How far away is your country from adopting an universal basic income program?

The government already pays you welfare, your rent, your college and your healthcare. So UBI would be just a downgrade with a fancy name for us.

Based game

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANG GAAAAAAAAAAAAANG

good taste user
I hope Yang implements Recycling Tanks and sends all the AmeriNEETs there

Attached: Alpha Centauri leaders.jpg (800x602, 78K)

nice cromartie memm

He basically stops just short of banning guns outright.
yang2020.com/policies/gun-safety/

>stringent, tiered licensing system for gun ownership

tier 1 ("basic" hunting rifles and handguns) licence requirements:
>must pass federal background check
>must pass hunting/firearm safety class
>must provide a receipt for an appropriately-sized gun locker, or trigger lock for every registered gun

tier 2 (semi-automatic rifles) licence requirements:
>must have had a tier 1 license for at least 1 year
>must be at least 21 years of age
>must pass an advanced firearm safety class

tier 3 ("advanced and automatic weaponry) license requirements:
>must submit fingerprints and dna to fbi
>must submit to gun locker inspection to ensure it can house your weapon(s)
>must undergo yearly refresher trainings on the use of these firearms
also, high capacity magazines = banned

additional regulations:
>anyone with a history of "violent" mental illness will be banned from owning guns
>anyone with a "history of violence" will be banned from owning guns
>bump stocks, suppressors, incendiary/exploding ammunition, and grenade launcher attachments all banned
>"federal safety guidelines" for gun manufacture and distribution
>force manufacturers to make modifying their firearms very difficult or impossible

also:
>the government will pay people to give up their guns
>the government will invest in technology that would make firearms harder to fire for non-owners of the gun and then force manufacturers to use it when it becomes "advanced and reliable enough"

Attached: 1548196440278.webm (768x436, 1.02M)

wtf it sounds like something out of a reasonable country where schools don't get shot up
are you sure an American wrote this???

Attached: confused papi.png (353x321, 47K)

It seems like a very reasonable policy.
It doesn't ban guns and allows for the usage but also helps eliminate the extremely easy access to guns that is now prominent in the US.
Let's hope Yang wins

We voted no to 4000$ a month to everyone. But maybe if they propose less people will accept it

>It doesn't ban guns
It's basically just a precursor to a full ban. Gradually restrict ownership, then ban ownership altogether.

It's an open secret that all these people advocating for "reasonable" gun laws want a full ban but know they will never get elected running on that platform so they lie and pretend they just want "sensible" regulations instead. Let them impose one regulation, and they will impose another and another until they achieve a situation like in the UK where it's near impossible for anyone to own one (unless they're a criminal, then it's easy).

What is reasonable is that people should have the right and ability to defend themselves and their property and not be completely dependent on the state for their protection. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

In college renting just a room in a house+utilities was $600 max, food was ~$100. This wasn't in the middle of nowhere, it was downtown Tempe.

GIVE ME MY NEETBUCKS BASED YANG

all those points seem reasonable.

give me a break, we've had restrictions like that in Canada before and it hasn't led to a outright ban. you're just fearmongering.

American on vacation detected

Attached: days since last school shooting.png (1200x1630, 642K)

>The government already pays you welfare
But under what conditions. You won't get it this easily.

What is the history of UK gun laws? When were Brits allowed to own self loading rifles?

montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/gun-controls-will-be-tightened-trudeau-tells-montreal-radio-audience
Took me 5 seconds to find in google you dumb cunt

It looks more like guns were banned most of the time in UK. If there was a slippery slope it started in the 1500s when handheld guns started to become common for high class Euros.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_Kingdom#History
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_firearm

>give lgbt people special rights
>ban guns
>beloved by billionaires

nah im good

The first major ban came under Harold Wilson's Labour government in the late 60s:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Act_1968
^This banned automatic rifles.

The next major one came under Thatcher's Conservative government in the late 80s:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_(Amendment)_Act_1988
^This made it illegal to own basically anything besides .22 calibre pea-shooters.

