Youtube comments of Charles Eye (@TheCharleseye).

  1. 4100
  2. 2400
  3. 1800
  4. 1000
  5. 893
  6. 841
  7. 818
  8. 818
  9. 714
  10. 663
  11. 646
  12. 526
  13. 522
  14. 491
  15. 458
  16. 442
  17. 353
  18. 344
  19. 333
  20. 325
  21. 298
  22. 291
  23. 277
  24. 263
  25. 258
  26. Interviewer: This is an entry level job. Are you willing to work for minimum wage with no guarantee of full-time hours? Interviewee: Yes, absolutely. 1 YEAR LATER: Employee: I want more money! Employer: Me too. Employee: No. You need to pay me more. In fact, you need to pay me a lot more! Employer: Why? You're still doing the exact same amount of work as you agreed to do for your current wage. What makes you more valuable today than you were a year ago? Employee: Whatever, I've got bills to pay. Employer: So do I. If you needed to make more money, why didn't you say so before I hired you? Employee: I needed a job and I figured I'd get a raise later. Employer: Then why haven't you been working towards getting a raise? You've spent the last year doing nothing more than your basic job requirements. If you want more money, you have to prove that you're worth promoting. This means more money because you're taking on more responsibility. Employee: I don't want more responsibility. I just want more money. Give it to me. Employer: No. And at this rate, you're not showing me that you're even worth employing. Employee: Bernie, my boss is being mean to me! Make him pay me more money, because I entered the job market without any concept of basic budgeting and I'm not willing to work harder or find other employment! Bernie: Unsustainable minimum wage for everyone! Employer: Everyone's fired. Bring in the touchscreens and robots! I've got customers to serve and no time to deal with overgrown, entitled children whose parents never explained to them how the world works.
    252
  27. 247
  28. 245
  29. 244
  30. 232
  31. 229
  32. 217
  33. 204
  34. 198
  35. 189
  36. 188
  37. 187
  38. 185
  39. 179
  40. 171
  41. 162
  42. 151
  43. 146
  44. 145
  45. 139
  46. 136
  47. 135
  48. 130
  49. 126
  50. 120
  51. 115
  52. 114
  53. 114
  54. 114
  55. 112
  56. 111
  57. 110
  58. 105
  59. 101
  60. 100
  61. 98
  62. 89
  63. 89
  64. 87
  65. 85
  66. 83
  67. 81
  68. 80
  69. 80
  70. 78
  71. 77
  72. 75
  73. 74
  74. 73
  75. 72
  76. 72
  77. 69
  78. 68
  79. 68
  80. 67
  81. 66
  82. 65
  83. 65
  84. 65
  85. 64
  86. 64
  87. 63
  88. 58
  89. 58
  90. 57
  91. 57
  92. 56
  93. 56
  94. 56
  95. 55
  96. 55
  97. 53
  98. 53
  99. 52
  100. 51
  101. 50
  102. 49
  103. 49
  104. 47
  105. 47
  106. 47
  107. 46
  108. 44
  109. 44
  110. 43
  111. 43
  112. 43
  113. 42
  114. 42
  115. 42
  116. 41
  117. 41
  118. 41
  119. 41
  120. 41
  121. 41
  122. 39
  123. 39
  124. 39
  125. 39
  126. 39
  127. 38
  128. 37
  129. 37
  130. 37
  131. 36
  132. 36
  133. 36
  134. 36
  135. 35
  136. 35
  137. 35
  138. 35
  139. 35
  140. 34
  141. 34
  142. 33
  143. 33
  144. 33
  145. 33
  146. 33
  147. 33
  148. 32
  149. 32
  150. 32
  151. 31
  152. 31
  153. 30
  154. 30
  155. 30
  156. 30
  157. 29
  158. 29
  159. 29
  160. 29
  161. 28
  162. 28
  163. 28
  164. 28
  165. 28
  166. 28
  167. 27
  168. 27
  169. 27
  170. 27
  171. 27
  172. 26
  173. 26
  174. 26
  175. 26
  176. 26
  177. 26
  178. 26
  179. 26
  180. 26
  181. 26
  182. 25
  183. 25
  184. 25
  185. 25
  186. 25
  187. 25
  188. 24
  189. 24
  190. 24
  191. 24
  192. 24
  193. 24
  194. 24
  195. 23
  196. 23
  197. 23
  198. 23
  199. 23
  200. 23
  201. 22
  202. 22
  203. 22
  204. 22
  205. 22
  206. 22
  207. 22
  208. 22
  209. 22
  210. 22
  211. 22
  212. 22
  213. 21
  214. 21
  215. 21
  216. 21
  217. 21
  218. 21
  219. 20
  220. 20
  221. 20
  222. 20
  223. 20
  224. 20
  225. 20
  226. 20
  227. 20
  228. 20
  229. 20
  230. 20
  231. 20
  232. 19
  233. 19
  234. 19
  235. 19
  236. 19
  237. 19
  238. 19
  239. 19
  240. 19
  241. 19
  242. 19
  243. 19
  244. 19
  245. 19
  246. 19
  247. 19
  248. 19
  249. 19
  250. 19
  251. 19
  252. 19
  253. 19
  254. 18
  255. 18
  256. 18
  257. 18
  258. 18
  259. 18
  260. 18
  261. 18
  262. 18
  263. 18
  264. 18
  265. 18
  266. 18
  267. 17
  268. 17
  269. 17
  270. 17
  271. 17
  272. 17
  273. 17
  274. 17
  275. 17
  276. 17
  277. 17
  278. 17
  279. 16
  280. 16
  281. 16
  282. 16
  283. 16
  284. 16
  285. 16
  286. 16
  287. 16
  288. 16
  289. 16
  290. 16
  291. 16
  292. 16
  293. 15
  294. 15
  295. 15
  296. 15
  297. 15
  298. 15
  299. 15
  300. 15
  301. 15
  302. 15
  303. 15
  304. 15
  305. 15
  306. 15
  307. 14
  308. 14
  309. 14
  310. 14
  311. 14
  312. 14
  313. 14
  314. 14
  315. 14
  316. 14
  317. 14
  318. 14
  319. 14
  320. 14
  321. 14
  322. 14
  323. 14
  324. 13
  325. 13
  326. 13
  327. 13
  328. 13
  329. 13
  330. 13
  331. 13
  332. 13
  333. 13
  334. 13
  335. 13
  336. 13
  337. 13
  338. 13
  339. 13
  340. 13
  341. 13
  342. 13
  343. 13
  344. 13
  345. 13
  346. 13
  347. 13
  348. 12
  349. 12
  350. 12
  351. 12
  352. 12
  353. 12
  354. 12
  355. 12
  356. 12
  357. 12
  358. 12
  359. 12
  360. 12
  361. 12
  362. 12
  363. 12
  364. 12
  365. 12
  366. 12
  367. 12
  368. 12
  369. 12
  370. 12
  371. 12
  372. 11
  373. 11
  374. 11
  375. 11
  376. 11
  377. 11
  378. 11
  379. 11
  380. 11
  381. 11
  382. 11
  383. 11
  384. 11
  385. 11
  386. 11
  387. 11
  388. 11
  389. 11
  390. 11
  391. 11
  392. 11
  393. 11
  394. 11
  395. 11
  396. 11
  397. 11
  398. 11
  399. 11
  400. 11
  401. 11
  402. 11
  403. 11
  404. 11
  405. 10
  406. 10
  407. 10
  408. 10
  409. 10
  410. 10
  411. 10
  412. 10
  413. 10
  414. 10
  415. 10
  416. 10
  417. 10
  418. 10
  419. 10
  420. 10
  421. 10
  422. 10
  423. 10
  424. 10
  425. 10
  426. 10
  427. 10
  428. 10
  429. 10
  430. 10
  431. 10
  432. 10
  433. 10
  434. 10
  435. 10
  436. 10
  437. 10
  438. 10
  439. 10
  440. 10
  441. 10
  442. 9
  443. 9
  444. 9
  445. 9
  446. 9
  447. 9
  448. 9
  449. 9
  450. 9
  451. 9
  452. 9
  453. 9
  454. 9
  455. 9
  456. 9
  457. 9
  458. 9
  459. 9
  460. 9
  461. 9
  462. 9
  463. 9
  464. 9
  465. 9
  466. 9
  467. 9
  468. 9
  469. 9
  470. 9
  471. 9
  472. 9
  473. 9
  474. 9
  475. 9
  476. 9
  477. 9
  478. 9
  479. 9
  480. 9
  481. 9
  482. 9
  483. 9
  484. 8
  485. 8
  486. 8
  487. 8
  488. 8
  489. 8
  490. 8
  491. 8
  492. 8
  493. 8
  494. 8
  495. 8
  496. 8
  497. 8
  498. 8
  499. 8
  500. 8
  501. 8
  502. 8
  503. 8
  504. 8
  505. 8
  506. I'm confused. Mexicans are the only ones capable of working hard? Wait, no. You specifically said it was illegal immigrants. So you're saying that Mexican Americans are lazy sacks of crap, just like white Americans? But then, you also showed us that black Americans can't really cut it either. It's crazy how a birth certificate or a green card can just cripple a person like that. Does this magic apply to all illegal immigrants or just the ones from Mexico? Like, if we were to bring in some illegal immigrants from a wide cross section of Countries, would they work as hard as the Mexican illegals? And what about the American citizens who bust their asses every day? Are they secretly illegal immigrants, too? Are the South and Mid-West just giant sanctuaries for illegal Nordic and European immigrants? They must be, right? I mean, certain groups have gone a long way to destroy the work ethic in this Country. If it still exists, it means that you they have failed. So, what is it that gives illegal immigrants their super powers? How do they work so much harder for less money? Oh, THAT'S right! We're EXPOLOITING them! They have no choice. Because if they complain, we'll have them DEPORTED! They're the new slave labor! If you can't afford to pay more for shrimp and strawberries, I don't really care. Screw you and your false entitlement. Nobody owes you shrimp and strawberries. If you insist we continue to exploit a broken system and oppress people to help finance your dinner parties, you're no better than the people who turned a blind eye toward slavery because "This cotton is just so soft and affordable!"
    8
  507. 8
  508. 8
  509. 8
  510. 8
  511. 8
  512. 8
  513. 8
  514. 8
  515. 8
  516. 8
  517. 8
  518. 8
  519. 8
  520. 8
  521. 8
  522. 8
  523. 8
  524. 8
  525. 8
  526. 8
  527. 8
  528. 8
  529. 8
  530. 8
  531. 8
  532. 8
  533. 8
  534. 8
  535. 8
  536. 8
  537. 8
  538. 8
  539. 8
  540. 8
  541. 8
  542. 8
  543. 8
  544. 8
  545. 8
  546.  @bababooeyee  I wasn't interpreting (or misinterpreting) the study at all. I was quoting the researcher responsible for said study, along with the writer of the article. Meanwhile, I will again point out an inconsistency. You are busy trying to prove that gender is tied to the makeup of the brain. This runs completely counter to the current trending argument, that gender is a social construct. I appreciate your extensive knowledge on the subject of brain development but all you've really done is proven my point. The entire subject is riddled with inconsistencies. - Most say gender is a social construct. You and some others say it's tied to brain chemistry/development. - Most say that gender and sex are not linked. Meanwhile, they push to be able to change the sex (not gender) on their birth certificate and driver's license. - Most are pushing for "trans rights" while many are actively trying to criminalize the act of "mis-gendering" people (even though the Trans community can't seem to agree on a basis for what gender even is). Again, I honestly appreciate the time you've taken to point out a field of study in which I am less than well versed. I will be looking into it further, as it's quite fascinating stuff. However, it does nothing to disprove my point, that the whole discussion is full of inconsistencies. Also, be very careful with whom you share this information. Feminists have spent decades putting down the idea that there is such a thing as "male" and "female" brains. Such claims were used for a long time to promote the idea that women were not well equipped for many things, due to said differences. You might want to start future statements by pointing out some way in which this proves feminine superiority, lest you be labeled a misogynist. Of course, you can only mention feminine superiority over cis men. If you don't preface that claim with a disclaimer that it doesn't imply superiority over Trans brains, you're likely to be labeled a TERF and shamed for that stance, too. See, it's all very combative and tribal ...ahem..."team oriented" (disclaimer: I didn't mean to imply a connection with first nations people, African heritage, or popular tattoos of the 90's). You probably think I'm being outlandish but not really. These are the real conversations I've had with people. This is my lived experience, to borrow a phrase. The entire thing is a hotbed of inconsistencies, outright fallacies, and vicious attacks for disagreement (even though there is no solid position with which to agree). It's just a minefield. Anyway, I've taken enough of your time. Thanks again for the information and I will be looking into it further. Have a great life.
    8
  547. 8
  548. 8
  549. 8
  550. 8
  551. 8
  552. 7
  553. 7
  554. 7
  555. 7
  556. 7
  557. Wait.... You guys are upset that "innocent until proven guilty" is finally being enforced for people defending themselves from attackers?! And you clearly have never dealt with the legal system or you'd know that your hypothetical scenarios are ridiculous. Judges are not radical talking heads on YouTube. They're capable of using logic and reasoning. Also, you seem to be forgetting that most self defense situations don't go to court. If it's a clear cut case, you don't get charged. The only time it goes to court is when the DA feels there is enough evidence to prosecute. If the DA has said evidence, it's not a problem. If not, you shouldn't have been charged in the first place (innocent until proven guilty). There's no statute of limitation on murder. They have plenty of time to build a case against you. I don't agree with the $200,000 payout because frankly, if I am ever put in the position of having to take a life to defend myself and THEN have to defend myself in court for it, I'm seeking compensation from the family who had a hand in creating the type of person who would attack me with lethal force. Maybe if people were held accountable for the monsters they create, parents would start doing their job! I'm about sick of the sympathy for people who knew damn well their kid wasn't right and didn't do a damn thing to help them. TO ALL THE PARENTS OUT THERE: If you suspect your kid has violent or criminal tendencies and you aren't actively doing something about it, their future life of crime is YOUR FAULT! I won't shed one single tear for you when someone has to put your kid down to save their life or the lives of others. YOU did this. If anyone tells you otherwise, they're lying to protect your feelings. If you want your kids to live long, happy lives, do something about it. People aren't laying down and taking it any more. Your kid WILL die in this world if you don't do something to prevent it.
    7
  558. 7
  559. 7
  560. 7
  561. 7
  562. 7
  563. 7
  564. 7
  565. 7
  566. 7
  567. 7
  568. 7
  569. 7
  570. 7
  571. 7
  572. 7
  573. 7
  574. 7
  575. 7
  576. 7
  577. 7
  578. 7
  579. 7
  580. 7
  581. 7
  582. 7
  583. 7
  584. 7
  585. 7
  586. 7
  587. 7
  588. 7
  589. 7
  590. 7
  591. 7
  592. 7
  593. 7
  594. 7
  595. 7
  596. 7
  597. 7
  598. 7
  599. 7
  600. 7
  601. 7
  602. 7
  603. 7
  604. 7
  605. 7
  606. 7
  607. 7
  608. 7
  609. 7
  610. 7
  611. 7
  612. 7
  613. 7
  614. 7
  615. 7
  616. 7
  617. 7
  618. 7
  619. 7
  620. 7
  621. 6
  622. 6
  623. 6
  624. 6
  625. 6
  626. 6
  627. 6
  628. 6
  629. 6
  630. 6
  631. 6
  632. 6
  633. 6
  634. 6
  635. 6
  636. 6
  637. 6
  638. 6
  639. 6
  640. 6
  641. 6
  642. 6
  643. 6
  644. 6
  645. 6
  646. 6
  647. 6
  648. 6
  649. 6
  650. 6
  651. 6
  652. 6
  653. It's actually harder to homeschool your kids in California than in most of the Country. In order to do so, you either have to have a teaching credential for each grade you're teaching or you have to apply for private school status for your home. The latter is done in October, so you have to apply ten months before the school year in which you want to start and it's only a two week window in which you can apply. Then, of course, you have to wait and hope that you're approved. Then, you have to reapply every year. It is done this way on purpose, to keep as many kids in public school as possible. They are funded based on the number of students enrolled. The California teachers' union is pretty powerful, so they tend to get what they want. The sad thing is, with all that power, California primary education is mostly in the toilet. Kentucky, for example, is one of the poorest States in the union and they often rank better in K-12 education and graduation rates than California, which is the richest, by far. On the plus side, there are more and more charter schools opening up with remote learning programs. My oldest is enrolled in one and it has allowed him to get on the fast track for early graduation. He starts his college courses next semester and should graduate high school by the end of next year (a year early). He was a solid D student in public school. Taking him away from the distractions and mediocre-at-best teachers (his current teachers are terrific) has him bringing in nothing but A and B grades, while getting through his work at record pace. My younger son will be starting there next year. He's already an Honors-level student. Unfortunately, his public school has no Honors or GATE programs, so he spends a lot of time doodling and waiting for his teachers to come up with more work for him. He loves school work, so the ability to really cut loose and work at his own pace should have him nearly catching his older brother. Anyway, yeah. California is definitely not about the children.
    6
  654. 6
  655. 6
  656. 6
  657. 6
  658. 6
  659. 6
  660. 6
  661. 6
  662. 6
  663. 6
  664. 6
  665. 6
  666. 6
  667. 6
  668. 6
  669. 6
  670. 6
  671. 6
  672. 6
  673. 6
  674. 6
  675. 6
  676. 6
  677. 6
  678. 6
  679. 6
  680. 6
  681. 6
  682. 6
  683. 6
  684. 6
  685. 6
  686. 6
  687. 6
  688. 6
  689. 6
  690. 6
  691. 6
  692. 6
  693. 6
  694. 6
  695. 6
  696. 6
  697. 6
  698. 6
  699. 6
  700. 6
  701. 6
  702. 6
  703. 6
  704. 6
  705. 6
  706. 6
  707. 6
  708. 6
  709. 6
  710. 6
  711. 6
  712.  @degummybear  Wow, no. Math is facts. Science is the study of everything. Science is theory, experimentation, review, lather, rinse, repeat. Now, (actual) vaccines are very good. They stop you from catching certain diseases. I'm current on all of my required (actual) vaccinations. However, the dozen or so shots around the world for COVID-19 don't fit the definition of a vaccine because they (stay with me now) DON'T stop you from getting the disease. They are akin to the lamb skin condoms people used before latex became the popular choice. This is backed by loads of scientific research - something you claim to believe in. The very fact that the medical community (you know, the people who have way more knowledge than you about medicine and disease) is split on taking the vaccine should give you pause. Instead, you choose to write off those medical professionals who disagree with the side you've chosen. That tells me you don't have a scientific mind. Scientists see new data and adjust their theories accordingly. Zealots (like you) stubbornly refuse to accept any new information if it doesn't align with their (your) chosen position. Swallow your pride and accept the fact that even the scientists you deify (well, the good ones, anyway) admit that they aren't always right. The pursuit of knowledge requires humility and flexibility, not politics and cheerleading. The current facts (and you can ask any scientist or doctor to verify this) about the COVID-19 "vaccines" are as follows (simplified for you): - Are any of the COVID-19 "vaccines" as effective at stopping people from getting the target virus as the vaccines we've been taking for generations? No. - Will they alleviate some symptoms? Yes. - Will they stop the spread of COVID-19? No. - Are many of them made using a relatively new and mostly untested method (mRNA)? Yes. - Does anyone know what the long term side effects will be? No. There are the facts. You can verify them if you have a scientific mind, or you can deny them outright if you have the mind of a zealot. It's that simple. Your move.
    6
  713. 6
  714. 6
  715. 6
  716. 6
  717. 6
  718. 6
  719. 5
  720. 5
  721. 5
  722. 5
  723. 5
  724. 5
  725. 5
  726. 5
  727. 5
  728. 5
  729. 5
  730. 5
  731. 5
  732. 5
  733. 5
  734. 5
  735. 5
  736. 5
  737. 5
  738. 5
  739. 5
  740. 5
  741. 5
  742. 5
  743. 5
  744. 5
  745. 5
  746. 5
  747. 5
  748. 5
  749. 5
  750. 5
  751. 5
  752. 5
  753. 5
  754. 5
  755. 5
  756. 5
  757. 5
  758. 5
  759. 5
  760. 5
  761. 5
  762. 5
  763. 5
  764. 5
  765. 5
  766. 5
  767. 5
  768. 5
  769. 5
  770. 5
  771. 5
  772. 5
  773. 5
  774. 5
  775. 5
  776. 5
  777. 5
  778. 5
  779. 5
  780. 5
  781. 5
  782. 5
  783. 5
  784. 5
  785. 5
  786. 5
  787. 5
  788. 5
  789. 5
  790. 5
  791. 5
  792. 5
  793. 5
  794. 5
  795. 5
  796. 5
  797. 5
  798. 5
  799. 5
  800. 5
  801. 5
  802. 5
  803. 5
  804. 5
  805. 5
  806. 5
  807. 5
  808. 5
  809. 5
  810. 5
  811. 5
  812. 5
  813. 5
  814. 5
  815. 5
  816. 5
  817. 5
  818. 5
  819. 5
  820. 5
  821. 5
  822. 5
  823. 5
  824. 5
  825. 5
  826. 5
  827. 5
  828. 5
  829. 5
  830. 5
  831. 5
  832. 5
  833. 5
  834. 5
  835. 5
  836. 5
  837. 5
  838. 5
  839. 5
  840. 5
  841. 5
  842. 5
  843. 5
  844. 5
  845. 5
  846. 5
  847. 5
  848. 5
  849. 5
  850. 5
  851. 5
  852. 5
  853. 5
  854. 5
  855. 5
  856. 5
  857. 5
  858. 5
  859. 5
  860. 5
  861. 5
  862. 5
  863. 5
  864. 5
  865. 5
  866. 5
  867. 5
  868. 5
  869. 5
  870. 5
  871. 5
  872. 5
  873. 5
  874. 4
  875. 4
  876. 4
  877. 4
  878. 4
  879. 4
  880. 4
  881. 4
  882. 4
  883. 4
  884. 4
  885. 4
  886. 4
  887. Isn't it funny how a random person can talk about an incident that happened to someone and it's dismissed as an anecdote but if a self proclaimed "news source" talks about it, it's magically transformed into concrete evidence to support an agenda? Yes, bad things DO happen sometimes (OMG! I can't believe he said that! GASP!). Occasionally those bad things even support your agenda. What DOESN'T support your agenda is, well, your agenda. You claim that people are just being paranoid for wanting guns and that it's just unfounded fear mongering. Meanwhile, you claim that gun violence and specifically, mass shootings, are out of control. Which is it? Is the US a safe place where nobody needs to worry about defending themselves or is gun crime out of control and people need protection? Oh, that's right. It's that gun violence is high but nobody should try to defend themselves. After all, if you're killed by a criminal with a gun, TYT will celebrate you but if you take responsibility for your own survival, they'll crucify you. I think I'll stick with my current plan of staying alive and enjoying the fact that you hate me for it. I know it's hard for you to comprehend that a person is capable of surviving for more than a day around guns but the fact is, your anecdotal evidence does nothing to disprove the fact that more than a hundred million people in this Country have guns and are living full lives. Besides, if your off-the-wall claims are true, all the gun owners will be dead within the next year or so anyway, right? I mean, if they're really that dangerous then there's no other viable conclusion. What really scares you is knowing that it's NOT true and we're going to be here for a long, long time. You know I'm right. Somehow we manage to keep living on, adding to our collections and eventually, passing them on to our children. How can that be? I mean by all accounts, there shouldn't be any citizens left in this Country, what with all the guns randomly exploding and taking out entire city blocks....or whatever it is you think they do when people aren't looking. None of it really matters anyway. The fact is, of all the people who clamor for gun confiscation, I haven't seen a single one who is willing to step up and try taking the guns themselves. 330 million is a lot of guns. It's pretty naive to think that they could be taken against people's will, without a massive loss of life.
