already the law in Arizona? Or is Arizona just now a stand your ground state?