Attached: 1533675960415.jpg (1466x834, 390K)

Why do billionaires like Yang? Is he promising gibs for big business?

First major ban came in the 1500s right after handheld firearms became common in Europe.
>Following the assassination of William of Orange in 1584 with a concealed wheellock pistol, Queen Elizabeth I, fearing assassination by Roman Catholics, banned possession of wheellock pistols in England near a royal palace in 1594.[73] There were growing concerns in the 16th century over the use of guns and crossbows. Four acts were imposed to restrict their use in England and Wales.[74]
It's been a back and fort with pragmatic arguments.

One of these days these retarded americans will put some some fucking anti-gun faggot in the white house and we'll end up even more defenseless against reggaetoneros.

this, we have to keep israel great in 2020 my fellow pedes

has it happened yet? nope, stupid cunt. and when is tightening a ban?

destroys any idea meeting the basic needs of the poor and replaces it with a yearly allowance that they will have full control over. its what all the paleocons and billionaires talk about endlessly

LMFAO at anyone who thinks UBI is a working class or left idea. its going to be used to destroy all other forms of assistance and destroy unions. thats why this guy wants to take away guns. you will be slaves to the 1%

Sounds based time to secretly find his campaign.

>The Canadian prime minister said he hasn't excluded the possibility of banning them outright.
>"I-It hasn't happened yet so my retarded countrymen will never vote for it to happen!"
You're fucking retarded, not that I expected anything else.

>ts going to be used to destroy all other forms of assistance
That's the outspoken idea. Cut administration costs because it's a mechanical transaction.

yeah if you got over a million in capital do it. he will lose but what will come after him will destroy the notion of working class rights for ever. they will have fucking drones and those boston dynamics robots to keep the serfs in line.

you're an idiot. if the government hasn't even submitted the bill it isn't even close to becoming law.

At least some 80 years. 60 to catch up with rich nations and 20 to get even richer.

trannies think a man who doesn't bow down to niggers and spics will have success in the new America

dilation really fucked their brains

Attached: Dp1xtObWwAENxyOffsfsf.jpg (1139x1200, 134K)

>That's the outspoken idea. Cut administration costs because it's a mechanical transaction.

yes and there will be no need to meet needs anymore. it will be one check that they control and they will have the poor on a lease. its literally what the far right and neoliberals have been workshopping for decades.
its fine to support this guy if you think there needs to be techno-feudalism but acting like he is a friend to the working class is retarded

The problem with Yang is he proposes giving people a choice of UBI or existing welfare so all the fixed admin costs will still exist.

>banned possession of wheellock pistols in England near a royal palace in 1594
>near a royal palace
So this didn't apply to 99.9999999999999999999% of England and not at all anywhere else in the UK.

You also neglected to quote the bit after:
>The Bill of Rights restated the ancient rights of the people to bear arms by reinstating the right of Protestants to have arms after they had been illegally disarmed by James II. It follows closely the Declaration of Rights made in Parliament in February 1689.[75] The Bill of Rights text declares that "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law".[76]

>The Gun Licence Act 1870 was created to raise revenue. It required a person to obtain a licence to carry a gun outside his own property for any reason. A licence was not required to buy a gun. The licences cost 10 shillings (equivalent to about £31 in 2005), lasted one year and could be bought over the counter at Post Offices.
So even as late as 1870 no licence was required to purchase a gun and the license that existed was just a revenue-raising measure which could be bought cheaply over the country at a post office.

Why is there a need to meet needs? Survival of the fittest the poor should starve if they don't work hard.

>over the country
over the counter*

>you're an idiot. if the government hasn't even submitted the bill it isn't even close to becoming law.
Your leader is openly talking about banning assault weapons and the party in power currently has that as one of its platform planks on their website. How dense are you.

WHERE'S the legislation for the banning of guns than you fucking retard? he's a politician, they say shit all the time. fucking hell. stop being retarded.

Yikes
Trans rights are human rights

So it doesn't matter what he or his party says or does right up until the second they straight-up ban everything? Ok. We don't even need to talk about Canada- Australia is just as good an example.