    4
  888. 4
  889. 4
  890. 4
  891. 4
  892. 4
  893. 4
  894. 4
  895. 4
  896. 4
  897. 4
  898. 4
  899. 4
  900. 4
  901. 4
  902.  @tonytheetiger3750  Well, the .223 is not a high caliber and at 55-70 grains, is not a heavy load. An AR15 has a pistol grip, so it's terrible for shooting from the hip and has to be held at chest or shoulder height for any effectiveness. Anyone who has ever fired a rifle or shotgun knows that a traditional stock is much easier to shoot from the hip. Pistol grips are for quickly aligning your sights while keeping your wrist at a more natural position. Anything made for killing with the least amount of focus and for war would have automatic and/or 3-round burst capability and an AR15 has neither of those things. I'm not sure what you're talking about with "gaming" as there are many semiautomatic rifles that are used for both competitive shooting and hunting (including the AR15). Neither of which is ever called "gaming," though. Are you talking about video games? That's the only thing I ever hear of being called gaming and I promise, nobody uses real rifles for such things. By your description, the weapons you're talking about are mostly WWII era weapons. Most modern sporting rifles don't align with your opinion of what an assault weapon is at all. Maybe stop listening to people who don't know anything about guns. Repeating their nonsense isn't helping anyone. I know for a fact there are Liberal/Democrat gun clubs out there who would help you gather factual information about these firearms. You would be surprised to know that most politicians and media figures have absolutely no idea what they're talking about on this subject.
    4
  903. 4
  904. 4
  905. 4
  906. 4
  907. 4
  908. 4
  909. 4
  910. 4
  911. 4
  912. 4
  913. 4
  914. 4
  915. 4
  916. 4
  917. 4
  918. 4
  919. 4
  920. 4
  921. 4
  922. 4
  923. 4
  924. 4
  925. 4
  926. 4
  927. 4
  928. 4
  929. 4
  930. 4
  931. 4
  932. 4
  933. 4
  934. 4
  935. 4
  936. 4
  937. 4
  938. 4
  939. 4
  940. 4
  941. 4
  942. 4
  943. 4
  944. 4
  945. 4
  946. 4
  947. 4
  948. 4
  949. 4
  950. 4
  951. 4
  952. 4
  953. 4
  954. 4
  955. 4
  956. 4
  957. 4
  958. 4
  959. 4
  960. 4
  961. 4
  962. 4
  963. 4
  964. 4
  965. 4
  966. 4
  967. 4
  968. 4
  969. 4
  970. 4
  971. 4
  972. 4
  973. 4
  974. 4
  975. 4
  976. 4
  977. 4
  978. 4
  979. 4
  980. Entry level workers control a very large percentage of the market in California. The cost of nearly everything has gone up every year that they've bumped up the minimum wage, on their way to $15. People stopped paying attention to that when Covid lockdowns spiked it even higher but it was still there. Now, you can argue that the minimum wage increase didn't cause the inflation, and that it was companies using it as an excuse to raise prices. Well, that's fine but they still had the excuse, which means the wage increase did cause the inflation. In places like California, minimum wage will never be enough for long, no matter how high it gets. Cost of living has to go down in order for there to be a working class that can afford to live. That will never happen here, other than when there is disaster on a national scale. California real estate is worth gold. Realtors won't accept lower commissions, homeowners won't accept a market that doesn't increase dramatically every ten years, and those who have managed to carve out a piece for themselves don't want "the poors" moving into their neighborhoods. What's left is the overpriced rentals, that are such, partially due to (again) the high real estate values. I bought my house nine years ago for $125,000. Next year I'll be selling it for what looks to be about $260,000 - probably to some Southern Californian (I'm in NorCal) looking to find some way to afford to hold on to living in California. They'll likely bring their higher (but not high enough for SoCal) paying job with them via remote work and try to tell themselves that 110+ degree Summers aren't that bad because "It's a dry heat." Tell me how a minimum wage increase is ever going to help someone keep up with a market like that. From the time they declared the increase to the time they'll reach it (next year) the cost of living has jumped enough to more than cover the difference. Blame whatever you want but it doesn't matter to the gas station attendant whose $15/hr isn't making ends meet any better than $7.25/hr is doing for the gas station attendants in Tennessee.
    4
  981. 4
  982. 4
  983. 4
  984. 4
  985. 4
  986. 4
  987. 4
  988. 4
  989. 4
  990. 4
  991. 4
  992. 4
  993. 4
  994. 4
  995. 4
  996. 4
  997. 4
  998. 4
  999. 4
  1000. 4
  1001. 4
  1002. 4
  1003. 4
  1004. 4
  1005. 4
  1006. 4
  1007. 4
  1008. 4
  1009. 4
  1010. 4
  1011. 4
  1012. 4
  1013. 4
  1014. 4
  1015. 4
  1016. 4
  1017. 4
  1018. 4
  1019. 4
  1020. 4
  1021. 4
  1022. 4
  1023. 4
  1024. 4
  1025. 4
  1026. 4
  1027. 4
  1028. 4
  1029. 4
  1030. 4
  1031. 4
  1032. 4
  1033. 4
  1034. 4
  1035. 4
  1036. 4
  1037. 4
  1038. 4
  1039. 4
  1040. 4
  1041. 4
  1042. 4
  1043. 4
  1044. 4
  1045. 4
  1046. 4
  1047. 4
  1048. 4
  1049. 4
  1050. 4
  1051. 4
  1052. 3
  1053. 3
  1054. 3
  1055. 3
  1056. 3
  1057. 3
  1058. 3
  1059. 3
  1060. 3
  1061. 3
  1062. 3
  1063. 3
  1064. 3
  1065. 3
  1066. 3
  1067. 3
  1068. 3
  1069. 3
  1070. 3
  1071. 3
  1072. 3
  1073. 3
  1074. 3
  1075. 3
  1076. 3
  1077. 3
  1078.  @diamondback3150  Notice how they don't seem to have a mental health epidemic in Wyoming, either. It's almost as though there's something to the entire lifestyle that keeps such things from being much of an issue. Most mentally unstable people weren't born that way. Living in certain environments with certain stimuli is what increases it. More laws are just a band-aid on a much bigger problem. I live in California, which has some of the most restrictions. I happen to be a law abiding citizen. However, if I wanted to buy a gun without one of the State mandated background checks, I know probably half a dozen people I could call to source one for me and I'd have that gun in less than ten days (the standard "cooling off" period). Not to get personal but the problem with "solutions" that come from people outside of certain lifestyles, is that they don't at all reflect the reality of those lifestyles. In California, it is now much easier to get a gun illegally than legally. I've had to wade through background checks and safety tests to get my firearms. I have at least three neighbors who I can say - with absolute certainty - did not. They laugh at me for doing it "by the book" but I have a wife, kids, and a dog and don't ever want to give the police a reason to kick in my door. Those with less to lose don't care what laws get passed in Sacramento, because they know it's not making their lives any harder. Mental health checks won't stop much of anything. Dealing with the appalling condition of our mental health services and pushing for lifestyles that don't promote mental instability is the right move. Otherwise, all you're doing is giving me more paperwork to fill out and making me revisit the question of whether it's worth the risk to just buy my next gun under the table.
    3
  1079. 3
  1080. 3
  1081. 3
  1082. 3
  1083. 3
  1084. 3
  1085. 3
  1086. 3
  1087. 3
  1088. 3
  1089. 3
  1090. 3
  1091. 3
  1092. 3
  1093. 3
  1094. 3
  1095. 3
  1096. 3
  1097. 3
  1098. 3
  1099. 3
  1100. 3
  1101. 3
  1102. 3
  1103. 3
  1104. 3
  1105. 3
  1106. 3
  1107. 3
  1108. 3
  1109. 3
  1110. 3
  1111. 3
  1112. 3
  1113. 3
  1114. 3
  1115. 3
  1116. 3
  1117. 3
  1118. 3
  1119. 3
  1120. 3
  1121. 3
  1122. 3
  1123. 3
  1124. 3
  1125. 3
  1126. 3
  1127. 3
  1128. 3
  1129. 3
  1130. 3
  1131. 3
  1132. 3
  1133. 3
  1134. 3
  1135. 3
  1136. 3
  1137. 3
  1138. 3
  1139. 3
  1140. 3
  1141. 3
  1142. 3
  1143. 3
  1144. 3
  1145. 3
  1146. 3
  1147. 3
  1148. 3
  1149. 3
  1150. 3
  1151. 3
  1152. 3
  1153. 3
  1154. 3
  1155. 3
  1156. 3
  1157. 3
  1158. 3
  1159. 3
  1160. 3
  1161. 3
  1162. 3
  1163. 3
  1164. 3
  1165. 3
  1166. 3
  1167. 3
  1168. 3
  1169. 3
  1170. 3
  1171. Karen Ashley I sound like I have plenty of money? Why, because I can properly capitalize and punctuate a sentence? Sorry to disappoint you but that doesn't require money. You have no excuse for your appalling sentence structure. As for the rest, I admitted nothing about fasting but you're right about not drinking my own waste or limiting my diet to something "so good for you" that you most often have to supplement using bottled vitamins. I also don't eat my own feces, so I'm sure that gives you even more reason to look down your nose. I'm so sorry for my lack of "enlightenment." Here's the really relevant part, though. This is a news update about a group of children stuck in a flooded cave, fighting for their lives. Your incredible arrogance made you watch this video and then jump directly into peddling your lifestyle with no thought as to whether it actually made any sense to do so (as can be seen by reading the responses to your comment). You're the type of disgusting person that the rest of us hold up as a negative stereotype of what Vegans are. You actually manage to set your movement back when you engage with another person publicly. The fact that you're so oblivious to it just makes it that much more fun to throw stones at you. Keep it coming. You're only hurting yourself. Meanwhile, every second you spend wasting keystrokes on me, is another second you're not out there screwing up someone else's view of what can be a healthy lifestyle choice (Veganism, not feces munching. You're on your own with that one).
    3
  1172. 3
  1173. 3
  1174. 3
  1175. 3
  1176. 3
  1177. 3
  1178. 3
  1179. 3
  1180. 3
  1181. 3
  1182. 3
  1183. 3
  1184. 3
  1185. 3
  1186. 3
  1187. 3
  1188. 3
  1189. 3
  1190. 3
  1191. 3
  1192. 3
  1193. 3
  1194. 3
  1195. 3
  1196. 3
  1197. 3
  1198. 3
  1199. 3
  1200. 3
  1201. 3
  1202. 3
  1203. 3
  1204. 3
  1205. 3
  1206. 3
  1207. 3
  1208. 3
  1209. 3
  1210. 3
  1211. 3
  1212. 3
  1213. 3
  1214. 3
  1215. 3
  1216. 3
  1217. 3
  1218. 3
  1219. 3
  1220. 3
  1221. 3
  1222. 3
  1223. 3
  1224. 3
  1225. 3
  1226. 3
  1227. 3
  1228. 3
  1229. 3
  1230. 3
  1231. 3
  1232. 3
  1233. 3
  1234. 3
  1235. 3
  1236. 3
  1237. 3
  1238. 3
  1239. 3
  1240. 3
  1241. 3
  1242. 3
  1243. 3
  1244. 3
  1245. 3
  1246. 3
  1247. 3
  1248. 3
  1249. 3
  1250. 3
  1251. 3
  1252. 3
  1253. 3
  1254. 3
  1255. 3
  1256. 3
  1257. 3
  1258. 3
  1259. 3
  1260. 3
  1261. 3
  1262. 3
  1263. 3
  1264. 3
  1265. 3
  1266. 3
  1267. 3
  1268. 3
  1269. 3
  1270. 3
  1271. 3
  1272. 3
  1273. 3
  1274. 3
  1275. 3
  1276. 3
  1277. 3
  1278. 3
  1279. 3
  1280. 3
  1281. 3
  1282. 3
  1283. 3
  1284. 3
  1285. 3
  1286. 3
  1287. 3
  1288. 3
  1289. 3
  1290. 3
  1291. 3
  1292. 3
  1293. 3
  1294. 3
  1295. 3
  1296. 3
  1297. 3
  1298. 3
  1299. 3
  1300. 3
  1301. 3
  1302. 3
  1303. 3
  1304. 3
  1305. 3
  1306. 3
  1307. 3
  1308. 3
  1309. 3
  1310. 3
  1311. 3
  1312. 3
  1313. 3
  1314. 3
  1315. 3
  1316. 3
  1317. 3
  1318. 3
  1319. 3
  1320. 3
  1321. 3
  1322. 3
  1323. 3
  1324. 3
  1325. 3
  1326. 3
  1327. 3
  1328. 3
  1329. 3
  1330. 3
  1331. 3
  1332. 3
  1333. 3
  1334. 3
  1335. 3
  1336. 3
  1337. 3
  1338. 3
  1339. 3
  1340. 3
  1341. 3
  1342. 3
  1343. 3
  1344. 3
  1345. 3
  1346. 3
  1347. 3
  1348. 3
  1349. 3
  1350. 3
  1351. 3
  1352. 3
  1353. 3
  1354. 3
  1355. 3
  1356. 3
  1357. 3
  1358. 3
  1359. 3
  1360. 3
  1361. 3
  1362. 3
  1363. 3
  1364. 3
  1365. 3
  1366. 3
  1367. 3
  1368. 3
  1369. 3
  1370. 3
  1371. 3
  1372. 3
  1373. 3
  1374. 3
  1375. 3
  1376. 3
  1377. 3
  1378. 3
  1379. 3
  1380. 3
  1381. 3
  1382. 3
  1383. 3
  1384. 3
  1385. 3
  1386.  @bababooeyee  A) I'm not confusing anything. The current sociopolitical conversation is about whether gender is a social construct and whether a person can be a gender that does not align with their sex. You are talking about the makeup of people's brains, which has little to do with either and isn't being discussed by the intellectuals or the picket-swinging activists with any great regularity. B) What common, every day people - like Cindy from Starbucks - have to say on this topic carries a lot more weight - regarding the future of the movement - than any scientist studying brain makeup. Why? Because Cindy has a million followers on Twitter while your scientist doesn't have a hundred. Sadly, that means Cindy has more sway in how society views things. You want to dismiss the loud and mouthy as a background issue. However, every group does have them (as you said) and that's why they're leading every movement down the drain. We're not in the midst of the largest national divide since the Civil War because people are elevating rational, moderate voices. Cindy from Starbucks is leading the charge and Barry from Big O Tires is her main opposition. They both have more sway than either of us, or our various sources. All because the world loves to watch them fight. So please, don't try to tell me that the hundreds of people I've interacted with - who all have the same inconsistent arguments - are irrelevant. In several years of discussions, I've managed to stumble across maybe a dozen people like you. You're not leading the movement. Yours is not the majority opinion. You're an outlier. Get a few million people to repeat what you say and I'll change my opinion. Until then: the majority rules and the majority is spouting inconsistent nonsense that they learned from whichever "popular" people they follow.
    3
  1387. 3
  1388. 3
  1389. 3
  1390. 3
  1391. 3
  1392. 3
  1393. 3
  1394. 3
  1395. 3
  1396. 3
  1397. 3
  1398. 3
  1399. 3
  1400. 3
  1401. 3
  1402. 3
  1403. 3
  1404. 2
  1405. 2
  1406. 2
  1407. 2
  1408. 2
  1409. 2
  1410. 2
  1411. 2
  1412. 2
  1413. 2
  1414. 2
  1415. 2
  1416. 2
  1417. 2
  1418. 2
  1419. 2
  1420. 2
  1421. 2
  1422. 2
  1423. 2
  1424. 2
  1425. 2
  1426. 2
  1427. 2
  1428. 2
  1429. 2
  1430. 2
  1431. 2
  1432. 2
  1433. 2
  1434. 2
  1435. 2
  1436. 2
  1437. 2
  1438. 2
  1439. 2
  1440. 2
  1441. 2
  1442. 2
  1443. 2
  1444. 2
  1445. 2
  1446. 2
  1447. 2
  1448. 2
  1449. 2
  1450. 2
  1451. +Raava Wow, nice strawmen. You should really get yourself a cornfield. Where did you say "every man for himself"? How about every time you admitted and eluded that you would run away at the very first opportunity and never once mentioned worrying about anyone else's safety? Hell, you even said that if a shooter was busy killing other people you'd take advantage of their slaughter to run away while the gunman is distracted. You also said that you would only fight back if you absolutely had to. You have been preaching "every man for himself" from the beginning. I'm the one without communication skills? Ha! You don't even understand your own statements! And yes, frankly, I do feel that the victims should have fought back. That's called an opinion. We're all allowed to have them. TO BE CLEAR: That is not an implication that it's their fault they were shot. It is the gunman's fault they were shot. That doesn't mean their way of dealing with the situation was any good. For the record, if you try to claim victim blaming at this point I'll have verification that you're just spouting pre-canned responses. It's a weak argument at best and it's used by those who can only think in black and white. If a drunk driver hits someone in a crosswalk and it turns out that the victim just stood in the middle of the road, fully aware it was coming, while the car approached and mowed them down, it's not "victim blaming" to ask why the pedestrian didn't try to move out of the way. Furthermore, why do you keep bringing up things like "right wing" and Fox news? Are you so far left that anyone who believes in a basic code of morality looks "right wing" to you? And at no point did I say that everyone who doesn't agree with me is a coward. I said that you, specifically, are a coward. I didn't even use it in a derogatory manner. You said exactly what you would do in one of these situations and it just so happens that you are the actual, dictionary definition of a coward. I didn't write Webster's Dictionary. If you don't like that you fit the definition of a coward, you can take it up with Webster.... or grow a spine. It's not up to me or anyone else to redefine the English language to preserve your feelings. How can you claim to be for higher education and then get upset when people use the correct words when describing a person? I didn't call you a moron because you're not a moron. I didn't call you a jerk because you're not a jerk. I called you a coward... because you are a coward. As I told you before, that's fine. You're allowed to be a coward. I'm not trying to take away your Right to run and hide while others die. What I have a problem with is that you keep implying that those who are not cowards ("you people," as you so eloquently put it) are somehow backward and need to be scrubbed from society. I have to assume it's a defense mechanism, whereas you were angry about being told you're a coward, you felt the need to take an opposing position and stand firm - regardless of the validity of said position. This is called a knee-jerk reaction. It's an emotional response, not an intellectual one. If you weren't being so emotional you'd realize that it's those with a desire to do the right thing who keep you safe. Without them, society would fall. So you can try to claim that we're going to be gone in the next 30 years but you had better hope not. Without us there's just criminals and victims. I have to assume you'd be the latter. For your perusal: cow·ard \ˈkau̇(-ə)rd\ noun : someone who is too afraid to do what is right or expected : someone who is not at all brave or courageous Full Definition : one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity Examples: the soldiers who ran as soon as the first shots were fired were branded as cowards Origin: Middle English, from Anglo-French cuard, from cue, coe tail, from Latin cauda. First use: 13th century
    2
  1452. 2
  1453. 2
  1454. 2
  1455. 2
  1456. 2
  1457. 2
  1458. 2
  1459. 2
  1460. 2
  1461. 2
  1462. 2
  1463. 2
  1464. 2
  1465. 2
  1466. 2
  1467. 2
  1468. 2
  1469. 2
  1470. 2
  1471. 2
  1472. 2
  1473. 2
  1474. 2
  1475. 2
  1476. +Aditya Kar The "smart gun" technology that was being proposed was A) unproven B) built directly into the firearm and C) was already being "required" by New Jersey once the first one sold, even though it was unproven and built into the firearm. This meant that a State was trying to set a legal precedent requiring all handguns (those things people buy for self defense) being sold after a certain point (that being the point at which the first "smart gun" was sold in New Jersey) to have an unproven locking system that could potentially keep the owner of the firearm from being able to use it effectively. Once a State sets a legal precedent, other States often follow with the ability to say "well, they did it so we can too" (that's what legal precedent is). The NRA, it's members (aka US citizens), the vast majority of gun owners in New Jersey and yes, firearms manufacturers, all rallied against this because it had the potential to A) put a lot of unreliable firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens B) greatly reduce the variety of handguns available and C) make even entry level handguns prohibitively expensive. Now, the reason your comment is so outlandish is because there are already biometric gun safes and lock boxes on the market and the NRA doesn't have a problem with any of them. All this is, is a biometric trigger lock and so far, nobody is trying to mandate that everyone has to use an unproven, biometric trigger lock on their guns. You see, it's called choice. The NRA doesn't oppose new options, they oppose new legislation. It's really that simple.
