How far is too far for Paladin?

Who said murderer?

Can you please define what you classify as a concentration camp?

That one can put blanks into a gun does not change the fact that the gun is designed to kill or injure.

Inanimate objects don't have souls. A gun, like any tool, is for whatever purpose it is used for. And if everyone who bought a gun bought it for killing, there'd be no one left.

People use guns for lots of things, overwhelmingly lawful things that involve no killing.

Yes, a gun can be used to kill. It's a weapon, after all. And killing can be righteous.

I was not referring to blanks. I was talking about incendiary rounds.

And what about starter pistols?

It's an analogy. You're making the argument that someone is guilty of a crime they haven't actually committed or indeed have shown any inclination to commit.

A state facility where a targeted subset of society--often a racial, ethnic, or political minority--is imprisoned without cause or due process, often accompanied by forced labor, deportation, or execution.

It was K. who drew the comparison to his grandfather, and drawing parallels between behavior at an earlier stage of the process does not equal saying that the later stages are inevitable or have been proven.

Which part of that do you disagree with?

Everything after "a state facility."

If you think these activities aren't overwhelmingly targeting a subset of society, that everyone gets due process, and that there is no deportation then I can see why you would disagree with the definition!

So. A blanket gun ban and confiscation is stupid and wouldn't be practical.

Now then, if the US was founded on the principles of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (setting aside the historical interpretation of that meaning to wealthy white men), why are tools which are more and more being used to deny those principles being defended so voraciously?

A: "Just like Hitler, Trump went to kindergarten."

B: "So, you're suggesting Trump's going to kill 6 million people in extermination camps and launch agressive war that will kill millions more?"

A: "Drawing parallels between behavior at an earlier stage of the process does not equal saying that the later stages are inevitable or have been proven."

B: "Why compare him to Hitler then? Lots of people go to kindergarten."

The subset is not distinctly targeted. It applies to any race, ethnicity, sex, etc. who is in violation of immigration law or who is requesting asylum.

There is cause: the people detained are foreign nationals either in violation of our immigration laws or awaiting dispensation of asylum appeals.

There is due process: their cases are heard in accord with law.

There is no forced labor and certainly no executions. Deportations happen, yes, but only to return people to their country of origin, not to expel them from their own country.

So, completely dissimilar to concentration camps in all the salient details.

If you weigh one freedom against, say, a few hundred deaths a year and judge that freedom not worthwhile, would you do that with all freedoms?

It's been said many times, but concentration camp does not equal Nazi death camp.

You seem to be saying that you can't draw a comparison between k.'s grandfather and yourself saying similar things about similar situations because in the former things ended up much worse.

By this definition every set of laws on Earth has due process.

The cases are adjudicated according to established non-arbitrary criteria, processed as expediently as the volume of applicants allows, and appeals are typically granted when the applicants meet defined requirements. Not usually the case in a concentration camp, where there is no appeal, let alone an expedient or fair one.

No, they weren't. Those would be death camps. The deaths in concentration camps "only" result from bad living conditions and mistreatment. Which is what is happening at your border.

None of those claims are true, as everyone who has visited the camps, from Congresspeople through journalists to independent doctors, as well as every judge who has adjudicated these cases, and most of the guards working there agree. Don't pretend this information isn't available. You've read it and you have commented on it here. You just decided to "believe" known liars instead, or are telling yourself you do.

If you hop on a time machine looking for Nazis with fangs, glowing eyes, drooling acidic green slime, wringing their hands, and cackling maniacally, you'll never find a single goddamned Nazi.
Not one.
You'll be looking forever.

Their chain of decisions were banal, bureaucratic, legalistic, and indifferent.

Like certain replies in this thread.

Paladin would you rather have your daughter date Dayton or henry cavil?

Pretty much this. I'd say that you will find a few cackling sadists and psychopaths. But you find those everywhere, in every society, usually in asylums. What put them in charge in the Third Reich was the banality of evil that had everyone else continue to do their jobs, even when those jobs changed beyond all recognition.

Here's one example of what that looks like. The due process @Paladin mentioned includes having three-year-old-children, with no right to a lawyer, "plead their case" to a judge. Here's one of the cases where they were lucky enough to get a lawyer anyway, so at least there's an adult to tell their side of the story, as opposed to the majority of these cases:

Source

Due process!

Structural violence and the red tape that hides it is very real.

AHEM

Like you said, that happened in a court, which means it happened in accordance with the law, which makes it due process.

Returns to stroking gun in a masturbatory fashion.

Ever notice how conservatives get all legalistic about morality when it's immigration, and moralistic about law when it's abortion?

Or how in the context of threads like this it's really good that they don't actually seem to believe that abortion is state sponsored murder.

Yes, but that is a smoke screen too; immigration is not illegal, and a defendant who cannot defend themselves due to immaturity is not receiving due process when questioned by a judge. It's just not true.

You will never do anything, no matter what situation arises, because the only "tyranny" you care about is someone taking your guns. Everything is else is an imaginary role you've cast yourself in whilst it was safely hypothetical.

The reality is no matter what actually happens it'll always be hypothetical.

Such as when you lock someone up in cages for years at a time, separating them from any contact with the outside world, without actually establishing whether they have committed a crime? What's more doing so in violation of the holy constitution?

Right. It's a weapon. It's specifically designed to kill or injure. Sure, you can leave it unloaded and mounted above your fireplace, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a weapon.

To be fair, gramps might have been talking about separating children from their parents and having them raised by American German parents so as to culturally assimilate them... (see also; 60s Scoop).

and, this just in...


© Getty Images
The Trump administration on Wednesday said it would unveil a new rule that will allow migrant families to be held indefinitely, ending a procedure known as the "Flores Agreement" that had required children to be held no longer than 20 days.

The decision is a momentous change in detainee policy that the administration has sought to make to provide a disincentive for people crossing the border.

“This rule allows the federal government to enforce immigration laws as passed by Congress,” acting DHS secretary Kevin McAleenan said in a statement.

Under the terms of the 1997 consent decree which eventually led to the 20-day limit in Flores, the regulation must be approved by the judge in the original case, Judge Dolly M. Gee of United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Gee denied the administration’s request last year to extend family detentions after in 2015 ruling that officials could not hold children in unlicensed facilities longer than 20 days.

Trump officials have sought to address Gee’s concerns with indefinite detention by creating a federal government licensing regime which includes public audits of facilities conducted by a third party.

Under the new system, immigrant families could be held for the duration of their court proceedings, which officials claim can be resolved within three months.

The Trump administration has frequently blamed the Flores Agreement for the spike in family border crossings over the last few years, claiming the promise of eventual release creates an incentive to enter the country illegally.

The new rule would establish new standards for conditions in detention centers while simultaneously removing the 20-day maximum detention limit which has existed for decades.

"Large numbers of alien families are entering illegally across the southern border, hoping that they will be released into the interior rather than detained during their removal proceedings," the two agencies that created the rule, the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Health and Human Services, said in a statement.

"Promulgating this rule and seeking termination of the FSA [the Flores Agreement] are important steps towards an immigration system that is humane and operates consistently with the intent of Congress.

The rule will be published in the Federal Register on Friday and will be effective 60 days later — if it is approved by the courts.
*******************

they claim resolutions in 90 days, but..

seems dubious that any real hearings (that aren't simply kangaroo courts) can even be started in that time...


so how many Americans, let alone would be Americans, have to be rounded up and interned/deported before Gunforge takes up arms against tyranny?