> Karaiya wrote:
>> Kblazer883 wrote:
> |>> I say you are free to give up any of your Constitutional rights that you don't
> |>> but you are not giving them up on my behalf.
> |>> I will not rely on the police or the state for protection.
>> Is this a thing you just learned Blazer? People of color, libertarians, poor
>> and mass incarceration abolitionists have been trying to explain this for a very
>> long time.
>> So why do we keep funding and arming the police? Do you believe we should keep
>> our law enforcement.
>> I can't stand Dana Loesch and although her point about blaming the FBI for dropping
>> the ball takes away from the real problem. She isn't wrong. Why do we keep funding
>> law enforcement?
> So rather than address what I said about you being able to give up whichever of your
> rights you want; and me not relying on the state for protection (which is what you
> would have to do if citizens are disarmed [liberal goals regardless of the "common
> sense gun law" horsecrap that flows from their lips], you want to say that I don't
> want to fund law enforcement. I don't want to fund welfare but that argument is moot
> because it is enforced by the state through that thing that libtards always say they
> are against "violence from the barrel of a gun". Yeah, having law enforcement or
> the military being the only armed people is a great idea.
> The way I see it is that the libtards want to be the only purveyors of violence in
> the country and then only by proxy through those they pay to do their dirty work
> for them. Oh yes, it would be much easier without an armed populace (don't confuse
> ability with will here).
> You are right though, we shouldn't be focusing on the FBI. They have proved their
> incompetence enough over the last couple years that no one should take them seriously.
> We should stay focused on the real problem, CRIMINALS.
> Now, which of your Constitutional rights can we put you down for donating (sacrificing)
> for the "safe space" movement?
> Psst - A little secret between you and me, criminals by definition do not obey laws.
> You libs seem to hard a hard time comprehending this one, so I will keep reiterating
> it until it sinks in, or I run out of oxygen (I'm guessing the latter).
I didnt tell you you did I asked yoy why we should. The criminal murderer that shot up the school wasn't a liberal he was one of your guys. As many of them are. Please run out of oxygen.