    2
  1477. 2
  1478. 2
  1479. 2
  1480. 2
  1481. 2
  1482. 2
  1483. 2
  1484. 2
  1485. 2
  1486. 2
  1487. 2
  1488. 2
  1489. 2
  1490. 2
  1491. 2
  1492. 2
  1493. 2
  1494. 2
  1495. 2
  1496. 2
  1497. 2
  1498. 2
  1499. 2
  1500. 2
  1501. 2
  1502. 2
  1503. 2
  1504. 2
  1505. 2
  1506. 2
  1507. 2
  1508. 2
  1509. 2
  1510. 2
  1511. 2
  1512. 2
  1513. 2
  1514. 2
  1515. 2
  1516. 2
  1517. 2
  1518. 2
  1519.  111xelent  Thanks. I just hate what the media and politicians have made people think about these firearms. I don't expect everyone to be knowledgeable about firearms but I do expect those who are tasked with writing laws and informing the public to at least have a basic understanding of them. When I see people reciting these common fallacies, I have to say something. AR15s chambered in .223 (5.56 NATO) aren't even legal to hunt larger game with in some States, because they can't reliably take them down in one shot. They're fine for feral pigs, coyotes, and other such animals but no humane hunter carries a .223 rifle for true large game. The 5.56 NATO round was chosen for its light weight (soldiers can carry more of them than the 7.62x51 that was used previously). It was well known that it wasn't nearly as effective as the 7.62 for killing but the military decided that it was worthwhile to increase available rounds. The logic was that it was sufficient to wound some of the enemy soldiers, because that would still take them out of the fight. Since war is about winning and not genocide, the decision to switch to the comparatively anemic 5.56 NATO was made. Most people don't know that, though. They think "That looks like a Rambo machine gun and Rambo kills hundreds of people all by himself in those movies! That's way too dangerous!" Meanwhile, their grandfather's 30-06 hunting rifle was punching fist-sized holes out of the far side of elk at 500 yards. It's amazing how far from the truth we've gotten.
    2
  1520. 2
  1521. 2
  1522. 2
  1523. 2
  1524. 2
  1525. 2
  1526. 2
  1527. 2
  1528. 2
  1529. 2
  1530. 2
  1531. 2
  1532. 2
  1533. 2
  1534. 2
  1535. 2
  1536. 2
  1537. 2
  1538. 2
  1539. 2
  1540. 2
  1541. 2
  1542. 2
  1543. 2
  1544. 2
  1545. 2
  1546. 2
  1547. 2
  1548. 2
  1549. 2
  1550. 2
  1551. 2
  1552. 2
  1553. 2
  1554. 2
  1555. 2
  1556. 2
  1557. 2
  1558. 2
  1559. 2
  1560. 2
  1561. 2
  1562. 2
  1563. 2
  1564. 2
  1565. 2
  1566. 2
  1567. 2
  1568. 2
  1569. 2
  1570. 2
  1571. 2
  1572. 2
  1573. 2
  1574. 2
  1575. 2
  1576. 2
  1577. 2
  1578. 2
  1579. 2
  1580. 2
  1581. 2
  1582. 2
  1583. 2
  1584. 2
  1585. 2
  1586. 2
  1587. 2
  1588. 2
  1589. 2
  1590. 2
  1591. 2
  1592. 2
  1593. 2
  1594. 2
  1595. 2
  1596. 2
  1597. 2
  1598. 2
  1599. 2
  1600. 2
  1601. 2
  1602. 2
  1603. 2
  1604. 2
  1605. 2
  1606. 2
  1607. 2
  1608. 2
  1609. 2
  1610. 2
  1611. 2
  1612. 2
  1613. 2
  1614. 2
  1615.  @obcl8569  My kids are both honor students on the fast track to early graduation. They've picked their primary and backup colleges. They know what career paths they want and generally what it will take to get there. They're 14 and 16. They both have small social circles with good kids. They have real friends, instead of "followers" and know what it means to actually be someone's friend. My "poor kids" are happier and better adjusted than most people I've ever met. But I guess I should throw all of that away so they can have unfettered access to the Internet, right? No thanks. I think I'll keep doing what I'm doing. Yes, I do use a social media platform while telling my kids they can't. I also watch R rated movies and have the occasional glass of my favorite bourbon. See there are differences between adults and children. Parents are supposed to restrict children's access to certain things, until such time as they are mature enough to responsibly handle those things. Or do you think it's hypocritical that I don't let my kids smoke, drink, and carry guns around town? Am I being rude to you? Sure. If that's such a big deal to you, you should probably get off social media, yourself. There's a whole lot worse than mere rudeness on here, which is yet another reason why my kids aren't on social media. They don't need that kind of vitriol in their lives, yet. You do you. I'll keep failing my "poor" kids in the manner I have been. If the worst thing they have to complain about when they're adults is that I wouldn't let them have Tik Tok, I'll just have to find a way to live with that. 😏
    2
  1616. 2
  1617. 2
  1618. 2
  1619. 2
  1620. 2
  1621. 2
  1622. 2
  1623. 2
  1624. 2
  1625. 2
  1626. 2
  1627. 2
  1628. 2
  1629. 2
  1630. 2
  1631. 2
  1632. 2
  1633. 2
  1634. 2
  1635. 2
  1636. 2
  1637. 2
  1638. 2
  1639. 2
  1640. 2
  1641. 2
  1642. 2
  1643. 2
  1644. 2
  1645. 2
  1646. 2
  1647. 2
  1648. 2
  1649. 2
  1650. 2
  1651. 2
  1652. 2
  1653. 2
  1654. 2
  1655. 2
  1656. 2
  1657. 2
  1658. 2
  1659. 2
  1660. 2
  1661. 2
  1662. 2
  1663.  @chrisbeer5685   Issue 1: Ask any Democrat about gun control and the second amendment. They will tell you that a form not being available as soon as a law passes and having to meet with an authority figure they deem necessary, are not infringements on your rights. California has pulled the same and worse, yet those laws are considered perfectly valid by the majority. That pertains to an enumerated constitutional right. The general consensus seems to be that a right delayed is not a right denied. Mind you, that's not my position, it's the position of the Democrats (and apparenlty now, the Republicans). Take it up with them if you have a problem with that reasoning but the courts seem to back it. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure you're telling me that before this law, a person didn't even need to see a doctor before starting to medically transition. That's pretty scary. I have to wait for the doctor if I need to be prescribed a painkiller. Why should it be easier to get on hormone blockers than to get prescription strength ibuprofen? Issue 2: So, they're not preventing children from socially transitioning, just advising against it. Okay, and? States don't ban people from having unprotected sex but they advise against it. People want to do something and the government says they shouldn't. Welcome to the club! If this is the first time you've ever run into an issue where the government advised against you doing something you wanted to do, you've either lived a very blessed or a very short life. This new idea that any pushback from government, whatsoever, is some kind of tyranny, is asinine. We live in a two party system. Absolutely everyone gets pushback from the government throughout their lives. It's never going to change, either. Bottom line: No States are preventing adults from transitioning and no States are preventing kids from socially transitioning. Your receipts prove that you are overblowing the situation to make it seem more dire than it is.
    2
  1664. 2
  1665. 2
  1666. 2
  1667. 2
  1668. 2
  1669.  @coolcat6303  It's specifically because I'm a law abiding gun owner that this kind of nonsense does bother me. I've lived my life on the straight and narrow. I've committed no offense greater than traveling above the speed limit my entire life. What do I get for my responsible behavior? I get to jump through hoop after hoop, having to prove time and time again that I am an upstanding citizen. Meanwhile, the only people these laws don't bother are those who don't want to own guns and, of course, criminals. See, neither you nor the guy who might shoot you one day is all that inconvenienced by these laws. - He's going to steal or buy a stolen gun. - You're going to continue to think the police will get there in time. - He's going to show up, rob you, and shoot you. - You're going to die. - He's going to run away. - The police are going to show up eventually and write up a report. - They'll run the serial number (if your killer leaves the gun behind, which he probably won't) and come up with the name of some guy who had his gun stolen five years prior. - Your case will go unsolved. - Your family will go public, demanding politicians enact more useless laws. - Your killer will laugh at the next anti-gun press conference ABC airs, while loading yet another stolen gun. - I'm going to be standing in line, waiting for a psych evaluation, a physical, and an IQ test to prove, yet again, that I should be allowed to buy a gun (even though I already have guns and have never harmed anyone). Thanks but I don't think I'll be subscribing to your brand of "logic" any time soon.
    2
  1670. 2
  1671. 2
  1672. 2
  1673. 2
  1674. 2
  1675. 2
  1676. 2
  1677. 2
  1678. 2
  1679. 2
  1680. 2
  1681. 2
  1682. 2
  1683. 2
  1684. 2
  1685. 2
  1686. 2
  1687. 2
  1688. 2
  1689. 2
  1690. 2
  1691. 2
  1692. 2
  1693. 2
  1694. 2
  1695. 2
  1696. 2
  1697. 2
  1698. 2
  1699. 2
  1700. 2
  1701. 2
  1702. 2
  1703. 2
  1704. 2
  1705. 2
  1706. 2
  1707. 2
  1708. 2
  1709. 2
  1710. 2
  1711. 2
  1712. 2
  1713. 2
  1714. 2
  1715. 2
  1716. 2
  1717. 2
  1718. 2
  1719. 2
  1720. 2
  1721. 2
  1722. 2
  1723. 2
  1724. 2
  1725. 2
  1726. 2
  1727. 2
  1728. 2
  1729. 2
  1730. 2
  1731. 2
  1732. 2
  1733. 2
  1734. 2
  1735. 2
  1736. 2
  1737. 2
  1738. 2
  1739. 2
  1740. 2
  1741. 2
  1742. 2
  1743. 2
  1744. 2
  1745. 2
  1746. 2
  1747. 2
  1748. 2
  1749. 2
  1750. 2
  1751. 2
  1752. 2
  1753. 2
  1754. 2
  1755. 2
  1756. A. The report didn't say anything about liquid fuel, which makes sense since this story isn't about liquid fuel. It's actually pretty weird that you're bringing it up. It's almost like you're personally offended, or something. B. Most of the things we own that use Lithium batteries, don't have liquid fuel alternatives. I've never seen a gas-powered phone, laptop, tablet, compact drill, circular saw, impact driver, etc. Also, very few people actually own the current version of EVs - that have Lithium batteries in them - and most never will, so there's another non-issue. EV adoption really doesn't have a chance of picking up steam until they at least have stable, solid-state batteries, that have much better range and are a lot more affordable to replace. C. I've seen authentic battery packs from nearly every major tool brand go up in flames. These are companies that use 18650 and 21700 cells made by Sony and Samsung (the two top brands for these kinds of cells). It's not about "cheap Asian knockoffs" (amusing, considering nearly all of these types of cells are made in Asia). It's about these batteries having a shelf life and a relatively narrow threshold for safe operating conditions. That combined with a much more volatile reaction to being pushed beyond said threshold is absolutely cause for concern to anyone with any sense. Batteries are not a new thing. Household batteries that can spontaneously combust at thousands of degrees, release huge clouds of poisonous gas, and can barely be controlled by current fire suppression methods are a pretty new thing. That's why it's newsworthy.
    2
  1757. 2
  1758. 2
  1759. 2
  1760. 2
  1761. 2
  1762. 2
  1763. 2
  1764. 2
  1765. 2
  1766. 2
  1767. 2
  1768. 2
  1769. 2
  1770. 2
  1771. 2
  1772. 2
  1773. 2
  1774. 2
  1775. 2
  1776. 2
  1777. 2
  1778. 2
  1779. 2
  1780. 2
  1781. 2
  1782. 2
  1783. 2
  1784. 2
  1785. 2
  1786. 2
  1787. 2
  1788. 2
  1789. 2
  1790. 2
  1791. 2
  1792. 2
  1793. 2
  1794. 2
  1795. 2
  1796. 2
  1797. 2
  1798. 2
  1799. 2
  1800. 2
  1801. 2
  1802. 2
  1803. 2
  1804. 2
  1805. 2
  1806. 2
  1807. 2
  1808. 2
  1809. 2
  1810. 2
  1811. 2
  1812. Naftul Zvi A) A database? Sure. As long as there is a clause saying that any Federal agency that uses said database to try to confiscate guns forfeits their position as a Federal agency and are subject to the same treatment as anyone else who trespasses with the intent to commit theft. B) Mental health checks/background checks. Sounds good...provided that said checks have a well laid out framework and an easy to follow appeals process (I'm big on the fourth amendment, too). C) Coldlights points about the second amendment are complete horseshit. The Constitution itself says that our RIGHTS are endowed by our creator (whether one believes in such or not) and guaranteed for We, the People of the United States by the Constitution itself. I'm not sure who he thinks "the citizens" are but it is We, the People. The National Guard was never part of the original plan and is a supplement to the Militia, not a replacement of such. If anyone can show me a document that proves otherwise, I'd be happy to read it. No Constitutional lawyer I've ever heard of - including President Obama - adhered to Coldlights ass-backward view of the Constitution. So yes, I can ignore his points because nobody who matters would take them seriously, either. D) How is going from "Let's judge people by the expression on their face" to "Let's judge people by how they look AND who they pray to" a laughable leap in logic? Hell, at least there are statistics to use in one argument. Nobody has ever tracked the percentage of mass shootings done by people who "look shady." If you don't think such things would bring massive discrimination suits, I'd argue that maybe you aren't ready to be discussing Federal law. I think that about covers it. Going to bed now. Have a good night.
    2
  1813. asdharleychuck123 Again, you're talking about how it what it was "read to mean" but disregard the fact that reading things like the Federalist Papers and other relevant documents of the time will tell you what the founders actually thought about the subject - in their own words. Am I going to take some random politician's, judge's or the NRA's word for it, or would I rather read the actual statements penned by the actual framers of the Constitution? Yes, there are other angles to attack gun issues from but that doesn't matter. The gun rights supporters are arguing from the aspect of the second amendment and they don't much need anything else. How do you think your argument stacks up, when you're essentially trying to tell people that someone's interpretation of the Second Amendment is somehow more relevant than the Founders'? It doesn't work. Interpretation is for when there's uncertainty about what a law or amendment means. There's no misunderstanding. It is written plainly and backed up by historical documentation. The reason others have "interpreted" it differently is because they found it to be problematic. It is. The thing people seem to miss is that we have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to own and carry weapons. There is no documented right to raise your kids to be borderline sociopaths with a strong homicidal urge. There's no right to pad the walls and hide the knives so we can let violent criminals take over "safely." Everyone screams about "morality" and "civilized society" when it comes to guns. Meanwhile, a truly moral and civilized society can have a gun on every hip without incident. That's hard work, though. Gosh, that would take effort from most of us at a local level. Nah, we'll just do what every other lazy, submissive populous does and pad the walls...
    2
  1814. 2
  1815. 2
  1816. 2
  1817. 2
  1818. 2
  1819. 2
  1820. 2
  1821. 2
  1822. 2
  1823. 2
  1824. 2
  1825.  @vie2210  That's where the car came to a stop. If you're a professional driver, you should know that cars don't just stop dead in their tracks when something hits their windshield. Plus, you can see from the damage to the front of the car that it went had bounced off of at least a couple of those concrete dividers. I think you're stuck on the idea that everyone has time to hit the brakes. That's not the case. A car traveling at 65+ mph can coast a very long way, if something doesn't bring it to a stop (which going by the condition of the front of the car, something did). Furthermore, your anecdote about "there's fences" doesn't take into account those which are in disrepair (you know, that infrastructure issue you mentioned earlier) or those that simply haven't yet been fenced (yes, they do exist). Yes, this is speculation but then, that's all either of us has been doing. Now look at 0:17 into the video. They're standing under an overpass, inspecting it. Why would they do that? Whether it was because someone threw the concrete off of it or it chunked off and fell by itself, the car would have had to have passed under it to get hit. Your latest reply actually goes against your original conspiracy theory. Now I have to ask: If the car was nowhere near an overpass, got hit by a piece of concrete and came to a dead stop (so hard that both front wheels were torn loose) where does your new theory say the concrete came from? Space? A special concrete airplane? Or is it possible that someone chucked a piece of concrete off the overpass seen in the video, hit the windshield, killed the driver and the car kept moving forward (as they do) until it had wrecked its front end enough to come to a stop where it appears at around 0:40 in the video? I have an easier time believing that than whatever it is your new implications are pointing to.
    2
  1826.  @vie2210  First, that's not a newer vehicle. Second, the airbag sensors are in the front, rear and sides of a vehicle, near common impact zones. I could throw bowling balls through your windshield at you all day and it would never trigger the airbags or (on newer cars) the brake lockup feature. As for the idea that a piece of debris - traveling in the same general direction as this car - could fall off a truck and through the windshield (without a bounce) with enough force to kill the driver runs pretty counterintuitive to the laws of physics. A body in motion stays in motion. If they were both travelling, say, West at relatively equal speeds, the impact would be at nearly 0 mph. He would have to have been hauling ass past the truck for it to have even made it all the way through the windshield (they're laminated). As for your little snipe at the end, your reading comprehension is lacking. At no point did I even imply that "some drunk teenager did it, open and shut." I presented a plausible alternative to your paranoid ramblings. You pressed me on it and I backed it up - whereas you folded on your claims. Never once did I say "This is what happened." I have no idea what happened. I just know that there are much better odds of some scenarios than others. Your latest scenario is at least getting within the realm of possible, so I applaud you for the effort. However, that wasn't a real forensic hypothesis. It was spit-balling out of frustration of having your other theories dismantled (with your own help). At least we're off the "It's a vast conspiracy!" nonsense. Baby steps.
    2
  1827. 2
  1828. 2
  1829. 2
  1830. 2
  1831. 2
  1832. 2
  1833. 2
  1834. 2
  1835. 2
  1836. 2
  1837. 2
  1838. 2
  1839. 2
  1840. 2
  1841. 2
  1842. 2
  1843. 2
  1844. 2
  1845. 2
  1846. 2
  1847. 2
  1848. 2
  1849. 2
  1850. 2
  1851. 2
  1852. 2
  1853. 2
  1854. 2
  1855. 2
  1856. 2
  1857. 2
  1858. 2
  1859. 2
  1860. 2
  1861. 2
  1862. 2
  1863. 2
  1864. 2
  1865. 2
  1866. 2
  1867. 2
  1868. 2
  1869. 2
  1870. 2
  1871. 2
  1872. 2
  1873. 2
  1874. 2
  1875. 2
  1876. 2
  1877. 2
  1878. 2
  1879. 2
  1880. 2
  1881. 2
  1882. 2
  1883. 2
  1884. 2
  1885. 2
  1886. 2
  1887. 2
  1888. 2
  1889. 2
  1890. 2
  1891. 2
  1892. 2
  1893. 2
  1894. 2
  1895. 2
  1896. 2
  1897. 2
  1898. 2
  1899. 2
  1900. 2
  1901. 2
  1902. 2
  1903. 2
  1904. 2
  1905. 2
  1906. 2
  1907. 2
  1908. 2
  1909. 2
  1910. 2
  1911. 2
  1912. 2
  1913. 2
  1914. 2
  1915. 2
  1916. 2
  1917. 2
  1918. 2
  1919.  @jbarton1541  You poor, misguided soul. Let me help you. A little history lesson for you: Back in the 80's school kids liked to make up meanings for different hand gestures. It's not surprising because their parents liked to make up nonsense about symbolism on things like Marlboro cigarettes. Anyway, kids started deciding that the "Okay" hand gesture kinda looked like a 'W' and a 'P.' Of course, it was declared that this meant "White Power." It spread around, as things like that do, and a good laugh was had by anyone who wasn't a moron. The best part was when you convinced some poor schmuck it was true and they would flash it to groups of Neo-NAZIs, thinking it was doing something to keep them safe (it wasn't). The looks on their faces were good for a laugh. In fact, more than a few people caught beatings from said NAZIs because they thought the person was hitting on them, or mocking them (that part wasn't funny). Fast forward a few decades and we come to the era of Internet trolls. Some of the most prominent of which are the members of 4chan. One day, they decided to take the old trope and spread it around on the Internet, to see if they could get stupid people to believe it. Well, it worked. Stupid people in the corporate media ran with it and stupid people who believe everything corporate media says believed it. Those who knew the truth of the symbol's origin were happy to continue trolling the stupid people because, frankly, it was funny. Even Right and Far Right groups got in on the joke, which of course made the stupid people feel completely vindicated in their idiocy. However, now the joke has gone too far. Stupid people are actually trying to persecute people over a hand gesture that has no actual ties to NAZIism. So, here we are, having this discussion. I know it hurts to learn this but you've been duped. You were guided by stupid people into believing a stupid thing. You were way too trusting and now you just look foolish to the millions upon millions of people who were in on the joke. Please, feel free to spread the word amongst your fellow dupes. I know it's embarrassing to admit to falling for such an obvious joke but really, it's better than being willfully ignorant in the face of the truth. I wish you good fortunes and a fulfilling life.
    2
  1920. 2
  1921. 2
  1922. 2
  1923. 2
  1924. 2
  1925. 2
  1926. 2
  1927. 2
  1928. 2
  1929. 2
  1930. 2
  1931. 2
  1932. 2
  1933. 2
  1934. 2
  1935. 2
  1936. 2
  1937. 2
  1938. 2
  1939. 2
  1940. 2
  1941. 2
  1942. 2
  1943. 2
  1944. 2
  1945. 2
  1946. 2
  1947. 2
  1948. 2
  1949. 2
  1950. 2
  1951. 2
  1952. 2
  1953. 2
  1954. 2
  1955. 2
  1956. 2
  1957. 2
  1958. 2
  1959. 2
  1960. 2
  1961. 2
  1962. 2
  1963. 2
  1964. 2
  1965. 2
  1966. 2
  1967. I was fortunate enough to have gotten my older son out of his public school and into a charter school with a robust distance learning program, right before the pandemic hit (a coincidence that felt like winning the lottery). I had gotten my younger son enrolled in another charter school for the next semester but couldn't get him in sooner. The difference between their next few months was like night and day. My younger son - who is a straight A student - spent weeks waiting for his school to figure out how to educate kids that all had school issued Chromebooks. Why? Because for some reason, using the same, exact tools they had been using in the classroom the whole time suddenly became a foreign concept to these "educators." Instead, they made us drive to the school every week, pick up a work packet, drop off the previous week's, lather, rinse, repeat. Of course, the packets were a joke and my son would finish them the first day. It wasn't even up to the already low standard of the education they were giving him in school. So many kids in my district fell behind, hard. Especially when the district announced that they wouldn't be grading the work. Simply giving students a pass or fail based on whether they turned it in. At this point, there is still a large segment of students who never caught back up. It doesn't matter, though. They'll graduate on time, with a significant hole in their education. That's all the public schools in most of California are, after all; meat processing plants that are just moving the cattle through. No Child Left Behind...because otherwise, people will see how bad we are at our jobs! Meanwhile, my older son went from being behind to blowing my mind with the work he was churning out. They told us about the fast track program they offer during orientation. The idea of early graduation was never something he considered attainable, before. So, free from social distractions (until after his schooling is done) and middling teachers (his current ones are great) he is now set to graduate a year early, with some college courses already under his belt. I've since gotten my younger son into another charter school that allowed him to catch up and bypass his previous level. They're pretty good but not as good as the other charter school. They still have certain limitations on how far the students can get. He will be enrolling in his brother's school in the Fall and is ecstatic about it. He wants to see if he can catch up to his older (by two years) brother before he graduates and at that school, he has the opportunity to do so. Public school? They can keep it. My boys are so much better off now than they were.