Fucking based. I love everything about this guy except the social credits

I could live on 1000/mo

not lavishly but I could pay my bills

it doesn't matter because politicians can promise to cure cancer, create a space army and make houses cost 1dollar. but if they don't do shit about it, that means they don't have the political clout to see through it and it's just smoke and assfarts.

tightening gun regulations does not imply banning, get it through your head. you already have tightened regulations on firearms and has it led to a ban? no, stop this slippery slope fallacy.

>MUH SLIPPERY SLOPE
>muh anything reasonable is aktually UNREASONABLE because I say it will lead to reductio ad absurdum
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy
As is 'uhhh well everyone knows' as proofs

>you already have tightened regulations on firearms and has it led to a ban
It essentially has in places like California, which is the end goal of the Democratic party.
>no, stop this slippery slope fallacy
Calling something a fallacy is not actually an argument, nor is this the slippery slope fallacy.

And you neglected the four bans after that during 16th century on top of the early 1800s bans.

Like I said back and forth, not slippery slope and definitely the banning started before Marx was even a horny thought in his father's brains.

we were pioneers in the universal debt system

yes it is you fucking brainlet. you are literally saying that restrictions on gun ownership lead to an outright ban. that's exactly a slippery slope argument. a outright ban does not require restrictions to happen, it is not causation.

'essentially happened', what the fuck is this mental gymnastics? it hasn't been banned in California.

Honestly plenty of liberals and conservatives won't vote for him on principle of him being Asian.

>it will be one check that they control
The true idea is that it will not be controlled and every person, rich or poor, gets it. If it's something else then it's something else.

The poor will have their basic shit covered and then they can start doing some small jobs to get extra money and not lose benefits.

If the system differs from that then it's not universal basic income.

NEET communes

This. Whites are racist

As far as it can be

>yes it is you fucking brainlet
No. If you recognize that something is supposedly a fallacy you should be able to argue why it is wrong very easily, something you haven't done. Just screeching "logical fallacy!" is not an argument.
>you are literally saying that restrictions on gun ownership lead to an outright ban
Because they do, and it's blatantly desired by 90 percent of democrats excepting people like Jim Webb, maybe.
>it hasn't been banned in California
You cannot get a conceal-carry license in California unless you are very rich or know a Senator. You cannot purchase an AR-15 or other "assault weapon" as they are banned. They have a magazine ban for over 10 rounds, massive taxes on ammunition, etc. You are kidding yourself if you think it's possible to exercise your constitutional rights in California.

>>You cannot get a conceal-carry license in California unless you are very rich or know a Senator. You cannot purchase an AR-15 or other "assault weapon" as they are banned. They have a magazine ban for over 10 rounds, massive taxes on ammunition, etc. You are kidding yourself if you think it's possible to exercise your constitutional rights in California.

still not a ban brainlet.

im not making an argument you fucking retard, im stating that your argument is a logical fallacy, the slippery slope type.

>>Because they do

right here is where you admit that you're making an assumption that restrictions will lead to a outright ban but since a ban does not require prior restrictions to be in place, it's not causation. adding restrictions on guns does not lead to a ban, that's a logical fallacy. that's like saying making it harder for people to drive cars will lead to a outright restriction on car ownership. retarded fearmongering shithead.

Speaking of arguments, gun righters often refuse to even argument for their guns and just say a so called god gave them this right, even though their god just says to turn the other cheek. At least in Finland there's a real reason to have assault rifles.

Atheists blown the fuck out, I guess.

>still not a ban brainlet.
So in your empty mind does it not count as a ban as long as one fudd is allowed to own a hunting shotgun that he can fire once a year?
>im stating that your argument is a logical fallacy, the slippery slope type
Look up what the slippery slope fallacy is, if you love blithering on about it so much.
>right here is where you admit that you're making an assumption that restrictions will lead to a outright ban but since a ban does not require prior restrictions to be in place, it's not causation
It isn't an assumption if it's the official or otherwise goal of 90 percent of one of the two major parties in the country you goddamn idiot. The increasing restrictions are their means toward a ban. Jesus Christ. Just last week Hawaiian reps introduced legislation to remove the second amendment entirely.
>often refuse to even argument for their guns and just say a so called god gave them this right
1. Self-defense
2. Sport/ recreational shooting
3. Practical purposes (Hunting, culling dangerous animals, etc)
Not that you have to give a reason to have a right, nor do you understand what a right is.

