>If confiscating all guns in America can save even just one life, we must do it.
>It doesn't matter if NSA surveillance can prevent terrorist attacks and save thousands of lives, muh privacy is more important.
So we have a clear hierarchy of values here:
1) Preserving privacy.
2) Saving lives.
3) The right to bear arms.
But if you asked any liberal if they agree with it, they would say no.
And then they would call Snowden a hero.
>>74898281
Fuck I hate this pleb-tier American terminology. Don't blame liberalism for the actions/logic modern left.
>>74898433
>>74898281
people didn't get butthurt because of surveillance per se but because it was incredibly widespread and because it was done with little to no supervision from either executive or legislative branch.
if USA's and indeed most modern political systems are based on a system of checks and balances then it makes perfect sense that people put more emphasis on preventing one government branch from disturbing that balance as that would disrupt the very foundation of the entire political system.
>>74899254
It doesn't matter. If it can save even one life, we MUST do it.
>>74899880
Indeed
If force feeding men estrogen stops them from raping even one woman we must do it.
>>74899880
We can use the same reason to exterminate the niggers. It will be worth it, if it saves even 1 human life.
>>74899978
Indeed.
Liberal logic brought to its extreme consequences will create the Heaven on Earth the snake stole from us.
>>74900083
Excellent. Let's keep brainstorming.
Same thing is true for muslims, of course.
>>74900083
Lets apply this to jews.
If we exterminate all jews we should do it. Even if it saves one shekel.
>>74899880
>>74899978
you're deflecting because you don't have real arguments.
government surveillance of criminals and terrorists is saving lives and no sane person would be against it, as long as its done within a legal framework set by national constitution and pertinent laws.
if one branch of government is exceeding its authority than reigning in that branch should be top priority if you're to have a stable political system.
that's why preserving the constitution itself has precedence over preserving any one right proclaimed by said constitution
and this is why you're wrong and these liberals you're talking about are right
>>74901455
>Preserving the constitution itself has precedence over preserving the constitution
>>74898281
Those who think globalist whore Hilary Clinton is a viable option need their head examined.
Vile, ugly, globalist Bitch:
Pro-war
Anti-freedom
Pro-Black rioters
Anti-gun
Pro-free trade
Pro-mass immigration
Israel-firster
>>74901592
>I'm a tard: the post
>>74901455
>as long as its done within a legal framework set by national constitution and pertinent laws.
Not the brightest bosniac, are you?
Government surveillance saves lives even when NOT done within said rules. So, we must do it.
>>74901797
So you argue for more government control to preserve the constitution?
Am reading you correctly?
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
>>74901838
A cop on a killing spree would eventually kill a criminal or two. The price payed however would be too steep and would defeat the purpose even though he technically was doing his job.
Same applies here. What's the point of saving a few lives if you risk descending into outright tyranny which would claim infinitely more innocent lives than it would save.
ends don't justify the means. saving lives by illegally violating the rights of many can't be compared to saving lives by trying to legally changing parts of legislature that you think are responsible for unnecessary deaths.
>>74901862
>Am reading you correctly?
no you're not. probably because you're a tard
>>74902658
You do realize it would require further tyranny to save a few lives by instituting gun control right?
Tyranny is government control and gun control requires government control.
>>74903027
it would be tyranny if your house got raided in the middle of the night, you got tazed and your legally owned guns got confiscated even though 2nd amendment was still in place
it would be enforcing the law if the constitution got changed (idk if you can even do that in anglo law, or would you have to rely on Supreme Court) in a legal lawmaking procedure.
same goes for this surveillance thing Guido brought up. if it's widespread, unsupervised and outright illegal than it's starting to look like tyranny. if it's done following the rules set up by pertinent legislation it's regular police/intelligence work
in democratic political systems no decision a government can make is inherently right or wrong. the way the decision made and the way it's implemented are the only thing determining whether or not the decision in question is right or wrong
>>74903745
>in democratic political systems no decision a government can make is inherently right or wrong
M
e
n
t
a
l
D
i
s
o
r
d
e
r
>>74904056
>Democracy
>80% of people vote for issue X
>government does Y to ensure X gets done
>80% of people vote against issue X
>government still does Y in order to get X done
X can't be the problem because the decision over how X should be treated is nominally in the hands of the people constituting a certain political unit. only the government's reaction to stated will of the people and their actions towards X can be qualified as good or bad. as legal or tyrannical.
>>74903745
>every dictator in the history of mankind has been breaking the laws... that they made
You are mentally damaged friend, at no point in that entire post did you stop to think that a tyrannical dictatorship's first order of business would be to make its tyrannical practices legal? Do you really think that a Tyrant would continue to engage in these activities and leave them illegal even though they would have absolute control over what is and isn't illegal?
>>74904828
>leave them illegal even though they would have absolute control over what is and isn't illegal?
in order for a tyrant to gain such control (in a democratic political system at least) he would already have to act illegally against the democratic constitution/basic law.
the initial illegal act would render all his subsequent acts illegal. Quod ab initio vitiosum est non potest tractu temporis convalescere as the Romans would have said.