    2
  1968. 2
  1969. 2
  1970. 2
  1971. 2
  1972. 2
  1973. 2
  1974. 2
  1975. 2
  1976. 2
  1977. 2
  1978. 2
  1979. 2
  1980. 2
  1981. 2
  1982. 2
  1983. 2
  1984. 2
  1985. 2
  1986. 2
  1987. 2
  1988. 2
  1989. 2
  1990. 2
  1991. 2
  1992. 2
  1993. 2
  1994. 2
  1995. 2
  1996. 2
  1997. 2
  1998. 2
  1999. 2
  2000. 2
  2001. 2
  2002. 2
  2003. 2
  2004. 2
  2005. 2
  2006. 2
  2007. 2
  2008. 2
  2009. 2
  2010. 2
  2011. 2
  2012. 2
  2013. 2
  2014. 2
  2015. 2
  2016. 2
  2017. 2
  2018. 2
  2019. 2
  2020. 2
  2021. 2
  2022. 2
  2023. 2
  2024. 2
  2025. 2
  2026. 2
  2027. 2
  2028. 2
  2029. 2
  2030. 2
  2031. 2
  2032. 2
  2033. 2
  2034. 2
  2035. 2
  2036. 2
  2037. 2
  2038. 2
  2039. 2
  2040. 2
  2041. 2
  2042. 2
  2043. 2
  2044. 2
  2045. 2
  2046. 2
  2047. 2
  2048. 2
  2049. 2
  2050. 2
  2051. 2
  2052. 2
  2053. 2
  2054. 2
  2055. 2
  2056. 2
  2057. 2
  2058. 2
  2059. 2
  2060. 2
  2061. 2
  2062. 2
  2063. 2
  2064. 2
  2065. 2
  2066. 2
  2067. 2
  2068. 2
  2069. 2
  2070. 2
  2071. 2
  2072. 2
  2073. 2
  2074. 2
  2075. 2
  2076. 2
  2077. 2
  2078. 2
  2079. 2
  2080. 2
  2081. 2
  2082. 2
  2083. 2
  2084. 2
  2085. 2
  2086. 2
  2087. 2
  2088. 2
  2089. 2
  2090. 2
  2091. 2
  2092. 2
  2093. 2
  2094. 2
  2095. 2
  2096. 2
  2097. 2
  2098. 2
  2099. 2
  2100. 2
  2101. 2
  2102. 2
  2103. 2
  2104. 2
  2105. 2
  2106. 2
  2107. 2
  2108. 2
  2109. 2
  2110. 2
  2111. 2
  2112. 2
  2113. 2
  2114. 2
  2115. 2
  2116. 2
  2117. 2
  2118. 2
  2119. 2
  2120. 2
  2121. 2
  2122. 2
  2123. 2
  2124. 2
  2125. 2
  2126. 2
  2127. 2
  2128. 2
  2129. 2
  2130. 2
  2131. 2
  2132. 2
  2133. 2
  2134. 2
  2135. 2
  2136. 2
  2137. 2
  2138. 2
  2139. 2
  2140. 2
  2141. 2
  2142. 2
  2143. 2
  2144. 1
  2145. Penny Polendina Of course animal life has a value. All life has a value. It's assigned by those with the checkbook. Animal life is worth as much as people are willing to pay to for it. Likewise, human life is worth as much as we are willing to pay to preserve it. No more, no less. It's not about animal lives having no value, it's about them having far less value. When discussing the "TUV" vs "XYZ" of how we treat our food, you have to be able to make a value-based argument to make headway. The end result is GOING to be dead animals regardless of how they're treated. It's hard to convince people to pay more for a dead cow, simply to give it a slightly better life before its inevitable death and consumption. You have to work a different angle. Example: Kobe beef is arguably the best tasting meat in the world. The cows live better than a lot of people do and the end result is the most tender, flavorful steak you'll ever taste. It also happens to be the most expensive and hardest to find beef in the world, due to it only being produced on a small scale. If we were to start rolling out changes to US cattle facilities to bring them up to the standards used to produce Kobe beef, we could all be eating far superior meat to what we have now and for a fraction of the cost of Kobe. See? Suddenly, there's value in giving livestock a better life. There's a reason for the average dead cow eater to care how that cow lived. We want everything the super rich have and we want it for Walmart prices. Will we ever get to the point where all cows are treated as well as Kobe cows? No. Would we be able to drastically increase their living conditions from what they are now? Most likely.
    1
  2146. 1
  2147. 1
  2148. 1
  2149. 1
  2150. 1
  2151. 1
  2152. 1
  2153. 1
  2154. 1
  2155. 1
  2156. 1
  2157. 1
  2158. 1
  2159. 1
  2160. 1
  2161. 1
  2162. 1
  2163. 1
  2164. 1
  2165. 1
  2166. 1
  2167. 1
  2168. 1
  2169. 1
  2170. 1
  2171. 1
  2172. 1
  2173. 1
  2174. 1
  2175. 1
  2176. 1
  2177. 1
  2178. 1
  2179. 1
  2180. 1
  2181. 1
  2182. 1
  2183. 1
  2184. 1
  2185. 1
  2186. 1
  2187. 1
  2188. 1
  2189. 1
  2190. 1
  2191. 1
  2192. 1
  2193. 1
  2194. 1
  2195. 1
  2196. 1
  2197. 1
  2198. 1
  2199. 1
  2200. Tia Williams An average of 500,000 crimes are stopped every year by armed citizens. The vast majority do not end in the death of anyone. I'd say that's probably what the "average" armed citizen is going to do (since it's what they currently do). I don't think most people realize just how many guns they are around every day without incident. Part of that "better training" you mentioned that the police has is that a lot of them are trained to perceive threats sooner. They are constantly on alert that they may be in a lethal situation, so they are trained that it's better to be wrong and alive than wrong and dead. That being said, I have every respect for those who put it on the line for the rest of us. Just saying, their training is not in the fine art of "duck and run." They are there to confront the situation by whatever means are necessary. That's an entirely different role and mindset from those who carry to defend themselves. The majority carry for the sake of having a gun if they ever need it. That has actually worked out quite well thus far. It's incredibly rare that you hear about a concealed carry permit holder mixed up in a wrongful shooting. In fact, you don't often hear about permit holders at all. they're not out there, guns blazing, being masked vigilantes. They're just people who happen to carry. I do believe in mandatory training, though. Not just for those who want to carry a gun but for everyone with the right to do so. It's way too important of a topic for so many to be so misinformed about the capabilities and safe handling practices of firearms. Mandatory training would go a long way in not only moving the conversation forward but also in reducing the already relatively low rate of accidental shootings. Not to mention, it would help take the glamour away that Hollywood has put on guns and return them to their rightful place; as a specific tool with a specific purpose. We teach safe sex and safe driving as a matter of principle. Now we just need to convince people it's better that their teens actually know about gun safety than to just tell them "Don't touch! That's bad!" and hope for the best. That's my compromise. I'll agree to stricter training as long as it's for everyone to whom the second amendment applies.
    1
  2201. 1
  2202. 1
  2203. 1
  2204. 1
  2205. 1
  2206. 1
  2207. 1
  2208. 1
  2209. 1
  2210. 1
  2211. 1
  2212. 1
  2213. 1
  2214. 1
  2215. 1
  2216. 1
  2217. 1
  2218. 1
  2219. 1
  2220. 1
  2221. +DAK4Blizzard Yes, because historically, the bigger army always wins, right? I mean, that's why we're still a British colony after all. It's also why we so easily dispatched the Vietnamese and the North Koreans in those wars, right? Wait, no. We didn't. So let's try to tidy this up because now you're just trying to spread it in every direction possible. Your claim is that the second amendment - which specifically lists militias as the primary reason for our Right to bear arms and outlines no other reason whatsoever - is not for the sake of being able to form militias. You claim that it has somehow transformed into meaning that we get to have guns for home defense and hunting and that it no longer applies to militias because you feel we don't need them any more. That's a pretty bold claim but I'll make it really easy for you. Just provide a link to the documents that changed the meaning of the second amendment to exclude militias and to include hunting (I've already seen the Heller transcripts, so I don't need you to show that they add self/home defense to the definition). It's that easy. My claim is that the second amendment applies to militias and self/home defense. I've now cited my sources, which are the second amendment itself and the SCOTUS' Heller decision. Your "every day observations" don't trump written law. So, all you need is two sources. One for the addition of hunting to, and one for the exclusion of militias from the definition of the second amendment. It's really that simple. Please don't respond without your sources. You don't actually have an argument without them. Your opinion as to whether militias are necessary is irrelevant. My opinion as to whether militias are necessary is irrelevant. We're talking about the legal definition of the second amendment to the Constitution. So, no more redirects. No more rhetoric. Just facts. PROVE that I'm wrong or walk away.
    1
  2222. 1
  2223. 1
  2224. 1
  2225. 1
  2226. 1
  2227. 1
  2228. 1
  2229. 1
  2230. 1
  2231. 1
  2232. 1
  2233. 1
  2234. 1
  2235. 1
  2236. 1
  2237. 1
  2238. 1
  2239. 1
  2240. +manzilla48 I didn't say guns aren't easier, I said mass killing isn't hard without them. The reason we have more mass killings is because we have more twisted bastards with an inclination to kill lots of people. Not exactly the kind of folks I'm looking to disarm myself around. Now, if you really want to get into all of the talking points on why we have so many mass killings, we can but honestly, it mostly boils down to this: Our society is screwed up. If it were the guns themselves, how then did my grandfather (and many others of his generation) go to school every day with a shotgun and/or rifle hanging in his back window, leave his truck unlocked (giving anyone who walked by access to it) and never once end up in the middle of a school shooting? The fact is that guns used to be everywhere in the US - more so than today. You could buy one over the counter in most stores. Any teenager could go in, buy as many guns as they could afford, buy the ammo to match and walk down the street with their purchases...yet school shootings were unheard of. Tell me how, exactly does that mesh with this new age "guns are bad and solely responsible for the uptick in shootings" philosophy that has become trendy? I've got news for you: Guns aren't bad. Violent criminals are bad. Family members and teachers who ignore obvious signs of mental instability in children are bad. Parents who allow untrained children access to weapons are bad. I'm really glad the band-aid approach worked for the UK however, we're not ready to give up and allow our government to treat us all like potential criminals. As for Paris, I had no idea that fully automatic AK47s were legal there. They're not even legal here for most people and we're the "gun nuts." Or were you saying that they aren't legal and the terrorists still managed to easily get their hands on them (which kind of goes against your position that gun bans work to deter mass killings)?
    1
  2241. 1
  2242. 1
  2243. 1
  2244. 1
  2245. 1
  2246. 1
  2247. 1
  2248. 1
  2249. 1
  2250. 1
  2251. 1
  2252. 1
  2253. 1
  2254. 1
  2255. 1
  2256. 1
  2257. 1
  2258. 1
  2259. 1
  2260. 1
  2261. 1
  2262. +Jesus Christ Where did I admit my argument was flawed? I think you need to up your meds. Let's get back on topic, shall we? Can you show even one instance where the use of a pistol grip, adjustable stock or flash suppressor allowed someone to kill a group of people more effectively? Do you realize that Sandy Hook was carried out using two pistols and that the rifle was later discovered in the trunk of his car (ask CNN)? By your logic, he couldn't have done what he did effectively because he was just using pistols and not his "evil" AR. After all, there were no tactical modifications on his pistols. Do you really think he would have killed more people if his pistols had been equipped with folding stocks and flash suppressors? Are you even aware that the majority of gun crimes and fun deaths in the US are perpetrated using pistols, not rifles (even though rifles are easier to obtain through legal channels)? You sound just like the politicians who pushed for this law: "DAT LUKZ SCAREY! IT WUZ ON DA NEWZ A CUPPLE TIMEZ! MAEK IT GO AWAY!!! GOST GUNZ SHUTE 30 MAGUHZEEN CLIP AROUND THINGIEZ PER SEKUND! ITZ CUZ IT LUKS SCAREYER DAN UTHER GUZ!!! Seriously though, do some research. Look at the actual statistics. The stock, grip and muzzle aren't what makes a gun dangerous. The bullet, the firing pin and the person pulling the trigger are. But please, feel free to provide the source links that prove the grip, stock and/or flash suppressor make a gun more lethal. Just be sure they're LEGITIMATE sources (DOJ, FBI, independent NEUTRAL groups who show their source, etc are acceptable. Anti-gun sites need not apply). Otherwise you're just wasting keystrokes.
    1
  2263. +Jesus Christ And again, what proof do you have that banning a folding/collapsible stock and pistol grip has any affect on the lethality of a firearm? Or that making a person choose between them and a quick change magazine makes any sense at all? Or whether anyone has ever been stopped from killing people because they had to change magazines? You do a lot of grandstanding, yet you fail to answer the simple questions that are presented to you. My rifle no longer has your "evil features" on it. Because of this, it still has the stock mag release. If I want to carry as many bullets as I did before, I can. If I want to fire off rounds until my rifle burns up, I can. A mag change takes roughly 1.5 seconds. Not nearly enough time for someone to realize you stopped shooting due to reloading (rather than just pausing to look for targets), asses the shot, come out from behind cover and fire an accurate round. By the way, since you seem to have a hard time with this, I'll explain. There is a big difference between just laws and unjust laws. Our country is built on just laws that are designed specifically for the protection of the people. UNjust laws are laws that take away the rights of the people without good cause. A law that says I can't make my rifle LOOK a certain way because people who have little to no experience with firearms think it makes my rifle scarier, even though such features have NOTHING to do with the lethality of the round, is an unjust law. NOBODY will EVER be saved from a gunshot due to the gun not having an adjustable stock. It's a fantasy created in the minds of the same people who genuinely think they can just say "Guns are illegal now" and they'll magically disappear from the hands of criminals. Nice strawman arguments though. Let's see, so far you've said that unreasonable restrictions=anti-rape laws, extended magazines=baby rape, pistol grips and folding stocks=increased lethality and standing up for your rights=desiring anarchy. How can anyone think these are reasonable restrictions when they're championed by such unreasonable people? Now, if you're not going to back up your claims, we should both just go ahead and move on. All you are doing is trying to spread your wild philosophies about "deadly" stocks and "killer" pistol grips without any factual information to back you up. Maybe it's time to visit your local gun range and become educated about firearms before you claim to know what's right for responsible, law abiding citizens.
    1
  2264. 1
  2265. +Jesus Christ Because inserting random words in place of others is merely a cheap tactic to try and undermine someone's argument when you don't have anything to back up your claims. It's as asinine as someone saying "If you're against the death penalty then you're pro-life and that means you're anti-abortion." You see, that's something I wouldn't say because it's a ridiculous, self serving rant that has nothing to do with the conversation and doesn't make any sense. Much like all of the comparisons you've made thus far. We're not talking about rape, child molestation or anything else you keep running off about. We are talking about gun laws that in no way affect a criminal's ability to do harm to people with guns. Something you still have yet to address properly. Is my gun less comfortable to use now? Yes. Is it less lethal? No. Are you trying to claim that a less comfortable gun will keep a criminal from using it effectively, even though most criminals' weapon of choice is a handgun (far less comfortable or accurate than a rifle)? You seem to be. Try again but first, maybe go look up the stats on gun crime in the US. Mainly the number of crimes committed using pistols vs rifles. Maybe then you'll realize that while this law has affected most of the responsible rifle owners in California, it has only affected a small percent of criminals (and by affected, I mean it's just one more charge that will get plea bargained away when they get to court. Most DAs drop the smaller charges and focus on the primary offence - meaning that virtually no violent criminal will be convicted of having a pistol grip without a bullet button). Way to go!
    1
  2266. 1
  2267. 1
  2268. 1
  2269. 1
  2270. 1
  2271. 1
  2272. 1
  2273. 1
  2274. 1
  2275. 1
  2276. 1
  2277. 1
  2278. 1
  2279. 1
  2280. 1
  2281. 1
  2282. 1
  2283. 1
  2284. 1
  2285. 1
  2286. 1
  2287. 1
  2288. +Elite 1984 Holy cow. You really are simple, aren't you? Okay, one more time. Slowly. - I called him out on his ignorance of GUNS, not gun violence because I disagreed with his statement about GUNS. - FOR THE RECORD (again): I do not take issue with ANY other claim in his comment. How many times have I reiterated this? I AGREE with every other statement in his comment. - His views on GUNS are toxic. I said it because it's true. It's the same garbage that every other unaware person is spewing about these rifles and it is false. It's a fear tactic used to make the general public fear these guns more by making people think they are capable of more than they are. I don't care what the topic of conversation is. When people attempt to perpetuate this misinformation, I'm GOING to call them on it. That's right, you've done absolutely nothing to stop me from doing so. - Your case is closed because you never had one. You came here looking for a fight so you did your best to twist my statement because when you tried to counter my initial and ACTUAL claim, I made quick work of you. You clearly don't like being wrong so you made up an argument about my intent because you can't technically lose an argument where neither side can provide a source link. All you have is your ability to claim I'm lying. That's it. Nothing more. The problem is that your claim that I'm lying is no more valid than my claim that I'm not and since your claim is the accusation, the burden of proof (not opinion, PROOF) lies with you. You didn't pick a winnable fight. You picked a stalemate at best. I would strongly recommend petitioning your school to start a debate team. You desperately need the practice. "Nuh uh, you meant something else" is a terrible argument no matter how many times and different ways you say it.
    1
  2289. 1
  2290. 1
  2291. 1
  2292. 1
  2293. 1
  2294. 1
  2295. 1
  2296. 1
  2297. 1
  2298. 1
  2299. 1
  2300. 1
  2301. 1
  2302. 1
  2303. 1
  2304. Wait, let me word that properly for you: "The NRA is stopping the Federal Government from taking Rights away from thousands of people who the FBI has never even CHARGED with a crime, let alone got a conviction. Nobody currently on the terrorist watchlist has ever carried out an attack, yet a couple who wasn't on the list did." So, let me see if I can understand. You folks want to ban a specific type of rifle that is responsible for less than 1% of all gun crime in the US. Ban magazines that, again, are used in less than 1% of gun crime. And take Rights away from American citizens without due process, because someone at the FBI decided to put their name on a list. Yeah, that's insane. Please stop with the emotional, knee-jerk reactions. A quick question: Can anyone tell me what the process is for getting put on the watchlist? I'd love to know because the FBI sure is playing that one close to the vest. Do you have to be directly involved with terrorism? Do you have to be friends with someone who is involved with terrorism? Do you have to have spoken to someone who is involved with terrorism? What is the minimum requirement? By the way, if you honestly feel that the 20,000 people on the list are a real threat, WHY AREN'T YOU MAD THAT THE FBI IS ALLOWING 20,000 DANGEROUS PEOPLE TO WALK THE STREETS?! If they're that bad, why do they have access to the public? Why can they buy everything they need to build explosives and also be allowed access to schools, malls etc? You're mad that they have access to guns? If they're really terrorists then I'M mad that they have free access to my children's school!
    1
  2305. 1
  2306. 1
  2307. 1
  2308. 1
  2309. 1
  2310. 1
  2311. 1
  2312. 1
  2313. 1
  2314. 1
  2315. 1
  2316. 1
  2317. 1
  2318. 1
  2319. 1
  2320. 1
  2321. 1
  2322. 1
  2323. 1
  2324. 1
  2325. 1
  2326. 1
  2327. 1
  2328. When has a minimum wage increase ever occurred without an increase in the cost of living? Why do people deserve more money than the amount they agreed to work for without doing more work than they agreed to do? What are minimum wage employees willing to do for their extra income? Is there a compromise to be reached or is it just "We want more money so give it to us!"? I see a whole lot of reasons why people want more money for doing the same amount of work they were doing yesterday but I don't see anyone explaining why employers should feel obligated to pay them more. Does it suck at the bottom? Of course. It's the bottom. The idea is to do your best to climb up from the bottom. Not to ask everyone else to give you carpet and air conditioning. Anyone clamoring for a higher minimum wage rather than more mid-tier jobs is doing it wrong. If you want more money, do something that's worth more. If you are genuinely trying to do so and there are no GOOD jobs available, THAT'S what you write to your representatives about. If the masses would stand up and say "We want to do better and be better and we can't do that until there are offices to fill and desks to sit behind!" it would come across a lot less lazy and "take care of poor us" than the current mantra of "Gimme gimme gimme! We still work at jobs that are supposed to be for high school students and retirees but we want to support a family without putting out any extra work or learning a new trade!" If you're really trying to settle for making a living wage at a McJob, I feel sorry for you. Somewhere along the line you gave up on yourself.
