• Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2017 edited
    DreamTheater wrote
    Another horrible attack in the U.S. ISIS takes responsibility. I'm surprised it's not by a Muslim. But apparently he's a convert. sad


    um are you sure? this was a 64 year old white guy. no news on his religion.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorCaliburn
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2017
    And ISIS is claiming all attacks to be honest.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2017
    Isil is taking responsibility for a lot of things that aren't really isil at the end...let's wait and see.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
  1. Steven wrote
    DreamTheater wrote
    Another horrible attack in the U.S. ISIS takes responsibility. I'm surprised it's not by a Muslim. But apparently he's a convert. sad


    That doesn't make sense. A convert is a Muslim.


    I read the white, retired man converted to Islam religion a couple of months ago. So he could go on a killing spree. What a wonderful enlightened conversion the man has undergone. angry
    "considering I've seen an enormous debate here about The Amazing Spider-Man and the ones who love it, and the ones who hate it, I feel myself obliged to say: TASTE DIFFERS, DEAL WITH IT" - Thomas G.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2017 edited
    DreamTheater wrote

    I read the white, retired man converted to Islam religion a couple of months ago. So he could go on a killing spree. What a wonderful enlightened conversion the man has undergone. angry


    we have absolutely no evidence of that. ISIS has offered no evidence to support their assertions. I get that people want answers, but we have literally nothing to support that assertion. I'm gonna wait until more facts come in.

    Until then, well President Trump delivered a heartfelt, well-written, and mature speech; so I'm glad we don't have presidential immaturity to add on to this sad day.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2017
    Demetris wrote
    Isil is taking responsibility for a lot of things that aren't really isil at the end...let's wait and see.


    "Isil"?? Get it right D, it's IZAL
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
  2. Let's call them Daesh, shall we? It pisses the shit out of them.
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2017
    i prefer 'small dick pricks'
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
  3. Yes that would seem appropriate.
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
  4. DreamTheater wrote
    Another horrible attack in the U.S. ISIS takes responsibility. I'm surprised it's not by a Muslim. But apparently he's a convert. sad

    Where did you get that information from? I've not seen any credible sources saying that. And ISIS frequently takes responsibility for such events regardless of its truth.
    The views expressed in this post are entirely my own and do not reflect the opinions of maintitles.net, or for that matter, anyone else. http://www.racksandtags.com/falkirkbairn
  5. Demetris wrote
    i prefer 'small dick pricks'

    Yes, this seems to be a favourite 'catch all' explanation for such events.
    The views expressed in this post are entirely my own and do not reflect the opinions of maintitles.net, or for that matter, anyone else. http://www.racksandtags.com/falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2017
    CBS exec says she doesn't feel sorry for the victims because "country music fans often are Republican gun toters"

    it always amazes me how thoughtless people can be.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2017
    Yes, that's a pretty thoughtless thing to say. Not that she isn't right about country music fans and "Republican gun toters", but there's time and place for everything. This was certainly not it.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2017 edited
    There may be some unproven correlation between country music being popular in areas wherein people tend to vote republican, which is a group in which gun ownership tends to be more present than in more blue state areas, but even taken in consideration the wrong time and place, it's still a heartless thing to say. Whether you're pro or against gun ownership, I don't wish this unto anyone. The "don't feel sorry" part is downright horrible.

    Besides, let's not forget there are people with genuine reasons to own a gun - America knows a lot of difficult to reach areas by police, in which the self defense case is a more reasonable one, while they're also used to have that protection growing up and will feel incredibly vulnerable without it. It's a different way of thinking.

    I'm not pro by any means, and definitely think there should be in extreme improvement in registration and law, while stuff like silencers and anything other than a single shot gun should be illegal, but you should remain reasonable about it. As long as there are only the WE NEED TO KEEP IT ALL vs the ABOLISH EVERYTHING ABOUT IT camps, nothing will change, and a remark like this one above is among the reasons there are still so many guns in America.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2017
    You should be a psychopath to not feel sorry about this. Still, a country that has invested so many years in the gun loving porn culture, is now sadly paying the vastly sad, and mesmerising price. And it's been this sick way for years, it only gets bigger and sicker with the day though. And i don't buy the isis story either, at least yet and at least until some concrete connection of this lunatic with the isis comes up.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2017
    FalkirkBairn wrote
    Demetris wrote
    i prefer 'small dick pricks'

    Yes, this seems to be a favourite 'catch all' explanation for such events.