>Not that you have to give a reason to have a right, nor do you understand what a right is.
Yeah, exactly. Muh so called god given right.

So much first world "reasonable" anti-gun homos on Jow Forums holy shit. Go live a couple years near niggers with full auto glocks and AK's then come back and tell me we need more laws to cuck ourselves with, retards.

Attached: download (14).jpg (214x236, 8K)

GIVE ME MY 1000

Attached: (you).jpg (353x334, 19K)

Mcdonalds employees who arent managers make $1200 before tax a month( max). People dont mention this often, but the real fucked up part about most non-degree jobs in america is they are part time. They will raise your wage to make you feel better but good luck getting more than 20/25 hours a week. That is why poor people who have bills and kids have two jobs. They can manage to get 40+ hours a week but in the most horrendous and unconvenient way. It is a hellish life to say the least. $1000 a month and needing only one job far outweighs that extra $200 a month.

Son of a bitch, I was getting on the Yang gang train, but he's breaking my heart here. Fuck I can't support any anti-gun cuck.

puerto ricans are black

everyone is black especially russians

between aoc, the somali congresswoman and this chink America has a grim future

Y A N G G A N G
A
N
G
G
A
N
G

hes taiwanese, sure an american didnt wrote that

Yea holding people accountable for corruption and suggesting ideas to deal with the existential threats of the future. Truly the scum of the earth

the fuck this nigga has been smoking?

Idk why he mentioned gun restrictions. All yang should have said is "ill give everyone a thousand dollars, everything will stay the same" and then once he us president bust out the gun ban and other things that would have made him lose the votes. He would win because everyone who voted last president would vote for him. Politicians lie and come up short on their pomises all the time and it's not like they get empeached and go to jail. Nothing illegal about not telling people stuff that you forgot to mention. Dumbasses

Y A N G
A A
N N
G A N G

>had a nigger at power
>call others dumbasses

They won't but it will help life out in general.

What wrong with having a person of partial-African descent in power?

That's a problem with Puerto Rico though.

>cuckdian doesnt know why its bad and humiliating to be enslaved by niggers

well, if you didnt give niggers aks and glocks, that wouldnt be a problem you fucktard

Wow looks like sane American. Also I would add that these exams and inspections must be free.

Having a not even full black guy in power isn't an issue but hey, you keep on doing that hysterical race baiting we all know and love.

Iberians definitely know a lot about being enslaved by nigs

Never in my lifetime, here in the states you have to pretend to be disabled to get on a permanent dole.

First it was a Nigger, then a jewish cheese doodle and now a fucking chink. McDonalds™ can't get any worse from this.

Rand Paul 2008!

>This wasn't in the middle of nowhere, it was downtown Tempe.
I leave it to you to figure out for yourself what is wrong with this sentence

>universal basic income aka free shit (tm)
isnt this just going to make bread cost 9000$? you are just going to cheapen money, or cause hyperinflation, people will prolly just switch to using grams of gold dust cos govt cant just print gold instead

my plan to avoid 10 dudes owning all the land and real estate and things due to automation?
ive already mapped some freshwater sources in siberia, gonna set up a log cabin near one and go fishing
pretty sure the working class became obsolete because of technology, and they will simply remove the working class instead of giving it infinite free shit (tm) for no reason
they have automation, we dont
they have raptor 22f, we dont
they have air to air, surface to air (sam), air to ground missiles, howitzers, tanks, viruses, submarines..
urban sprawls will simply be exterminated and upon the corpses, robots will produce things for the rich

Attached: 1549912586867.png (1725x1334, 1.48M)