    1
  2329. 1
  2330. 1
  2331. 1
  2332. 1
  2333. +Jesse and Jan And again, I already covered this. Artificial inflation happens every time we get a minimum wage hike. The best way to make things even more unattainable is to bump the minimum wage because big businesses take advantage of the fact that everyone already assumes that the costs will go up. You can't change that with an even BIGGER minimum wage bump - only make it worse. The solution to the issue you're talking about isn't a higher wage, it's a return to a way of life that included ethical business practices. You want housing to stop increasing exponentially? Then the real estate agents need to stop telling people what they "could" get for their homes. Take it from someone who worked very closely with realtors for many years. Most of them are more crooked than a hillbilly smile. An industry as important as housing should not be controlled by commission based salespeople. Their entire world revolves around getting the cost of real estate to go up so that they can make more money per sale. Even buyer's agents don't try to get prices reduced during a negotiation any more. They try for "post sale rebates" so that the house will technically sell for more money and will keep the market looking like houses are worth more than they are. And trust me, as soon as everyone is making $15/hour nationally, you're going to see a MAJOR spike in real estate prices throughout the Country. Don't believe me? Just wait and see. I still talk to several of my old real estate contacts and they're chomping at the bit, waiting for the increase to go through. They can't wait to start kicking the prices up on houses. Will it really make you feel better when people in Ohio and Kentucky have to pay as much for a house as you do in Oregon or I do in California? That doesn't sound right to me at all. If anything, I think the artificial cost of living in the coastal States should go down. Instead, you folks are going to make the cost of living in the middle skyrocket. Great plan. Even Governor Jerry Brown said that while he was going to allow the increase to happen in California, it didn't make fiscal sense to do so. That he was doing it only because he thought it might increase morale. He said it publicly, so you can feel free to look it up. It's a pretty rare thing for Governor Moonbeam and me to see eye-to-eye on anything, so I take it as a pretty clear sign when it does happen. When the Liberal Governor of one of the mist Liberal States is sounding Conservative to you, it means you've gone WAY too far to the Left.
    1
  2334. 1
  2335. 1
  2336. 1
  2337. 1
  2338. 1
  2339. 1
  2340. 1
  2341. Ellaine Anderson You are aware that you can just go back and edit your comments, right? You don't actually have to leave me separate ones every time something "clever" decides to fall out of your head. Now, let's cover your BS: You taught your son to work hard. He does so. Rather than being the person who got laid off, he's the one the company valued enough to keep. He's still making money while someone else is standing in an unemployment line....and your first thought is "Why aren't they paying him more money?!" You answered this yourself. If they're laying people off, it's not because they're experiencing a financial windfall. Sounds like your son works for a place that's struggling. They had to make some hard decisions. They recognized his strong work ethic and decided he was worth keeping. Gosh, such animals! As for your assumptions about me, I had to laugh while reading. So stereotypical of you to think that someone telling people to "work hard and make something of themselves" didn't have to do so, himself. Sorry, dear but I'm no hypocrite. I scraped my way up to where I am (which isn't very high but I'm proud of what I've built). But then, my life bothers people like you because I'm proof that it can be done and that others can do it, too. Can everyone do it? No, of course not. But a lot of people can and don't, because they're constantly being told by people like you that "the game is rigged, so there's no point in trying." Who is the bigger asshole: The person telling people that they can make something of themselves or the one telling people that they can't? One of the problems is that the genuinely downtrodden have had their programs bombarded by those who think they're entitled to an easy life. Nobody is entitled to anything they can't provide for themselves through work, trade or barter. That being said, as a society, we should always try to provide for those who can't do so. However, if it weren't for all those who won't do for themselves, there would be more available for those who can't do so. There's no manual for life. If you see an opportunity, you go after it. If you don't see one, you try to make one. If you fail, you try again. You keep swinging until the fight is over. ...Or you can complain on the Internet about life not being fair, to a bunch of people who already know it isn't. It's your choice but the second one isn't going to do a damn thing for you.
    1
  2342. 1
  2343. 1
  2344. 1
  2345. 1
  2346. 1
  2347. 1
  2348. 1
  2349. 1
  2350. 1
  2351. 1
  2352. 1
  2353. 1
  2354. 1
  2355. 1
  2356. 1
  2357. 1
  2358. 1
  2359. 1
  2360. 1
  2361. 1
  2362. 1
  2363. 1
  2364. 1
  2365. 1
  2366. 1
  2367. 1
  2368. 1
  2369. 1
  2370. 1
  2371. 1
  2372. 1
  2373. 1
  2374. 1
  2375. 1
  2376. 1
  2377. 1
  2378. 1
  2379. +grant kohler No problem. One thing I can say, though, is that if you do end up confronting your attacker, you're only going to be as good as your muscle memory. My first experience with this almost ended badly as I got cut pretty deep. I always figured I'd just know what to do instinctively. I learned my lesson the hard way. After that I started training for self defense. The next time I was attacked I walked away clean (if you hadn't already guessed, I've spent a lot of time in pretty rough neighborhoods). When the adrenaline kicks in your brain takes a backseat. It's up to your body to know what to do and that's only possible with repetition training. If you're going to be responsible for your own survival (as everyone should) it's best to give yourself the tools to do so. Train in self defense. Even if you can't dedicate your life to it, you should learn the basics. If you have the desire to do so, you can train with a knife or firearm. It is your Right, after all and contrary to popular belief, it is fairly easy to become proficient with a firearm. In fact, most people who are willing to do one class/training session per week are better prepared than most law enforcement officers (the majority of whom spend far less time at the range than they should and almost never take stress based training beyond the minimum required). But I digress. My point is that you should train to a level you're comfortable with so that you have an edge if you ever have to fight for your life. You don't need to become a "super ninja commando" or a "gun slinging sniper" (unless that's something you want to do) but everything you learn about self defense could very well save your life or someone else's some day. Take care of yourself, friend.
    1
  2380. 1
  2381. 1
  2382. 1
  2383. +Raava - No. Thinking someone could have done something differently is called hindsight. Wondering if something could have been done differently is called inquiry. Claiming that someone is responsible for something that happened to them is victim blaming. I understand that you're having a hard time with this concept because it requires one to think deeper than just "He said something that I can twist to make him look like the bad guy!" - Stop trying to speak for everyone else. Everyone has their own reasons for their actions. You don't get to claim that everyone is a coward just because you want to feel like you're in the majority. At best this is a sad attempt to (again) try to put words in my mouth so you can try to claim some imaginary victory by making me look like the bad guy. If you can't refute my claims, stop arguing. In case you've forgotten them, here you go: A) Morality is good B) Being of good character is good C) Doing the right thing is good D) Trying to save lives is good E) Cowardice is not good F) Selfishness is not good G) Freedom to choose, however, is paramount There, I made them really simple for you. If you have a problem with any of these claims, please present a counter argument. Otherwise I don't see that we have anything else to discuss. Wait, there is just one more thing. Would you please stop with all of this left wing, right wing nonsense? This is a public forum. Anyone who doesn't know any better and reads this discussion is likely to think that you're saying liberals/progressives/Democrats are prone to cowardice and conservatives/Republicans are prone to heroism. That's simply not the case. It's not "right wing" or "left wing" to do the right thing. It's an individual choice. You claim I'm the one who sees things in black and white, yet you're the one who has been continually putting this discussion through the polarity filter. Stop it. Not everything is about your precious party war. You're not going to turn a discussion about personal responsibility into yet another mindless political debate, so stop trying. If you are incapable of speaking as yourself instead of as a party representative, feel free to not respond. P.S. I did get a chuckle out of the Bourne comment, though. That was actually pretty good stuff (no sarcasm).
    1
  2384. +Raava Except that again, you're professing that it's black and white. It's not. You seem to think that everyone who didn't run headlong into gunfire fits the dictionary definition of a coward. They don't. You're lumping people who didn't have the opportunity/means/strategy to fight back in with those who had no inclination to do so. That's as false of an argument as I've ever seen. Most of these shootings are over in minutes and span multiple areas. The general public is largely untrained. Just because you're inclined to do something doesn't mean you're suicidal. I am not saying that every shooting has been in places where there were people waiting for their opportunity to strike back (I don't claim to know everyone's intentions the way you do). I am saying that it is far more complex than your polarized narrative would have people believe. "Nobody did anything" is not the same as "Everyone was too scared to act." As for your whole trip where you're quoting Webster's, again I'll say, I didn't write the book. If you don't like what's written in it that's your problem. If you don't like me using the English language, again that's your problem. If anyone else would like to stand up and profess that, even if given the opportunity to act, they would rather run away than concern themselves with the lives of others, I will gladly call them cowards too. The problem here is that you continually presume to be able to speak for everyone who has ever NOT fought back. You think that everyone has your motivations. You arrogantly imply knowledge into the hearts and minds of the majority of people who have been faced with violence. Given that you seem to have never been faced with it yourself, I don't understand how you can make such an implication. What could you possibly know about it other than "well, the news didn't report that anyone fought back, so I guess that means they're all like me"? I am not and will not make sweeping statements about those who have faced such violence (unlike you) because I don't claim to know their intentions. You told me yours. They didn't. Stop hiding behind others and argue this for yourself, coward. Back to the victims in this story: A) Do I think they should have done something different? Yes, of course. Anyone who thinks that a slaughter should have been carried out the same way, even if there's a possibility of improving someone's odds of living, is an idiot. B) Do I profess to know the situation well enough to say that there was an obvious solution that would have worked? Of course not. I wasn't there. If there was, then I WOULD blame the victims for not doing it. Unlike you, I'm not concerned with being PC. If people have an obvious chance at extending their life then it's up to them to do so. I don't personally feel that it should come at the expense of other people's lives but again, that is a choice that everyone has to make for themselves. If you remember correctly, this all started because you smugly tried to claim foresight into the actions of another - implying that he would run away like "anyone else." I don't know if it was because you think all people who would act consider themselves superior to you but after your last response, it would seem that way. You reiterate your statement that you would run if possible and fight if necessary. Okay, good. That's the choice you believe you would make. If that choice is valid to you, why then do you find it necessary to attack those who feel that their first reaction wouldn't be to run? Why do you feel the need to tell them they would do exactly what you would do? You don't know him. There's no competition in this. Nobody "wins" if either of you are ever faced with such a situation. It's just people and their choices. You said yourself that every situation is different, yet you seem to be saying that everyone's response would and should be the same as yours. That those of us who believe in acting on the behalf of others are going to be gone in 30 years (really not sure where you got that figure) and that it's somehow a good thing. So now I'm going to ask you directly: Why is it so important to you that everyone be like you? Why do you WANT a world without people who are inclined to stand and fight for others? And actually, you don't have to answer me but you should really try to answer it for yourself. I truly hope it's more complex than "You're not like me so I don't like you."
    1
  2385. +Raava Except that again, you're professing that it's black and white. It's not. You seem to think that everyone who didn't run headlong into gunfire fits the dictionary definition of a coward. They don't. You're lumping people who didn't have the opportunity/means/strategy to fight back in with those who had no inclination to do so. That's as false of an argument as I've ever seen. Most of these shootings are over in minutes and span multiple areas. The general public is largely untrained. Just because you're inclined to do something doesn't mean you're suicidal. I am not saying that every shooting has been in places where there were people waiting for their opportunity to strike back (I don't claim to know everyone's intentions the way you do). I am saying that it is far more complex than your polarized narrative would have people believe. "Nobody did anything" is not the same as "Everyone was too scared to act." As for your whole trip where you're quoting Webster's, again I'll say, I didn't write the book. If you don't like what's written in it that's your problem. If you don't like me using the English language, again that's your problem. If anyone else would like to stand up and profess that, even if given the opportunity to act, they would rather run away than concern themselves with the lives of others, I will gladly call them cowards too. The problem here is that you continually presume to be able to speak for everyone who has ever NOT fought back. You think that everyone has your motivations. You arrogantly imply knowledge into the hearts and minds of the majority of people who have been faced with violence. Given that you seem to have never been faced with it yourself, I don't understand how you can make such an implication. What could you possibly know about it other than "well, the news didn't report that anyone fought back, so I guess that means they're all like me"? I am not and will not make sweeping statements about those who have faced such violence (unlike you) because I don't claim to know their intentions. You told me yours. They didn't. Stop hiding behind others and argue this for yourself, coward. Back to the victims in this story: A) Do I think they should have done something different? Yes, of course. Anyone who thinks that a slaughter should have been carried out the same way, even if there's a possibility of improving someone's odds of living, is an idiot. B) Do I profess to know the situation well enough to say that there was an obvious solution that would have worked? Of course not. I wasn't there. If there was, then I WOULD blame the victims for not doing it. Unlike you, I'm not concerned with being PC. If people have an obvious chance at extending their life then it's up to them to do so. I don't personally feel that it should come at the expense of other people's lives but again, that is a choice that everyone has to make for themselves. If you remember correctly, this all started because you smugly tried to claim foresight into the actions of another - implying that he would run away like "anyone else." I don't know if it was because you think all people who would act consider themselves superior to you but after your last response, it would seem that way. You reiterate your statement that you would run if possible and fight if necessary. Okay, good. That's the choice you believe you would make. If that choice is valid to you, why then do you find it necessary to attack those who feel that their first reaction wouldn't be to run? Why do you feel the need to tell them they would do exactly what you would do? You don't know him. There's no competition in this. Nobody "wins" if either of you are ever faced with such a situation. It's just people and their choices. You said yourself that every situation is different, yet you seem to be saying that everyone's response would and should be the same as yours. That those of us who believe in acting on the behalf of others are going to be gone in 30 years (really not sure where you got that figure) and that it's somehow a good thing. So now I'm going to ask you directly: Why is it so important to you that everyone be like you? Why do you WANT a world without people who are inclined to stand and fight for others? And actually, you don't have to answer me but you should really try to answer it for yourself. I truly hope it's more complex than "You're not like me so I don't like you."
    1
  2386. 1
  2387. 1
  2388. 1
  2389. 1
  2390. 1
  2391. +MaxadBarre Thank you for clarifying. Having sifted through a sea of commentary on the issue, I was getting a very different impression. A great many people claim that ISIS is following Mohammed's instructions in the Qur'an. Admittedly, I have not yet read the Qur'an, so I don't have an opinion in this area as of now. As for discouraging other Muslims from thinking it's righteous to join ISIS, I couldn't agree more. Obviously we don't need more terrorists in the world. I do feel, however, that the labels are somewhat semantic in this regard. One who believes in peaceful coexistence is not easily swayed to violence. One who believes in violence is not kept peaceful for long. In an ideal world, the general public would always treat the sins of individuals as individual sins but that's not the planet upon which we reside. While pleading with non-Muslims over labels may help some, it won't be enough to make a significant difference. Instead I would concentrate on reminding Muslims that this period in history is merely a test of their faith and resolve. That many people have faced unjustified bias and misdirected hate since the dawn of time and the truly righteous are those who do not succumb to anger and indignation in the face of misunderstanding. Furthermore, doing so publicly (such as this discussion) will do more to help sway the view of those who misunderstand Muslims than shouting at them about terminology. A man standing in a park reminding people to be peaceful brings far more peace than a man shouting at people to change. Remember, the only way to direct the narrative is to lead by example. Be well, my friend.
    1
  2392. 1
  2393. 1
  2394. 1
  2395. 1
  2396. 1
  2397. 1
  2398. 1
  2399. 1
  2400. 1
  2401. 1
  2402. 1
  2403. 1
  2404. 1
  2405. 1
  2406. 1
  2407. 1
  2408. 1
  2409. 1
  2410. 1
  2411. 1
  2412. 1
  2413. 1
  2414. 1
  2415. 1
  2416. 1
  2417. 1
  2418. 1
  2419. 1
  2420. 1
  2421. 1
  2422. 1
  2423. 1
  2424. 1
  2425. 1
  2426. 1
  2427. 1
  2428. 1
  2429. 1
  2430. 1
  2431. 1
  2432. 1
  2433. 1
  2434. 1
  2435. 1
  2436. +AeriosDFY2 What Country do you think this is? You say "let" as though people have to ask permission to own guns. It's a right, not a privilege. Not to mention that a system like that would require national gun confiscation, which would be the bloodiest thing to happen in this Country since the Civil War. Okay, let's try again but we'll start with some facts: - There a roughly 350 million privately owned guns in the US and more being bought every day. - Roughly 1/3 of American citizens own guns. - There are about 100 million more guns than cars in the US, yet, even though cars are MUCH more heavily regulated, cars kill more people every year. - There were about 33,000 gun deaths in the US in 2014. Roughly 75% of gun deaths are suicides. The remaining 25% are divided up between justified police shootings, justified self defense shootings and actual homicides. Of the actual homicides, the majority are products of gang violence. - Guns are used around 800,000 times/year to PREVENT crime in the US. This obviously includes a very large number of occurrences when the mere act of drawing a gun was enough to deter the attacker. - Gun crime has been steadily reducing over the past twenty years. Now, without starting a war and without denying American citizens their Constitutionally protected rights, what legal, sensible gun control laws can be put in place that would effectively reduce gun crime faster than it currently is. My personal thoughts are that we should make firearm safety classes mandatory for all Americans. However, the only way to do that Constitutionally is to include it in high school curriculums the way we did with sex ed and require a passing grade in order to graduate. I personally think this is completely reasonable since it is every American's right, whether they choose to exercise it or not. It's the only effective way to create more responsible gun owners. A nice byproduct is that those who don't like guns will at least know what they're talking about, so they won't grow up to be politicians who say things like, "This ghost gun can fire a 30 magazine round clip in half a second" or "Get a shotgun and if you hear someone outside, fire two blasts out your front door to scare them off." By the way, that last one was said by none other than our very own Vice President. Thanks, crazy Uncle Joe...
    1
  2437. 1
  2438. 1
  2439. 1
  2440. 1
  2441. 1
  2442. 1
  2443. 1
  2444. 1
  2445. 1
  2446. 1
  2447. 1
  2448. 1
  2449. 1
  2450. 1
  2451. 1
  2452. 1
  2453. 1
  2454. 1
  2455. 1
  2456. 1
  2457. 1
  2458. 1
  2459. 1
  2460. 1
  2461. 1
  2462. 1
  2463. 1
  2464. 1
  2465. 1
  2466. 1
  2467. 1
  2468. 1
  2469. 1
  2470. 1
  2471. 1
  2472. 1
  2473. 1
  2474. 1
  2475. 1
  2476. 1
  2477. 1
  2478. 1
  2479. +Aditya Kar The "smart gun" technology that was being proposed was A) unproven B) built directly into the firearm and C) was already being "required" by New Jersey once the first one sold, even though it was unproven and built into the firearm. This meant that a State was trying to set a legal precedent requiring all handguns (those things people buy for self defense) being sold after a certain point (that being the point at which the first "smart gun" was sold in New Jersey) to have an unproven locking system that could potentially keep the owner of the firearm from being able to use it effectively. Once a State sets a legal precedent, other States often follow with the ability to say "well, they did it so we can too" (that's what legal precedent is). The NRA, it's members (aka US citizens), the vast majority of gun owners in New Jersey and yes, firearms manufacturers, all rallied against this because it had the potential to A) put a lot of unreliable firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens B) greatly reduce the variety of handguns available and C) make even entry level handguns prohibitively expensive. Now, the reason your comment is so outlandish is because there are already biometric gun safes and lock boxes on the market and the NRA doesn't have a problem with any of them. All this is, is a biometric trigger lock and so far, nobody is trying to mandate that everyone has to use an unproven, biometric trigger lock on their guns. You see, it's called choice. The NRA doesn't oppose new options, they oppose new legislation. It's really that simple.
    1
  2480. 1
  2481. 1
  2482. 1
  2483. 1
  2484. 1
  2485. 1
  2486. 1
  2487. 1
  2488. 1
  2489. 1
  2490. 1
  2491. 1
  2492. 1
  2493. 1
  2494. 1
  2495. 1
  2496. 1
  2497. 1
  2498. 1
  2499. 1
  2500. 1
  2501. 1
  2502. 1
  2503. 1
  2504. 1
  2505. 1
  2506. +Sascha Kramarenko Except that it happens quite a bit here. The majority of gun owners who are confronted with these situations survive them and stop their attackers. Apparently 1% is a bit conservative. I really don't understand how people can claim that guns are such efficient killing machines that can lay waste to large groups of people and then, out of the other side of theirs mouths, claim that anyone who used a gun to successfully defend themselves was just lucky. Which is it? Are guns an efficient way of dispatching multiple targets or aren't they? I know the answer but then, I have a lot of hands on experience with various types of firearms. Mass shooters don't have special forces training that makes them better with their weapons than regular citizens. They have guns and time at the range, just like everyone else. To imply that guns are only capable of killing innocent people and that they have an ingrained inability to stop criminals is naive at best. I promise, a bullet doesn't do a background check before it hits you. A gun fired by a woman defending her children is no less effective than a gun fired by a police officer (Yes, I said it. The police have a TERRIBLE shot:hit ratio. Google it). Speaking of which, I'd like to weigh in on your conversation with Joe. The great majority of Police officers in the US retire having never fired at a person while on duty. The majority of gun owners can make the same claim. Somehow, you feel that the Police who patrol my neighborhood need a gun more than I do, even though statistically they're not much more likely to need them than I am. Why do the Police get special privileges? Are their lives worth mire than mine? My wife's? My children's? I know for a fact that I have more range time in than most of them and that the majority aren't even required to have stress based training (a course that's readily available throughout the Country). Remember, when seconds matter, the Police are only minutes away. I'm not comforted by the fact that the guys who come to make a report after an incident, are armed. Especially since they're such lousy shots anyway. I can tell you for certain that I can empty an entire magazine at intruders in my home without ever endangering my children (not that I would likely need all 30 rounds to get the job done but still). I can also tell you that the Police can't make that claim. I would MUCH rather handle the situation and let the cops do the paperwork than have a shootout in my house between the Police and the guys who broke in.
    1
  2507. 1
  2508. 1
  2509. 1
  2510. 1
  2511. 1
  2512. 1
  2513. 1
  2514. 1
  2515. 1
  2516. 1
  2517. 1
  2518. 1
  2519. 1
  2520. 1
  2521. +Parneli Jones Okay. I feel like we're splitting hairs here but try this. The framers did not give us the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. They merely documented them. Our government, being a democratic republic, is merely a group of representatives that we, the people, have chosen to handle our paperwork for us (I know that's an oversimplification but bear with me). That being said, any rights "given" by our government and not directly challenged by the majority of the citizens are merely a further written clarification of the rights we are to be born with. Therefore, any documented rights pertaining to things such as voting, marriage, free speech, etc are all our rights, regardless of which piece of paper they are written on. They are not privileges because they are defined as such. Therefore, they can not be merely taken away like a privilege can. If you need evidence of this, try taking away something like the right to vote. The people will not allow it and will protect that right. By force if necessary. The only thing that truly defines a right is whether or not the people will stand against its removal. That which is given up willingly is not a right in the minds of those who give it up - and that is the only place where a right truly exists. You either believe you are free or you don't. Those who don't, aren't. At the point when a right is challenged, it doesn't matter where you think that right came from. All that matters is whether you truly believe it's yours and whether you're willing to stand up for it. The rest is just semantics.