    Well they are angry at everyone and at the world and constantly dream of many virgins. Jee i wonder why wink
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2017 edited
    BobdH wrote
    There may be some unproven correlation between country music being popular in areas wherein people tend to vote republican, which is a group in which gun ownership tends to be more present than in more blue state areas, but even taken in consideration the wrong time and place, it's still a heartless thing to say. Whether you're pro or against gun ownership, I don't wish this unto anyone. The "don't feel sorry" part is downright horrible.

    Besides, let's not forget there are people with genuine reasons to own a gun - America knows a lot of difficult to reach areas by police, in which the self defense case is a more reasonable one, while they're also used to have that protection growing up and will feel incredibly vulnerable without it. It's a different way of thinking.

    I'm not pro by any means, and definitely think there should be in extreme improvement in registration and law, while stuff like silencers and anything other than a single shot gun should be illegal, but you should remain reasonable about it. As long as there are only the WE NEED TO KEEP IT ALL vs the ABOLISH EVERYTHING ABOUT IT camps, nothing will change, and a remark like this one above is among the reasons there are still so many guns in America.


    isn't this shooting is an example of why gun control is often ineffective? private citizens are not allowed to own the automatic weapon that was utilized in the shooting, but guess what...criminals don't follow gun laws.

    i'm interested in what gun control ideas would've stopped this attack, since gun control laws were already in place...and they failed. people have been saying, 'it should've been illegal for him to get that gun'. yeah, it was; it was also illegal to kill 58 people, but psychopathic terrorist criminals don't care about laws.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2017 edited
    Aidabaida wrote
    isn't this shooting is an example of why gun control is often ineffective? private citizens are not allowed to own the automatic weapon that was utilized in the shooting, but guess what...criminals don't follow gun laws.

    i'm interested in what gun control ideas would've stopped this attack, since gun control laws were already in place...and they failed. people have been saying, 'it should've been illegal for him to get that gun'. yeah, it was; it was also illegal to kill 58 people, but psychopathic terrorist criminals don't care about laws.


    Some gun control laws are in place, yes, but they are not enforced, or not nearly enough in order for them to be effective. Which renders the presence of them pretty much useless. It's still incredibly easy for a psychopath to get a gun in a multitude of American states. If you compare this with gun control in Europe, versus the relative low amounts of shootings, there's a strong correlation there.

    Plenty of European journalists have gone to America to report on the state of gun control enforcement, and each time the results of their investigations render them speechless - not just on the ease with which it's possible to get 'regular' guns, also the heavy, automatic ones. And they return to Europe with items that make our jaws drop - how do they not see their gun control enforcement is a joke?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2017 edited
    BobdH wrote And they return to Europe with items that make our jaws drop - how do they not see their gun control enforcement is a joke?


    because 98% of mass shootings occur in gun free zones?

    because for two centuries, the murder rate in New York has been higher than that in London, regardless of which had stronger gun control laws at the time?

    because gun crime went up 10% when England banned guns?

    "I grew up in the south with guns everywhere and we never shot anyone. This is about people who aren't taught the value of life." - Samuel L. Jackson.

    Like most things, these differences have, in my opinion, much more to do with culture than with laws. Europe has a very different attitude towards violence than the United States.

    If you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns. I know you're not for a total outlaw of guns, but I think the difference in violence has little to do with insufficient laws, and much more to do with cultural factors. The hard truth is that somebody who wants a gun for criminal purposes is probably going to get a gun, and the best thing to do is maybe not to disarm the innocent, law-abiding people.

    It's just a frustrating situation. Cities like Chicago have war-zone level crime rates, and the people there keep voting for higher and higher gun control, and guess what! The violence isn't ending. You don't get criminals to stop killing people by disarming the innocent.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2017 edited
    I'm anti-guns in every shape and form (I even have issues with guns for legal wildlife hunting, as I'm against hobby hunting in the first place), and relieved I live in a country where there are strict rules for this. That's not to say we're immune to crazy people doing terrible things with guns (the 2011 massacre in Oslo is still fresh in mind), but most of the gun-related violence is weeded away -- existing now only in fringe crime communities.

    We don't even have armed police (unless there are super special circumstances), and have been doing just fine.

    This seems to happen in the US every other week or so, and just because some fools decided to interpret the second amendment in a way that wasn't intended.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2017 edited
    First of all, there are statistics you can summon on either side of the argument to prove your point.