    1
  2522. 1
  2523. 1
  2524. 1
  2525. 1
  2526. 1
  2527. 1
  2528. 1
  2529. 1
  2530. 1
  2531. 1
  2532. 1
  2533. 1
  2534. 1
  2535. 1
  2536. 1
  2537. 1
  2538. 1
  2539. 1
  2540. 1
  2541. 1
  2542. 1
  2543. 1
  2544. 1
  2545. 1
  2546. 1
  2547. 1
  2548. 1
  2549. 1
  2550. 1
  2551. 1
  2552. 1
  2553. 1
  2554. 1
  2555. 1
  2556. 1
  2557. 1
  2558. 1
  2559. 1
  2560. 1
  2561. 1
  2562. 1
  2563. 1
  2564. 1
  2565. 1
  2566. 1
  2567. 1
  2568. 1
  2569. 1
  2570. 1
  2571. 1
  2572. 1
  2573. 1
  2574. 1
  2575. 1
  2576. 1
  2577. 1
  2578. 1
  2579. 1
  2580. 1
  2581. 1
  2582. 1
  2583. 1
  2584. 1
  2585. 1
  2586. 1
  2587. 1
  2588. 1
  2589. 1
  2590. 1
  2591. 1
  2592. 1
  2593. 1
  2594. 1
  2595. 1
  2596. 1
  2597. 1
  2598. 1
  2599. 1
  2600. 1
  2601. 1
  2602. 1
  2603. 1
  2604. 1
  2605. 1
  2606. 1
  2607. 1
  2608. 1
  2609. 1
  2610. 1
  2611. 1
  2612. 1
  2613. 1
  2614. 1
  2615. 1
  2616. 1
  2617. 1
  2618. 1
  2619. 1
  2620. 1
  2621. 1
  2622. 1
  2623. 1
  2624. 1
  2625. 1
  2626. 1
  2627. 1
  2628. 1
  2629. 1
  2630. 1
  2631. 1
  2632. 1
  2633. 1
  2634. 1
  2635. 1
  2636. 1
  2637. 1
  2638. 1
  2639. 1
  2640. 1
  2641. 1
  2642. 1
  2643. 1
  2644. 1
  2645. 1
  2646. 1
  2647. 1
  2648. 1
  2649. 1
  2650. 1
  2651. 1
  2652. 1
  2653. 1
  2654. 1
  2655. 1
  2656. 1
  2657. 1
  2658. 1
  2659. 1
  2660. 1
  2661. 1
  2662. 1
  2663. 1
  2664. 1
  2665. 1
  2666. 1
  2667. 1
  2668. 1
  2669. 1
  2670. 1
  2671. 1
  2672. 1
  2673. 1
  2674. 1
  2675. 1
  2676. 1
  2677. 1
  2678. 1
  2679. 1
  2680. 1
  2681. 1
  2682. 1
  2683. 1
  2684. 1
  2685. 1
  2686. 1
  2687. 1
  2688. 1
  2689. 1
  2690. 1
  2691. 1
  2692. 1
  2693. 1
  2694. 1
  2695. 1
  2696. 1
  2697. 1
  2698. 1
  2699. 1
  2700. 1
  2701. 1
  2702. 1
  2703. 1
  2704. 1
  2705. 1
  2706. 1
  2707. 1
  2708. 1
  2709. 1
  2710. 1
  2711. 1
  2712. 1
  2713. 1
  2714. 1
  2715. 1
  2716. 1
  2717. 1
  2718. 1
  2719. 1
  2720. 1
  2721. 1
  2722. 1
  2723. 1
  2724. 1
  2725. 1
  2726. 1
  2727. 1
  2728. 1
  2729. 1
  2730. 1
  2731. 1
  2732. 1
  2733. 1
  2734. 1
  2735. 1
  2736. 1
  2737. 1
  2738. 1
  2739. 1
  2740. 1
  2741. 1
  2742. 1
  2743. 1
  2744. 1
  2745. 1
  2746. 1
  2747. 1
  2748. 1
  2749. 1
  2750. 1
  2751. 1
  2752. 1
  2753. 1
  2754. 1
  2755. 1
  2756. 1
  2757. 1
  2758. 1
  2759. 1
  2760. 1
  2761. 1
  2762. 1
  2763. 1
  2764. 1
  2765. 1
  2766. 1
  2767. 1
  2768. 1
  2769. 1
  2770. 1
  2771. 1
  2772. 1
  2773. 1
  2774. 1
  2775. 1
  2776. 1
  2777. 1
  2778. 1
  2779. 1
  2780. 1
  2781. 1
  2782. 1
  2783. 1
  2784. 1
  2785. 1
  2786. 1
  2787. 1
  2788. 1
  2789. 1
  2790. 1
  2791. 1
  2792. 1
  2793. 1
  2794. 1
  2795. 1
  2796. 1
  2797. 1
  2798. 1
  2799. 1
  2800. 1
  2801. 1
  2802. 1
  2803. 1
  2804. 1
  2805. 1
  2806. 1
  2807. 1
  2808. 1
  2809. 1
  2810. 1
  2811. 1
  2812. 1
  2813. 1
  2814. 1
  2815. 1
  2816. 1
  2817. 1
  2818. 1
  2819. 1
  2820. 1
  2821. 1
  2822. 1
  2823. 1
  2824. 1
  2825. 1
  2826. 1
  2827. 1
  2828. Regular Insomniac Wrong. Workplace shootings are full of adults who are responsible for their own place in this world. School shootings are full of children who rely on the rest of us to secure their place in this world until they're old enough to do so for themselves. Furthermore, trying to use vanity to discourage protecting children is despicable. "Is this Iraq?" Why? Do Iraqis take the safety of their children more seriously than we do? No but people like you are more concerned with public image than with doing what needs to be done. While you're working to implement a system that creates kinder, gentler authority figures, there are people out there, right now, working themselves up to a boiling point. Why pretend it has to be one or the other? Implement guards now to protect all of the kids who will be vulnerable for the next several decades before your program proves out. That's the problem with most of these "solutions." They don't solve anything for tomorrow's victims or the ones after that. They only (maybe) help people years from now. We have a problem now, so we need a response now (or at least, as soon as possible). Any answers dealing with vague notions of what it might solve in the future are irrelevant until the children are protected. The future is theirs, anyway. You can't promise a better future - filled with kind, gentle authority figures - to a single one of the kids that died today. It's too late for them. Of course, we could have protected them and given them lives to look forward to, but then someone might have compared us to Iraq. How unappealing...
    1
  2829. 1
  2830. 1
  2831. 1
  2832. 1
  2833. 1
  2834. 1
  2835. 1
  2836. 1
  2837. 1
  2838. 1
  2839. 1
  2840. 1
  2841. 1
  2842. 1
  2843. 1
  2844. 1
  2845. 1
  2846. 1
  2847. 1
  2848. 1
  2849. 1
  2850. 1
  2851. 1
  2852. 1
  2853. 1
  2854. 1
  2855. 1
  2856. 1
  2857. 1
  2858. 1
  2859. 1
  2860. 1
  2861. 1
  2862. 1
  2863. 1
  2864. 1
  2865. 1
  2866. 1
  2867. 1
  2868. 1
  2869. 1
  2870. 1
  2871. 1
  2872. 1
  2873. 1
  2874. 1
  2875. 1
  2876. 1
  2877. 1
  2878. 1
  2879. 1
  2880. 1
  2881. 1
  2882. 1
  2883. 1
  2884. 1
  2885. 1
  2886. 1
  2887. 1
  2888. 1
  2889. 1
  2890. 1
  2891. 1
  2892. 1
  2893. 1
  2894. 1
  2895. 1
  2896. 1
  2897. 1
  2898. 1
  2899. 1
  2900. 1
  2901. 1
  2902. 1
  2903. 1
  2904. 1
  2905. 1
  2906. 1
  2907. 1
  2908. 1
  2909. 1
  2910. 1
  2911. 1
  2912. 1
  2913. 1
  2914. 1
  2915. 1
  2916. 1
  2917. 1
  2918. 1
  2919. 1
  2920. 1
  2921. 1
  2922. 1
  2923. 1
  2924. 1
  2925. 1
  2926. 1
  2927. 1
  2928. 1
  2929. 1
  2930. 1
  2931. 1
  2932. 1
  2933. 1
  2934. 1
  2935. 1
  2936. 1
  2937. 1
  2938. 1
  2939. 1
  2940. 1
  2941. 1
  2942. 1
  2943. 1
  2944. 1
  2945. 1
  2946. 1
  2947. 1
  2948. 1
  2949. 1
  2950. 1
  2951. 1
  2952. 1
  2953. 1
  2954. 1
  2955. 1
  2956. 1
  2957. 1
  2958. 1
  2959. 1
  2960. 1
  2961. 1
  2962. 1
  2963. 1
  2964. 1
  2965. 1
  2966. 1
  2967. 1
  2968. 1
  2969. 1
  2970. 1
  2971. 1
  2972. 1
  2973. 1
  2974. 1
  2975. 1
  2976. 1
  2977. 1
  2978. 1
  2979. 1
  2980. 1
  2981. 1
  2982. 1
  2983. 1
  2984. 1
  2985. 1
  2986. 1
  2987. 1
  2988. 1
  2989. 1
  2990. 1
  2991. 1
  2992. 1
  2993. 1
  2994. 1
  2995. 1
  2996. 1
  2997. 1
  2998. 1
  2999. 1
  3000. 1
  3001. 1
  3002. 1
  3003. 1
  3004. 1
  3005. 1
  3006. 1
  3007. 1
  3008. 1
  3009. 1
  3010. 1
  3011. 1
  3012. 1
  3013. 1
  3014. 1
  3015. 1
  3016. 1
  3017. 1
  3018. 1
  3019. 1
  3020. 1
  3021. 1
  3022. 1
  3023. 1
  3024. 1
  3025. 1
  3026. 1
  3027. 1
  3028. 1
  3029. 1
  3030. 1
  3031. 1
  3032. 1
  3033. 1
  3034. 1
  3035. 1
  3036. 1
  3037. 1
  3038. 1
  3039. 1
  3040. 1
  3041. 1
  3042. 1
  3043. 1
  3044. 1
  3045. 1
  3046. 1
  3047. 1
  3048. 1
  3049. 1
  3050. 1
  3051. 1
  3052. 1
  3053. 1
  3054. 1
  3055. 1
  3056. 1
  3057. 1
  3058. 1
  3059. 1
  3060. 1
  3061. 1
  3062. 1
  3063. 1
  3064. 1
  3065. 1
  3066. 1
  3067. 1
  3068. 1
  3069. 1
  3070. 1
  3071. 1
  3072. 1
  3073. 1
  3074. 1
  3075. 1
  3076. 1
  3077. 1
  3078. 1
  3079. 1
  3080. 1
  3081. 1
  3082. 1
  3083. 1
  3084. 1
  3085. 1
  3086. 1
  3087. 1
  3088. 1
  3089. 1
  3090. 1
  3091. 1
  3092. 1
  3093. 1
  3094. 1
  3095. 1
  3096. 1
  3097. 1
  3098. 1
  3099. 1
  3100. 1
  3101. 1
  3102. 1
  3103. 1
  3104. 1
  3105. 1
  3106. 1
  3107. 1
  3108. 1
  3109. 1
  3110. 1
  3111. 1
  3112. 1
  3113. 1
  3114. 1
  3115. 1
  3116. 1
  3117. 1
  3118. 1
  3119. 1
  3120. 1
  3121. 1
  3122. 1
  3123. 1
  3124. 1
  3125. 1
  3126. 1
  3127. 1
  3128. 1
  3129. 1
  3130. 1
  3131. 1
  3132. 1
  3133. 1
  3134. 1
  3135. 1
  3136. 1
  3137. 1
  3138. 1
  3139. 1
  3140. 1
  3141. 1
  3142. 1
  3143. 1
  3144. 1
  3145. 1
  3146. 1
  3147. 1
  3148. 1
  3149. 1
  3150. 1
  3151. 1
  3152. 1
  3153. 1
  3154. 1
  3155. 1
  3156. 1
  3157. 1
  3158. 1
  3159. 1
  3160. 1
  3161. 1
  3162. 1
  3163. 1
  3164. 1
  3165. 1
  3166. 1
  3167. 1
  3168. 1
  3169. 1
  3170. 1
  3171. 1
  3172. 1
  3173. 1
  3174. 1
  3175. 1
  3176. 1
  3177. 1
  3178. 1
  3179. 1
  3180. 1
  3181. 1
  3182. 1
  3183. 1
  3184. 1
  3185. 1
  3186. 1
  3187. 1
  3188. 1
  3189. 1
  3190. 1
  3191. 1
  3192. 1
  3193. 1
  3194. 1
  3195. 1
  3196. 1
  3197. 1
  3198. 1
  3199. 1
  3200. 1
  3201. 1
  3202. 1
  3203. 1
  3204. 1
  3205. 1
  3206. 1
  3207. 1
  3208. 1
  3209. 1
  3210. 1
  3211. 1
  3212. 1
  3213. 1
  3214. 1
  3215. 1
  3216. 1
  3217. 1
  3218. 1
  3219. 1
  3220. 1
  3221. 1
  3222. 1
  3223. 1
  3224. 1
  3225. 1
  3226. 1
  3227. 1
  3228. 1
  3229. 1
  3230. 1
  3231. 1
  3232. 1
  3233. 1
  3234. 1
  3235. 1
  3236. 1
  3237. 1
  3238. 1
  3239. 1
  3240. 1
  3241. 1
  3242. 1
  3243. 1
  3244. 1
  3245. 1
  3246. 1
  3247. 1
  3248. 1
  3249. 1
  3250. 1
  3251. 1
  3252. 1
  3253. 1
  3254. 1
  3255. 1
  3256. 1
  3257. 1
  3258. 1
  3259. 1
  3260. 1
  3261. 1
  3262. 1
  3263. 1
  3264. 1
  3265. 1
  3266. 1
  3267. 1
  3268. 1
  3269. 1
  3270. 1
  3271. 1
  3272. 1
  3273. 1
  3274. 1
  3275. 1
  3276. 1
  3277. 1
  3278. 1
  3279. 1
  3280. 1
  3281. 1
  3282. 1
  3283. 1
  3284. 1
  3285. 1
  3286. 1
  3287. 1
  3288. 1
  3289. 1
  3290. 1
  3291. 1
  3292. 1
  3293. 1
  3294. 1
  3295. 1
  3296. 1
  3297. 1
  3298. 1
  3299. 1
  3300. 1
  3301. 1
  3302. 1
  3303. 1
  3304. 1
  3305. 1
  3306. 1
  3307. 1
  3308. 1
  3309. 1
  3310. 1
  3311. 1
  3312. 1
  3313. 1
  3314. 1
  3315. 1
  3316. 1
  3317. 1
  3318. 1
  3319. 1
  3320. 1
  3321. 1
  3322. 1
  3323. 1
  3324. 1
  3325. 1
  3326. 1
  3327. 1
  3328. 1
  3329. 1
  3330. 1
  3331. 1
  3332. 1
  3333. 1
  3334. 1
  3335. 1
  3336. 1
  3337. 1
  3338. 1
  3339. 1
  3340. 1
  3341. 1
  3342. 1
  3343. 1
  3344. 1
  3345. 1
  3346. 1
  3347. 1
  3348. 1
  3349. 1
  3350. 1
  3351. 1
  3352. 1
  3353. 1
  3354. 1
  3355. 1
  3356. 1
  3357. 1
  3358. 1
  3359. 1
  3360. 1
  3361. 1
  3362. 1
  3363. 1
  3364. 1
  3365. 1
  3366. 1
  3367. 1
  3368. 1
  3369. 1
  3370. 1
  3371. 1
  3372. 1
  3373. 1
  3374. 1
  3375. 1
  3376. 1
  3377. 1
  3378. 1
  3379. 1
  3380. 1
  3381. 1
  3382. 1
  3383. 1
  3384. 1
  3385. 1
  3386. 1
  3387. 1
  3388. 1
  3389. 1
  3390. 1
  3391. 1
  3392. 1
  3393. 1
  3394. 1
  3395. 1
  3396. 1
  3397. 1
  3398. 1
  3399. 1
  3400. 1
  3401. 1
  3402. 1
  3403. 1
  3404. 1
  3405. 1
  3406. 1
  3407. 1
  3408. 1
  3409. 1
  3410. 1
  3411. 1
  3412. 1
  3413. 1
  3414. 1
  3415. 1
  3416. 1
  3417. 1
  3418. 1
  3419. 1
  3420. 1
  3421. 1
  3422. 1
  3423. 1
  3424. 1
  3425. 1
  3426. 1
  3427. 1
  3428. 1
  3429. 1
  3430. 1
  3431. 1
  3432. 1
  3433. 1
  3434. 1
  3435. 1
  3436. 1
  3437. 1
  3438. 1
  3439. 1
  3440. 1
  3441. 1
  3442. 1
  3443. 1
  3444. 1
  3445. 1
  3446. 1
  3447. 1
  3448. 1
  3449. 1
  3450. 1
  3451. 1
  3452. 1
  3453. 1
  3454. 1
  3455. 1
  3456. 1
  3457. 1
  3458. 1
  3459. 1
  3460. 1
  3461. 1
  3462. 1
  3463. 1
  3464. 1
  3465. 1
  3466. 1
  3467. 1
  3468. 1
  3469. 1
  3470. 1
  3471. 1
  3472. 1
  3473. 1
  3474. 1
  3475. 1
  3476. 1
  3477. 1
  3478. 1
  3479. 1
  3480. 1
  3481. 1
  3482. 1
  3483. 1
  3484. 1
  3485. 1
  3486. 1
  3487. 1
  3488. 1
  3489. 1
  3490. 1
  3491. 1
  3492. 1
  3493. 1
  3494. 1
  3495. 1
  3496. 1
  3497. 1
  3498. 1
  3499. 1
  3500. 1
  3501. 1
  3502. 1
  3503. 1
  3504. 1
  3505. 1
  3506. 1
  3507. 1
  3508. 1
  3509. 1
  3510. 1
  3511. 1
  3512. 1
  3513. 1
  3514. 1
  3515. 1
  3516. 1
  3517. 1
  3518. 1
  3519. 1
  3520. 1
  3521. 1
  3522. 1
  3523. 1
  3524. 1
  3525. 1
  3526. 1
  3527. 1
  3528. 1
  3529. 1
  3530. 1
  3531. 1
  3532. 1
  3533. 1
  3534. 1
  3535. 1
  3536. 1
  3537. 1
  3538. 1
  3539. 1
  3540. 1
  3541. 1
  3542. 1
  3543. 1
  3544. 1
  3545. 1
  3546. 1
  3547. 1
  3548. 1
  3549. 1
  3550. 1
  3551. 1
  3552. 1
  3553. 1
  3554. 1
  3555. 1
  3556. 1
  3557. 1
  3558. 1
  3559. 1
  3560. 1
  3561. 1
  3562. 1
  3563. 1
  3564. 1
  3565. 1
  3566. 1
  3567. 1
  3568. 1
  3569. 1
  3570. 1
  3571. 1
  3572. 1
  3573. 1
  3574. 1
  3575. 1
  3576. 1
  3577. 1
  3578. 1
  3579. 1
  3580. 1
  3581. 1
  3582. 1
  3583. 1
  3584. 1
  3585. 1
  3586. 1
  3587. 1
  3588. 1
  3589. 1
  3590. 1
  3591. 1
  3592. 1
  3593. 1
  3594. 1
  3595. 1
  3596. 1
  3597. 1
  3598. 1
  3599. 1
  3600. 1
  3601. 1
  3602. 1
  3603. 1
  3604. 1
  3605. 1
  3606. 1
  3607. 1
  3608. 1
  3609. Naftul Zvi In case you're interested in knowing what you're arguing. The founders were fully aware of these weapons. Weapons available when the second amendment was added to the Constitution of the United States (1791): -Thee Cookson rifle features a two-chamber horizontally-mounted rotating drum. Loading was accomplished by lowering a lever which was mounted on the left side of the rifle. This caused the chambers to line up with two magazines contained within the buttstock and allowed one .55 caliber lead ball and a 60-grain powder charge to fall into their respective chambers. When the lever was returned to its original position, the ball dropped into the chamber, and the powder charge lined up behind it. At the same time, the hammer was cocked, the pan was primed, and the frizzen was lowered. After firing the rifle, the process could be repeated. -The Brown Bess muskets used by both sides fires a .75 caliber round. -Cannons (Weapons of the American Revolution) were legal to own. There are some notable private artillery organizations still in existence today. Many early naval vessels were also privately-owned and were outfitted with cannons. -Swivel guns were smaller cannons with fixed mounts that could be quickly aimed in any direction. -Mortars were indirect fire weapons. Smaller mortars were sometimes used as grenade launchers. -The ammunition for cannons and similar heavy weapons was not limited to large solid metal balls. There were exploding cannon balls, case shot, grape shot, bar shot (two balls chained together), and even hot shot (when the metal projectile was made red-hot just prior to loading in order to set structures on fire). -Hand grenades. Though not as prevalent as in later periods, yeah we had hand grenades then. -The Puckle gun was the first known revolving cannon. It fired a 32mm round, had a 11-round revolving cylinder, and was invented in 1718. It never saw mass production but demonstrations were performed and it was covered by the newspapers. What killed it was the fact that the parts for it could not be easily produced at that time. -The Girandoni Air Rifle fired a .46 caliber projectile and had a 20-round magazine. It was invented in 1779 and was used by the Lewis and Clark expedition. -The Belton flintlock was offered to Congress in 1777. It was capable of firing up to either sixteen or twenty rounds within either sixteen, ten, or five seconds. There are no known surviving examples but it was believed to function similar to a roman candle.
    1
  3610. 1
  3611. 1
  3612. 1
  3613. 1
  3614. 1
  3615. 1
  3616. 1
  3617. 1
  3618. 1
  3619. 1
  3620. 1
  3621. 1
  3622. 1
  3623. 1
  3624. 1
  3625. 1
  3626. 1
  3627. 1
  3628. 1
  3629. 1
  3630. 1
  3631. 1
  3632. 1
  3633. 1
  3634.  @HerbalAssailant  No, you're clearly the one who doesn't understand. You are trying to put the blame of your bad experience on these regulations, where that's clearly not the problem. If there was a problem with the food in your school, it was up to the parents and students to let the school know that it needed to change. Repealing a nationwide healthy foods program because some schools didn't bother to put effort into making the food taste good is utterly ridiculous. It is completely feasible for schools to make healthy foods that also taste good (even those with little to no extra money to spend). Furthermore, if the lunches were that bad, why weren't you making your own and bringing it in? I know that the concept is lost on some parents but my kids have been able to make sandwiches since they were six years old. I expect anyone at a high school level to be able to figure out how to feed themselves. But I digress. If your school didn't bother trying to make healthy food taste good then there's no reason to believe they're going to try to make food that tastes good even a little bit healthy. I guess it's better to promote terrible dietary practices, if the alternative is people actually having to get off their lazy butts and tell their local school district that they want good food to taste better, right? I mean, we wouldn't want anyone having to be an active participant in their own lives or the things that affect it. That might lead to people taking responsibility for themselves and making better choices. We don't want any of that in this glorious age of instant gratification and passing the buck. Nope, better to just roll back the healthy lunches and pass around the sugary, high cholesterol slop. Sure, it's killing you but at least it tastes good!
    1
  3635. 1
  3636. 1
  3637. 1
  3638. 1
  3639. 1
  3640. 1
  3641. 1
  3642. 1
  3643. 1
  3644. 1
  3645. 1
  3646. 1
  3647. 1
  3648. 1
  3649. 1
  3650. 1
  3651. 1
  3652. 1
  3653. 1
  3654. 1
  3655. 1
  3656. 1
  3657. 1
  3658. 1
  3659. 1
  3660. 1
  3661. 1
  3662. 1
  3663. 1
  3664. 1
  3665. 1
  3666. 1
  3667. 1
  3668. 1
  3669. 1
  3670. 1
  3671. 1
  3672. 1
  3673. 1
  3674. 1
  3675. 1
  3676. 1
  3677. 1
  3678. 1
  3679. 1
  3680. 1
  3681. 1
  3682. 1
  3683. 1
  3684. 1
  3685. 1
  3686. 1
  3687. 1
  3688. 1
  3689. 1
  3690. 1
  3691. 1
  3692.  @Ryooken  You're really bad at reading. I didn't exclude either of those from the definition of migration. I merely implied that you can't conflate the two, simply because they are both forms of movement (migration) and that seeking refuge can be broken out as its own thing, because it does not automatically involve migration. mi​grate verb mi·​grate | \ ˈmī-ˌgrāt , mī-ˈgrāt \ mi​grat​ed; mi​grat​ing Collegiate Definition intransitive ​verb 1: to move from one country, place, or locality to another //Thousands of workers migrate to this area in the summer. 2: to pass usually periodically from one region or climate to another for feeding or breeding //The whales migrate between their feeding ground in the north and their breeding ground in the Caribbean. 3: to change position or location in an organism or substance //filarial worms migrate within the human body ref​uge noun ref·​uge | \ ˈre-(ˌ)fyüj , also -(ˌ)fyüzh \ Collegiate Definition (Entry 1 of 2) 1: shelter or protection from danger or distress 2: a place that provides shelter or protection 3: something to which one has recourse in difficulty verb ref​uged; ref​ug​ing Collegiate Definition (Entry 2 of 2) transitive ​verb : to give refuge to intransitive ​verb : to seek or take refuge The two are not inextricably linked. They simply have some overlap. From here out, please try to only argue with things I've actually said. I'm getting sick of your strawmen - they look nothing like me.
    1
  3693. 1
  3694. 1
  3695. 1
  3696. 1
  3697. 1
  3698. 1
  3699. 1
  3700. 1
  3701. 1
  3702. 1
  3703. 1
  3704. 1
  3705. 1
  3706. 1
  3707. 1
  3708. 1
  3709. 1
  3710. 1
  3711. 1
  3712. 1
  3713. 1
  3714. 1
  3715. 1
  3716. 1
  3717. 1
  3718. 1
  3719. 1
  3720. 1
  3721. 1
  3722. 1
  3723. 1
  3724. 1
  3725. 1
  3726. 1
  3727. 1
  3728. 1
  3729. 1
  3730. 1
  3731. 1
  3732. 1
  3733. 1
  3734. 1
  3735. 1
  3736. 1
  3737. 1
  3738. 1
  3739. 1
  3740. 1
  3741. 1
  3742. 1
  3743. 1
  3744. 1
  3745. 1
  3746. 1
  3747. 1
  3748. 1
  3749. 1
  3750. 1
  3751. 1
  3752. 1
  3753. 1
  3754. 1
  3755. 1
  3756. 1
  3757. 1
  3758. 1
  3759. 1
  3760. 1
  3761. 1
  3762. 1
  3763. Narc 1820 You keep using the word segregation. I do not think it means what you think it means. Either that or you actually believe that Chinatown, Little Italy, Spanish Harlem, the Bronx, etc are all there because the government mandated that the races are not allowed to live in the same neighborhoods. Tribalism is not segregation. Segregation is a system of forced separation. Go to New York and apply for an apartment in any of those neighborhoods and you'll get it (barring any credit or employment issues). There's no racial prerequisite to live in any of them. As for your IP argument, you're still off base and I'm assuming it's due to a level of victim mentality. You claim white people have decided that "oppressed minority culture" is fair use (implying that dominant majority culture is not). Okay, I'll bite. There have been several prominent black Country singers. There have been thousands of black football, basketball and baseball players. All of these fields were born of white culture. How many of these athletes and performers have been sued for cultural appropriation? After all, if what you're saying is true then only white people are allowed to engage in cultural appropriation, right? Why would any majority - as evil as you're implying whites to be - allow minorities to just come in and take what they want from their culture? That doesn't sound very dictatorial to me? No. Culture is an ever-changing thing that is greatly affected by any and all other cultures with which it interacts. Modern American "Black culture" could not exist without modern American "White culture" and vice versa. Why? Because they are intertwined in a million different ways each and every day. So much so that nobody is capable of drawing clear lines between them. I would invite you to make a big pot of beef stew some time and then try to get the beef flavor out of the carrots and the carrot flavor out of the potatoes. It would be easier than separating Black and White culture, that's for sure. Why? Because it's all American culture. Like it or not, we all share in each other's cultures every day. If that bothers you, that's really too bad. The vast majority of us live peacefully with each other, sharing our cultures happily. We all bring our own unique dishes to the potluck and we don't label the food based on which race is allowed to eat it. We share as much as we want with whoever we want and we don't ask for DNA tests first. Those of you who try to draw hard lines between Black, White, Brown, etc, are largely ignored in every day life. Unfortunately, the media likes to shine a spotlight on you for ratings but most of the rest of us dismiss you as extremists and continue on with our lives. Not that your opinion doesn't matter as much as the next person's. It's just that it's completely counterproductive. Never in the history of the world have people been brought together by focusing on their differences. The negativity of people who insist on trying to keep some kind of karmic scorecard, only serves to create more division. "Well, your great grandpa may or may not have done X, so you're guilty by nature of your skin color!" That's a racist sentiment. Racism breeds racism. When the majority of people on all sides realize this, we can move forward. Until then, it's pointless YouTube conversations for everyone! Yay!
    1
  3764. 1
  3765. 1
  3766.  @chrismagnussen4304  Okay, so where are all of the Omicron deaths and severe cases? We've been told how fast this variant moves. There should be deaths by now. South Africa should be swimming in bodies, having had their hospitals overrun by Omicron patients that they can't keep up with. Where are they? The media is so desperate to show us that Omicron is lethal, that they grabbed the first death of someone with Omicron in the UK and claimed they died from Omicron. Of course, when people tried to follow up, that got swept under the rug really quickly. Omicron is "so dangerous" that nobody is dying and almost nobody is getting severely ill from it. As for any talk about vaccines helping: 60% of the US is vaccinated. 80% of Omicron cases in the US are vaccinated. There has been no correlation between vaccine status and severity of symptoms from Omicron in the US. Some quick math will tell you that A) Getting the vaccine won't help you survive or have reduced symptoms from Omicron and B) Getting vaccinated won't help you keep from getting Omicron. In fact, by the numbers, the vaccine seems to be making people more susceptible to Omicron - not that it matters, since it's most likely not going to kill you or do any lasting damage. Omicron is our way out of this. The pharmaceutical companies - that have been working really hard to get us on a regimen of taking their vaccine every fiscal quarter - are nervous about this. Show me a doctor and I'll show you someone who loves money. Pharmaceutical companies have lots of money. If this guy doesn't have a severely inflated bank account after this interview, I'll eat my hat.
    1
  3767. 1
  3768. 1
  3769. 1
  3770. 1
  3771. 1
  3772. 1
  3773. 1
  3774. 1
  3775. 1
  3776. 1
  3777. 1
  3778. 1
  3779. 1
  3780. 1
  3781. 1
  3782. 1
  3783. 1
  3784. 1
  3785. 1
  3786. 1
  3787. 1
  3788. 1
  3789. 1
  3790. 1
  3791. 1
  3792. 1
  3793. 1
  3794. 1
  3795. 1
  3796. 1
  3797. 1
  3798. A relative handful of rich slave owners want to fight to keep their slaves. They don't have the numbers. They start a campaign, telling all of the poor people around them that the Federal government wants to come in and take away more of their freedom and independence. That they should form a new Country with more freedom. Poor people line up with whatever arms they can muster, to fight for the freedom they feel is threatened. Generations later, the descendants of the poor who fought that war defend their ancestors as having fought for independence. The main thing that separates the Revolutionary War from the Civil War in the hearts and minds of the masses, is that keeping slavery wasn't a primary concern for the slave owners who started the Revolutionary War. The Southerners who defend the Confederacy tend not to be the descendants of rich slave owners. They're the descendants of poor people who got sold a bill of goods. Southerners are a proud people. They're not going to throw great-great-grandaddy under the bus just because some Northerners want to attribute the motives of a handful of greedy, rich, slave owners, to him. No, sir. That simply will not stand. To their mind, great-great-grandaddy was a good, hard-working, salt-of-the-earth, Southerner. He fought for Southern independence, and no amount of commentary from a bunch of rich Northerners is going to change their mind on the subject. This is the core of why there is still animosity over this subject, today. It is only made worse by the glib remarks about Southerners just being a bunch of racists for not denouncing the Confederacy. Someone else mentioned that the South is an honor society. That's true. They're not going to denounce their family over the opinions of strangers.
    1
  3799. 1
  3800. 1
  3801. 1
  3802. 1
  3803. 1
  3804. 1
  3805. 1
  3806. 1
  3807. 1
  3808. 1
  3809. 1
  3810. 1
  3811. 1
  3812. 1
  3813. 1
  3814. 1
  3815. 1
  3816. 1
  3817. 1
  3818. 1
  3819. 1
  3820. 1
  3821. 1
  3822. 1
  3823. 1
  3824. 1
  3825. 1
  3826.  @timogul  A) My point is that relying on the idea that others will protect you is naive. That the ability for people to take up arms in defense of themselves and their home is fundamental to the very right to live. B) I'm fully aware of the second amendment of the Constitution. The "well regulated" portion refers to the militia - not the gun ownership - and in the common definition of the time, meant properly functioning, not heavily restricted. C) That Constitution you referred to was written by those who never wanted the government to have a standing army. The fact that the US military is the largest in the world goes against the founding principles of the Country. The people were only ever to be called to service during a time of war. Perhaps that's why the government has made sure to stick its nose in every conflict they could find; to keep people from thinking about that fact too hard. I mean, if the US is surrounded by enemies, it becomes unreasonable to tell the government to disband their military until the next war. D) US civilian gun ownership is not the detriment. US socioeconomic strife is the number one cause of gun violence (drug/gang/poverty related crime). Depression is the next in line (suicide). Significantly reducing just those two factors would leave the US with roughly 600,000,000 civilian guns and a violent crime rate similar to Canada, the UK, Australia, etc. Unfortunately, those in control of the most populous cities (those with the highest poverty, depression, drug abuse, and gang presence) seem to be bent on keeping things exactly the way they are. I guess it's easier to write more gun laws, than it is to better the lives of those who are suffering to the point of feeling the need to turn to violence...
    1
  3827. 1
  3828. 1
  3829. 1
  3830. 1
  3831. 1
  3832. 1
  3833. 1
  3834. 1
  3835. 1
  3836. 1
  3837. 1
  3838. 1
  3839. 1
  3840. 1
  3841. 1
  3842. 1
  3843. 1
  3844. 1
  3845. 1
  3846. 1
  3847. 1
  3848. 1
  3849. 1
  3850. 1
  3851. 1
  3852. 1
  3853. 1
  3854. 1
  3855. 1
  3856. 1
  3857. 1
  3858. 1
  3859. 1
  3860. 1
  3861. 1
  3862. 1
  3863. 1
  3864. 1
  3865. 1
  3866. 1
  3867. 1
  3868. 1
  3869. 1
  3870. 1
  3871. 1
  3872. 1
  3873. 1
  3874. 1
  3875. 1
  3876. 1
  3877. 1
  3878. 1
  3879. 1
  3880. 1
  3881. 1
  3882. 1
  3883. 1
  3884. 1
  3885. 1
  3886. 1
  3887. 1
  3888. 1
  3889. 1
  3890. 1
  3891. 1
  3892. 1
  3893. 1
  3894. 1
  3895. 1
  3896. 1
  3897. 1
  3898. 1
  3899. 1
  3900. 1
  3901. 1
  3902. 1
  3903. 1
  3904. 1
  3905. 1
  3906. 1
  3907. 1
  3908. 1
  3909. 1
  3910. 1
  3911. 1
  3912. 1
  3913. 1
  3914. 1
  3915. 1
  3916. 1
  3917. 1
  3918. 1
  3919. 1
  3920. 1
  3921. 1
  3922. 1
  3923. 1
  3924. 1
  3925. 1
  3926. 1
  3927. 1
  3928. 1
  3929. 1
  3930. 1
  3931. 1
  3932. 1
  3933. 1
  3934. 1
  3935. 1
  3936. 1
  3937. 1
  3938. 1
  3939. 1
  3940. 1
  3941. 1
  3942. 1
  3943. 1
  3944. 1
  3945. 1
  3946. 1
  3947. 1
  3948. 1
  3949. 1
  3950. 1
  3951. 1
  3952. 1
  3953. 1
  3954. 1
  3955. 1
  3956. 1
  3957. 1
  3958. 1
  3959. 1
  3960. 1
  3961. 1
  3962. 1
  3963. 1
  3964. 1
  3965. 1
  3966. 1
  3967. 1
  3968. 1
  3969. 1
  3970. 1
  3971. 1
  3972. 1
  3973. 1
  3974. 1
  3975. 1
  3976. 1
  3977. 1
  3978. 1
  3979. 1
  3980. 1
  3981. 1
  3982. 1
  3983. 1
  3984. 1
  3985. 1
  3986. 1
  3987. 1
  3988. 1
  3989. 1
  3990. 1
  3991. 1
  3992. 1
  3993. 1
  3994. 1
  3995. 1
  3996. 1
  3997. 1
  3998. 1
  3999. 1
  4000. 1
  4001. 1
  4002. 1
  4003. 1
  4004. 1
  4005. 1
  4006. 1
  4007. 1
  4008. 1
  4009. 1
  4010. 1
  4011. 1
  4012. 1
  4013. 1
  4014. 1
  4015. 1
  4016. 1
  4017. 1
  4018. 1
  4019. 1
  4020. 1
  4021. 1
  4022. 1
  4023. 1
  4024. 1
  4025. 1
  4026. 1
  4027. 1
  4028. 1
  4029. 1
  4030. 1
  4031. 1
  4032. 1
  4033. 1
  4034. 1
  4035. 1
  4036. 1
  4037. 1
  4038. 1
  4039. 1
  4040. 1
  4041.  @douglaslangley9251  Congratulations, that was a terrible argument. A. You do, in fact, have the right to free association. That means that in your personal life, you may associate (or not) with anyone you choose, for any reason. Whether or not you find that distasteful is irrelevant. B. At no point did he refuse to associate with this reporter. He asked that she bring a male along with her on the 16 hour trip, so they would not be alone. In that case, neither one would have to worry about "he said, she said" if something happened. If a woman asked for a third party to be there to ensure nothing happened to her, that would be a completely acceptable request and nobody would bat an eye. C. Arguing against a simple request to have a witness along is like arguing against police and citizens using cameras during their interactions, to protect them from false allegations or abuse. Would you be just as upset if he insisted on them having cameras record the entire trip? D. Given how hard this reporter is pushing to turn this into a major issue, I'd say he was 100% correct in his desire to protect himself. She was given one, simple request in order to monopolize 16 hours of his time and rather than either agreeing or refusing, she wants to drag him over the coals on national TV for it. I can't even imagine what she would come up with after 16 hours alone with him. Be mad if you want but it doesn't change anything. He had every right to ask for a witness and her behavior after the fact proves he was right to do so, in her case. She wasn't denied anything but when given the choice, she chose to play the part of the victim instead of playing the part of the journalist. You can thank people like her for creating the atmosphere in which more men feel like they need to protect themselves from mudslinging. Especially men with a lot to lose.
    1
  4042. 1
  4043. 1
  4044. 1
  4045. 1
  4046. 1
  4047. 1
  4048. 1
  4049. 1
  4050. 1
  4051. 1
  4052. 1
  4053. 1
  4054. 1
  4055. 1
  4056. 1
  4057. 1
  4058. 1
  4059. 1
  4060. 1
  4061. 1
  4062. 1
  4063. 1
  4064. 1
  4065. 1
  4066. 1
  4067. 1
  4068. 1
  4069. 1
  4070. 1
  4071. 1
  4072. 1
  4073. 1
  4074. 1
  4075. 1
  4076. 1
  4077. 1
  4078. 1
  4079. 1
  4080. 1
  4081. 1
  4082. 1
  4083. 1
  4084. 1
  4085. 1
  4086. 1
  4087. 1
  4088. 1
  4089. 1
  4090. 1
  4091. 1
  4092. 1
  4093. 1
  4094. 1
  4095. 1
  4096. 1
  4097. 1
  4098. 1
  4099. 1
  4100. 1
  4101. 1
  4102. 1
  4103. 1
  4104. 1
  4105. 1
  4106. 1
  4107. 1
  4108. @lucky leprechaun A) I'm sorry that you don't like analogies, or understand how they work. B) Suicide should definitely be legal. People should have the right to take their own life. They should not have the right to take someone else's life. C) Why do Feminists pretend to be intersectional and then, as soon as abortion comes up, completely disregard all of the men who can get pregnant? You're either a trans ally or you're not. D) By your reasoning, "men" (by your definition of the word) should have no say in education, school shootings, child care, or anything else having to do with children. Perhaps we should use your own reasoning further. Since most "women" who have abortions have never had a child prior, your reasoning dictates that they shouldn't have a say in abortion (or anything else pertaining to children,) either. After all, they don't have any more firsthand knowledge of pregnancy or childbirth than the average "man," right? Oops. E) You're wrong. Men are restricted by the same laws as women. The difference is that most men don't have a choice to have a child, with the exception of trans-men (though, that term is really just a way to differentiate men with a uterus from those without). You're claiming some kind of victim status when you're the one with options. Even if this decision goes through and the laws get punted back to the States, you're still going to have the choice because most politicians know it's political suicide to ban abortions in 2022. Most men still won't have a choice. If they want kids, they have to hope to some day find someone with whom they can. Then, they have to hope that person doesn't abort their child and that they don't try to claim full custody. Meanwhile, all you have to do to have a kid is claim you're on the pill. All you have to do to avoid having a kid (or an abortion) is to actually be on said pill. We both know who has the real power in all of this.
    1
  4109. 1
  4110. 1
  4111. 1
  4112. 1
  4113. 1
  4114. 1
  4115. 1
  4116. 1
  4117. 1
  4118. 1
  4119. 1
  4120. 1
  4121. 1
  4122. 1
  4123. 1
  4124. 1
  4125. 1
  4126. 1
  4127. 1
  4128. 1
  4129. 1
  4130. 1
  4131. 1
  4132. 1
  4133. @Rocky Mountain Way Wow, okay. We'll do this. "Return YouTube Dislike" was the best of the three for the most part. "Dislikes for YouTube" was the one working best on the last day they functioned (yesterday) before YouTube made some background changes that broke all three. It was no surprise that they were going to stop working at some point yesterday, as they advertised as much in their descriptions, at one point or another. Don't worry, though. They're actively working on trying to get around the new coding, so that those who choose to can again see the dislike count. As for your claims about them only restoring dislikes to older videos, that was only true for about five minutes (not literally, so don't be stupid) before the better two (named above) received updates. At that point, all videos showed current dislike counts, no matter how old. Of course, you likely read a half-assed article on some crappy tech site about them - back when they first hit the Web Store - so I'm sure you know more about it than someone who was actually using them for the past week... I do like how you tried to skew the argument by asking about which one is "currently" working...after the cutoff point when they stopped working. I'm sure I was supposed to know less about it than you and as such, panic when I "found out" they weren't working any more. Oops, sorry. I guess I spoiled that one. The funny thing is, with as hostile as you are about this, I have to assume you've got skin in the game. Are you one of the useless idiots at YouTube who came up with the terrible idea of getting rid of dislikes? Or are you one of the terrible content creators who benefit from it? If the latter, you know it's not going to stop you from seeing your dislikes, right? You'll still know you suck. EDIT: And just like that, "Dislikes For YouTube" is already back to working properly. Proper tallies for all videos, new and old. I just thought I'd share, since you're so concerned about it.
    1
  4134. 1
  4135. 1
  4136. 1
  4137. 1
  4138. 1
  4139. 1
  4140. 1
  4141. 1
  4142. 1
  4143. 1
  4144. 1
  4145. 1
  4146. 1
  4147. 1
  4148. 1
  4149. 1
  4150. 1
  4151. 1
  4152. 1
  4153. 1
  4154. 1
  4155. 1
  4156. 1
  4157. 1
  4158. 1
  4159. 1
  4160. 1
  4161. 1
  4162. 1
  4163. 1
  4164. 1
  4165.  @Yuuzas_Ei  I didn't say there were billions. I said there were nearly half a billion. Roughly 450 million by last count. Why are you embellishing an already high number? But to answer your question, it's because guns are durable goods - not disposable, and Americans buy what other countries might considsr to be a lot of guns. It's actually not hard to get to this number. If you're a multi-generational American, it's almost a certainty that you come from previous generations who had guns. When taken care of, guns last indefinitely. So, you get family heirloom guns that may have been your father's, grandfather's, great-grandfather's, etc. You grew up shooting those guns and you like them but you also want something smaller, like a handgun. Also, there's this new turkey shotgun you've been drooling over. Not to mention the deer rifle you've had since your dad first took you hunting. That's at least five guns right there, and you're not even an avid shooter. Then there's that carbine you've been wanting aince your buddy let you shoot his at the range last month. Then, of course there's your trusty .22, that has taken out many a varmint and is the cheapest way to spend time at the range. We're up to at least seven now, and you're still just a hobbyist. There are over 130,000,000 lawful gun owners in the US. It's actually shocking that there are only 450,000,000 guns in circulation. Reduce everyone to just one gun and that's still 130,000,000 legally owned firearms. Those numbers don't include all the ones the criminals have.
    1
  4166. 1
  4167. 1
  4168. 1
  4169. 1
  4170. 1
  4171. 1
  4172. 1
  4173. 1
  4174. 1
  4175. 1
  4176. 1
  4177. 1
  4178. 1
  4179. 1
  4180. 1
  4181. 1
  4182. 1
  4183. 1
  4184. 1
  4185. 1
  4186. 1
  4187. 1
  4188. 1
  4189. 1
  4190. 1
  4191. 1
  4192. 1
  4193. 1
  4194. 1
  4195. 1
  4196. 1
  4197. 1
  4198. 1
  4199. 1
  4200. 1
  4201. 1
  4202. 1
  4203. 1
  4204. 1
  4205. 1
  4206. 1
  4207. 1
  4208. 1
  4209. 1
  4210. 1
  4211. 1
  4212. 1
  4213. 1
  4214. Your implication seems to be that one must care about all life equally in order to be "Pro-Life." I would argue that is untrue. For instance, I feel that a person's life is valuable. I care about that life insofar as I feel they have a right to live their life. However, if said person does something directly opposed to maintaining their life, that does decrease its value in my eyes, as it clearly does not mean that much to them (and since one's own life should matter most to one's self, I have no reason to hold it in higher esteem). Non-human lives hold varying degrees of value to me. Granted, all living things presumably care about their own existence. I just don't happen to hold them on the same plane as human life. I consider that fair, since most species on earth hold their own species' existence higher than that of other species. I have empathy for lesser lives, in that I don't believe in torture or inhumanity of lesser creatures, if it can reduced or avoided. Yes, I do eat meat and feel that it is necessary. Yes, I do prefer to eat meat I have harvested myself from wild game. Why? Because I feel that a good life followed by a quick death is better than a miserable life followed by any type of death. Furthermore, I have yet to have anyone explain to me how a well placed bullet is somehow a worse death than disease, starvation, or being torn apart by coyotes (which are the leading causes of death in most game animals). Now, on to the issue at hand: Abortion. The way I see it, at some point between fertilization and birth, an egg becomes a person. We quibble back and forth about when that being becomes a being, mainly because there is not a definitive answer. Oh, people claim to know the answer but really, they're going with the opinion that best fits their position. There is no scientific consensus on the beginning of life. There really isn't even consensus on viability, since that is a moving target. As technology gets better, viability becomes possible earlier. There is no easy answer to when a person becomes a person. That leads to my philosophy on the subject (which is just one more voice in a sea of voices, all shouting out on the subject). If a person's life is valuable (which, I feel it is) and we can't determine when that life begins, then we simply shouldn't...for now. Why risk making the mistake of ending human life when we don't have to? Why not allow them to become people, with their own will, who can then determine for themselves the value of their lives? Why not give them the choice? Their mother and father had choices? They had four of them: Abstinence, contraception, adoption, and parenthood. Are four choices not enough for the 99%+ who are having abortions after consensual sex with non-family members? Why do they get five and the other person involved doesn't get any? That seems incredibly imbalanced to me. Now, if at some point down the road, they come up with the answer to when life begins, we could definitely revisit the subject. In fact, at that point, I would happily back legislation that allows abortions before the point of life. I believe that all rights belong to the people, except in the case that said rights interfere with those of others (the "Your right to swing your arm ends where my face begins" philosophy). The problem here is that with abortions, they're indiscriminately swinging their arms and not even concerning themselves with whether they're hitting someone else's face. Sorry for the lengthy reply but I felt your comment deserved a thoughtful response.
    1
  4215.  @axiomhi8549  My only thought is that I feel like I've seen a different cross-section of pro-lifers than you have. I would say that all encompass some of the ideals you mentioned but that very few encompass all of them. I would also contend that many wouldn't see their positions on those subjects to be anti-life (for lack of a better word). The real disconnect occurs when you get to the root of the two, competing philosophies. Those of whom you speak are largely in the camp of individualism, whereas those opposed are typically collectivists. A collectivist feels everyone is everyone's responsibility. An individualist feels that everyone is responsible for themselves. When two positions are diametrically opposed, there is no way for them to find common ground, really. The collectivists will always feel that individualists are wrong for not wanting to be made to pay for others. Individualists will always think collectivists are wrong for wanting to force them to pay for others. More people need to realize this fundamental difference and more importantly, not dismiss the other out of hand. Neither is an objectively incorrect philosophy. They are two different ways of looking at the world. The vast majority of people don't even fit completely into the two. Most people believe in some collectivist structure and some individual freedom. The amount of each varies greatly from person to person but most people lean at least a touch more towards one. Understanding is our only way forward. We've tried the whole "picking teams" nonsense and it has gotten us nowhere. We're more divided than ever before. If we keep this up, it's not going to matter who is pro-this or pro-that, because we're going to be killing each other in the streets. Just my $0.02.
    1
  4216. 1
  4217. 1
  4218. 1
  4219. 1
  4220. 1
  4221. 1
  4222. 1
  4223. 1
  4224. 1
  4225. 1
  4226. 1
  4227. 1
  4228. 1
  4229. 1
  4230. 1
  4231. 1
  4232. 1
  4233. 1
  4234. 1
  4235. 1
  4236. 1
  4237. 1
  4238. 1
  4239. 1
  4240. 1
  4241. 1
  4242. 1
  4243. 1
  4244. 1
  4245. 1
  4246. 1
  4247. 1
  4248. 1
  4249. 1
  4250. 1
  4251. 1
  4252. 1
  4253. 1
  4254. 1
  4255. 1
  4256. 1
  4257. 1
  4258. 1
  4259. 1
  4260. 1
  4261. 1
  4262. 1
  4263. 1
  4264. 1
  4265. 1
  4266. 1
  4267. 1
  4268. 1
  4269. 1
  4270. 1
  4271. 1
  4272. 1
  4273. 1
  4274. 1
  4275. 1
  4276. 1
  4277. 1
  4278. 1
  4279. 1
  4280. 1
  4281. 1
  4282. 1
  4283. 1
  4284. 1
  4285. 1
  4286. 1
  4287. 1
  4288. 1
  4289. 1
  4290. 1
  4291. 1
  4292. 1
  4293. 1
  4294. 1
  4295. 1
  4296. 1
  4297. 1
  4298. 1
  4299. 1
  4300. 1
  4301. 1
  4302. 1
  4303. 1
  4304. 1
  4305. 1
  4306. 1
  4307. 1
  4308. 1
  4309. 1
  4310. 1
  4311. 1
  4312. 1
  4313. 1
  4314. 1
  4315. 1
  4316. 1
  4317. 1
  4318. 1
  4319. 1
  4320. 1
  4321. 1
  4322. 1
  4323. 1
  4324. 1
  4325. 1
  4326. 1
  4327. 1
  4328. 1
  4329. 1
  4330. 1
  4331. 1
  4332. 1
  4333. 1
  4334. 1
  4335. 1
  4336. 1
  4337. 1
  4338. 1
  4339. 1
  4340. 1
  4341. 1
  4342. 1
  4343. 1
  4344. 1
  4345. 1
  4346. 1
  4347. 1
  4348. 1
  4349. 1
  4350. 1
  4351. 1
  4352. 1
  4353. 1
  4354. 1
  4355. 1
  4356. 1
  4357. 1
  4358. 1
  4359. 1
  4360. 1
  4361. 1
  4362. 1
  4363. 1
  4364. 1
  4365. 1
  4366. 1
  4367. 1
  4368. 1
  4369. 1
  4370. 1
  4371. 1
  4372. 1
  4373. 1
  4374. 1
  4375. 1
  4376. 1
  4377. 1
  4378. 1
  4379. 1
  4380. 1
  4381. 1
  4382. 1
  4383. 1
  4384. 1
  4385. 1
  4386. 1
  4387. 1
  4388. 1
  4389. 1
  4390. 1
  4391. 1
  4392. 1
  4393. 1
  4394. 1
  4395. 1
  4396. 1
  4397. 1
  4398. 1
  4399. 1
  4400. 1
  4401. 1
  4402. 1
  4403. 1
  4404. 1
  4405. 1
  4406. 1
  4407. 1
  4408. 1
  4409. 1
  4410. 1
  4411. 1
  4412. 1
  4413. 1
  4414. 1
  4415. 1
  4416. 1
  4417. 1
  4418. 1
  4419. 1
  4420. 1
  4421. 1
  4422. 1
  4423. 1
  4424. 1
  4425. 1
  4426. 1
  4427. 1
  4428. 1
  4429. 1
  4430. 1
  4431. 1
  4432. 1
  4433. 1
  4434. 1
  4435. 1
  4436. 1
  4437. 1
  4438. 1
  4439. 1
  4440. 1
  4441. 1
  4442. 1
  4443. 1
  4444. 1
  4445. 1
  4446. 1
  4447. 1
  4448. 1
  4449. 1
  4450. 1
  4451. 1
  4452. 1
  4453. 1
  4454. 1
  4455. 1
  4456. 1
  4457. 1
  4458. 1
  4459. 1
  4460. 1
  4461. 1
  4462. 1
  4463. 1
  4464. 1
  4465. 1
  4466. 1
  4467. 1
  4468. 1
  4469. 1
  4470. 1
  4471. 1
  4472. 1
  4473. 1
  4474. 1
  4475. 1
  4476. 1
  4477. 1
  4478. 1
  4479. 1
  4480. 1
  4481. 1
  4482. 1
  4483. 1
  4484. 1
  4485. 1
  4486. 1
  4487. 1
  4488. 1
  4489. 1
  4490. 1
  4491. 1
  4492. 1
  4493. 1
  4494. 1
  4495. 1
  4496. 1
  4497. 1
  4498. 1
  4499. 1
  4500. 1
  4501. 1
  4502. 1
  4503. 1
  4504. 1
  4505. 1
  4506. 1
  4507. 1
  4508. 1
  4509. 1
  4510. 1
  4511. 1
  4512. 1
  4513. 1
  4514. 1
  4515. 1
  4516. 1
  4517. 1
  4518. 1
  4519. 1
  4520. 1
  4521. 1
  4522. 1
  4523. 1
  4524. 1
  4525.  @allendean9807  Okay, I'm genuinely trying to understand your position. You're saying: - A fetus is not a life, so doesn't have rights. - A mother is a life, so does have rights. - A mother has to carry the burden of either raising or putting a child up for adoption, so she is the only one whose opinion matters. - It's not okay to limit a woman's "right" to an abortion for the sake of the fetus. - We don't have the proper systems in place to care for unwanted children. - People who are pro-life are unilaterally opposed to said systems (even though the last March for Life rally had a fair share of Liberals and Progressives in attendance on the pro-life side). - If said systems were in place, it would then be okay to violate a woman's "right" to an abortion because the kids would have easier lives than under present circumstances. I highlighted the two important bits. Abortion is either a right or it's not. Talking about accommodations as though they are the deciding factor as to what the government does and does not have the authority to control is a flawed argument. Either a woman always has the right to abort a child, or it's merely a medical treatment that can be regulated by the government. It simply cannot be both. Personally, I tend to err on the side of caution. Let me explain: - In more than 99% of cases, women seeking abortions have already had choices they made. Those choices lead to pregnancy because at the end of the day, there is only one natural act that can lead to that result. Cause and effect are pretty straightforward in this matter and Sex Ed starts in middle school for most people. It's an informed decision. - A debate on when something is a fetus, a baby, a toddler, etc is unnecessary. It's a life from the time it starts developing and it's a human because humans don't sometimes create penguins or toaster ovens in their wombs. So, it's a human life. - If someone knowingly chooses the one act that creates a human life and then said act is successful, nobody should be shocked or upset about that. - If a human life matters at all, the circumstances of its upbringing are secondary to its fundamental right to life, itself. Yes, it's good to take care of those in need. Yes, we should definitely be doing better. No, that doesn't mean that anyone who is to be born into bad circumstances should have their life forfeited, "just in case" they might have a hard life. Plenty of people have started out at the bottom. The vast majority don't kill themselves. I take that to mean they'd rather be alive - regardless of how their mother may have felt about them.
    1
  4526. 1
  4527. 1
  4528. 1
  4529. 1
  4530. 1
  4531. 1
  4532. 1
  4533. 1
  4534. 1
  4535. 1
  4536. 1
  4537. 1
  4538. 1
  4539. 1
  4540. 1
  4541. 1
  4542. 1
  4543. 1
  4544. 1
  4545. 1
  4546. 1
  4547. 1
  4548. 1
  4549. 1
  4550. 1
  4551. 1
  4552. 1
  4553. 1
  4554. 1
  4555. 1
  4556. 1
  4557. 1
  4558. 1
  4559. 1
  4560. 1
  4561. 1
  4562. 1
  4563. 1
  4564. 1
  4565.  @coreysmayfield  Yes, all of the "low wage" restaurant workers in California, who make $14-$15/hour, right? Oh, that's right! This phenomenon is happening all over the US, regardless of the wage. Oops! And before you try it, I live in California and know for a fact that as long as you aren't living in a coastal city, that wage will give you an apartment, a car, groceries, utilities...the works. Plenty of opportunities to make a decent wage, yet greed is causing a whole lot of people to aim further than their reach. I'm watching it happen in real time. They'll be back to their previous jobs just as soon as the latest crop of college graduates come out looking for work. Employers will drop the 'placeholder' employees they've taken on and snatch up those with current degrees. Relatively few of those will be the mid-life employment crisis people you're talking about. Then, all the ones who are jumping on remote work - and proving that most people aren't capable of being productive from home - will cause employers to do away with most remote positions and being people back into the office. The ship will right itself and everything will go back to relatively normal. As for those working for themselves, that should be fun to watch. I have been doing so for over a decade. I watch new "competition" come and go, as most people simply can't manage it. Working for yourself means you're running a company by yourself. It's not easy and it doesn't pay dividends for several years (and that's if you're lucky). The vast majority wash out - which isn't surprising, given that most people can't even work productively from home for someone else. This isn't a "workers' revolution." It's just ripples in a pond, after a splash.
    1
  4566. 1
  4567. 1
  4568. 1
  4569. 1
  4570. 1
  4571. 1
  4572. 1
  4573. 1
  4574. 1
  4575. 1
  4576. 1
  4577. 1
  4578. 1
  4579. 1
  4580. 1
  4581. 1
  4582. 1
  4583. 1
  4584. 1
  4585. 1
  4586. 1
  4587. 1
  4588. 1
  4589.  @arthurmorgan3260  I get that. I just don't see what a "better" law would be that would effectively (and drastically) reduce gun crime and also preserve the rights of the people. Personally, I'd like to see better enforcement of current laws. Why would I expect new, "better" laws to be anything more than an inconvenience for myself and other gun owners when that's all the current laws are? I obey all firearms laws but if I didn't I would be able to get my hands on plenty of guns and I don't even live in a large city (where the majority of such problems exist). I'm in California, where even private firearms sales are supposed to go through an FFL and require a background check. Do you have any idea how few of them actually do? The laws in this State only affect those who have no intention of breaking them. Everyone else is still buying and selling "banned" guns to/from each other, as though the laws never existed in the first place. I can't even say I think they're wrong for doing so. The Constitution - as it is written - is very clear. So is the definition of the word "infringe." People can try to talk about altering the Constitution to limit the freedoms of Americans but that didn't go so well last time. The People refused to comply and that particular amendment had to be repealed. If you think prohibition was a bad time, imagine trying it with something that has been specifically enumerated as a natural right of the People. All that badness was just over booze. What we're talking about now is the real stuff. People will sacrifice their lives, en masse, to protect the second amendment. It would be a bloody war on American soil, with only American casualties. Laws can change with the times but trying to reduce people's rights will end in blood. Especially when we're talking about the one right that's meant to protect all of the others. Welcome to the paradox.
    1
  4590. 1
  4591. 1
  4592. 1
  4593. 1
  4594. 1
  4595. 1
  4596. 1
  4597. 1
  4598. 1
  4599. 1
  4600. 1
  4601. 1
  4602. 1
  4603. 1
  4604. 1
  4605. 1
  4606. 1
  4607. 1
  4608. 1
  4609. 1
  4610. 1
  4611. 1
  4612. 1
  4613. 1
  4614. 1
  4615. 1
  4616. 1
  4617. 1
  4618. 1
  4619. 1
  4620. 1
  4621. 1
  4622. 1
  4623. 1
  4624. 1
  4625. 1
  4626. 1
  4627. 1
  4628. 1
  4629. 1
  4630. 1
  4631. 1
  4632. 1
  4633. 1
  4634. 1
  4635. 1
  4636. 1
  4637. 1
  4638. 1
  4639. 1
  4640. 1
  4641. 1
  4642. 1
  4643. 1
  4644. 1
  4645. 1
  4646. 1
  4647. 1
  4648. 1
  4649. 1
  4650. 1
  4651. 1
  4652. 1
  4653. 1
  4654. 1
  4655. 1
  4656. 1
  4657. 1
  4658. 1
  4659. 1
  4660. 1
  4661. 1
  4662. 1
  4663. 1
  4664. 1
  4665. 1
  4666. 1
  4667. 1
  4668. 1
  4669. 1
  4670. 1
  4671. 1
  4672. 1
  4673. 1
  4674. 1
  4675. 1
  4676. 1
  4677. 1
  4678. 1
  4679. 1
  4680. 1
  4681. 1
  4682. 1
  4683. 1
  4684. 1
  4685. 1
  4686. 1
  4687. 1
  4688. 1
  4689. 1
  4690. 1
  4691. 1
  4692. 1
  4693. 1
  4694. 1
  4695. 1
  4696. 1
  4697. 1
  4698. 1
  4699. 1
  4700. 1
  4701. 1
  4702. 1
  4703. 1
  4704. 1
  4705. 1
  4706. 1
  4707. 1
  4708. 1
  4709. 1
  4710. 1
  4711. 1
  4712. 1
  4713. 1
  4714. 1
  4715. 1
  4716. 1
  4717. 1
  4718. 1
  4719. 1
  4720. Ashton Shephard Of course addiction itself is not a choice and I never made any claim implying such. Using known addictive substances is a choice. Continuing to use them to the point of addiction is a choice. Giving in to that addiction repeatedly, instead of persevering over it, is a choice. Huh, how about that? It's almost as though free will doesn't have to lead to being a slave to chemicals. In fact, free will necessitates not being a slave to anything. It's actually incredibly easy to not become addicted to substances. For instance, I'm not addicted to methamphetamines. The way I accomplished this was to choose not to use methamphetamines. That created an environment where I was at zero risk of becoming addicted. I know, it's a pretty radical concept but hopefully it will catch on. I keep hearing that each generation is a bit smarter than the last. Here's hoping the next generation will be smart enough to simply avoid the chemicals that everyone knows are addictive. You just took the conversation from being about the free choice to use drugs, to being controlled by them at the physical and psychological level. That's really not the position you want to argue from in a discussion about the legal use of drugs. There are already too many addictive products being consumed legally. Adding more is simply a bad idea. You help reinforce this fact by bringing up the fact that three separate fields of science agree that addiction is a serious problem, once it occurs. Prevention would definitely be the best policy. Thank you for bringing it up, you've been very helpful. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were trying to help me.
    1
  4721. 1
  4722. 1
  4723. 1
  4724. 1
  4725. 1
  4726. 1
  4727. 1
  4728. 1
  4729. 1
  4730. 1
  4731. 1
  4732. 1
  4733. 1
  4734. 1
  4735. 1
  4736. 1
  4737. 1
  4738. 1
  4739. 1
  4740. 1
  4741. 1
  4742. 1
  4743. 1
  4744. 1
  4745. 1
  4746. 1
  4747. 1
  4748. 1
  4749. 1
  4750. 1
  4751. 1
  4752. 1
  4753. 1
  4754. 1
  4755. 1
  4756. 1
  4757. 1
  4758. 1
  4759. 1
  4760. 1
  4761. 1
  4762. 1
  4763. 1
  4764. 1
  4765. 1
  4766. 1
  4767. 1
  4768. 1
  4769. 1
  4770. 1
  4771. 1
  4772. 1
  4773. 1
  4774. 1
  4775. 1
  4776. 1
  4777. 1
  4778. 1
  4779. 1
  4780. 1
  4781. 1
  4782. 1
  4783. 1
  4784. 1
  4785. 1
  4786. 1
  4787. 1
  4788. 1
  4789. 1
  4790. 1
  4791. 1
  4792. 1
  4793. 1
  4794. 1
  4795. 1
  4796. 1
  4797. 1
  4798. 1
  4799. 1
  4800. 1
  4801. 1
  4802. 1
  4803. 1
  4804. 1
  4805. 1
  4806. 1
  4807. 1
  4808. 1
  4809. 1
  4810. 1
  4811. 1
  4812. 1
  4813. 1
  4814. 1
  4815. 1
  4816. 1
  4817. 1
  4818. 1
  4819. 1
  4820. 1
  4821. 1
  4822. 1
  4823. 1
  4824. 1
  4825. 1
  4826. 1
  4827. 1
  4828. 1
  4829. 1
  4830. 1
  4831. 1