    But let's not shy away from the core of what I'm saying here:

    - Is gun control enforcement not so shockingly bad that psychopaths can have access to guns?
    - Shouldn't this enforcement be stronger to prevent them to have said guns?
    - Shouldn't you say as a country, people with mental disorders should not have access to guns?
    - Apparently, there are ways for them to get it?
    - Shouldn't we at least look into how we can prevent them from getting said access? This does not have to exclude other projects to prevent these things from happening.
    - Why do large groups of Americans get angry when a politician simply says, "mentally deranged people should not get access to guns", while the answer should be, "I may not be of the opinion that this is the core of our problem, but sure, this is a logical first step"?

    On the American attitude towards violence, sure, there's a difference, but how do you change that? Do you have this cultural difference in your own control? The answer to that is probably - no, you don't, and changing that is a lot more difficult than changing law, as it's a much longer process. So you should change what you can - the attitude of congress towards gun control. When politicians want silencers to be legal, they're just making it a lot easier for perpetrators to do their thing.

    The impossibly frustrating thing for us Europeans is to see such a surge of violence in the US, and then the US not doing anything, just shrugging, and saying, hey, it's just in our nature. But you can do at least this, and you saying, nah, probably not.

    It's not just frustrating for us, it's infuriating, and lives are lost over this.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2017
    Aidabaida wrote
    It's just a frustrating situation. Cities like Chicago have war-zone level crime rates, and the people there keep voting for higher and higher gun control, and guess what! The violence isn't ending. You don't get criminals to stop killing people by disarming the innocent.


    Sure, they keep voting for it, but that doesn't do anything in and of itself. You can't say if it helped, until politicians actually do anything with those votes. What are the actual laws that were passed? The changes? And were they enforced? There's the problem - the people demand change, but in actual effect, nothing changes.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2017
    Well let's give everyone guns and fuck the law, let them wipe each other out then in the streets, criminals vs innocent folks. American logic. And you have whitetrash lunatic rednecks like him today, from a rest home (!) into a hotel room with 10 military class riffles (!!) shooting people out of the window! Yes your system seems to be working flawlessly.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2017 edited
    Aidabaida wrote
    The hard truth is that somebody who wants a gun for criminal purposes is probably going to get a gun.


    No. It's not. Well, you might be right in organised crime, but they're not the ones doing shoot-outs like this. They operate more within the criminal circuit, with a clear relationship between perpetrator and victim. The ones that actually know what they're doing, where they get their merchandise, and need to be careful not to get in hands with the law.

    But this, we're talking about mentally ill people here. Simply deranged men. This is not a "criminal" or an "outlaw". He "didn't even have a parking ticket" (quoting his brother here). They know what they're doing and for what purpose. This, or Aurora before it, is just a senseless outburst of violence. In Europe, there's no way the people who do these things are able to get a gun.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2017 edited
    @BodBH: if you want to talk about mental illness and guns, that's fine, but I was more discussing broad gun control. But in terms of mental illness...

    First of all, lets remember we have no evidence the shooter in Las Vegas was mentally ill.

    Second of all, lets remember even a study from the left-wing Washington Post determined that, "people with mental illnesses are no more dangerous to others when they have equal access to guns."
    (article link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever … 6a5f4fe181
    study link: http://content.healthaffairs.org/conten … 1067.short)

    Nevertheless, I am for restraining guns from the severely mentally ill, with the caveat that I don't like the government deciding who is or is not mentally ill.

    I'm not a fan of Stefan Molyneux, but he has a point when he says, "If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very pro-gun; you just believe that only the Government should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions."

    There's really no such thing of being anti-gun, there is being anti citizens having gun and pro government having guns. if you trust your government that's fine, but only 20% of Americans do. (http://www.people-press.org/2017/05/03/ … 1958-2017/)

    In Europe, there's no way they're able to get a gun.


    Europe has small countries where a single law might be applied to the entire land. America's state system means that even in Chicago bans guns entirely, criminals could still get them from Indiana and bring them back. Any gun control law, to be effective, would need to be enormously wide, and America isn't going to be doing that any time soon. In other words, when Las Vegas and Chicago pass gun regulations, they are disarming innocent people, criminals aren't even getting their weapons there.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2017 edited
    Aidabaida wrote
    @BodBH: if you want to talk about mental illness and guns, that's fine, but I was more discussing broad gun control. But in terms of mental illness...

    First of all, lets remember we have no evidence the shooter in Las Vegas was mentally ill, and the gun he used was already illegal.

    Second of all, lets remember even a study from the left-wing Washington Post determined that, "people with mental illnesses are no more dangerous to others when they have equal access to guns."
    (article link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever … 6a5f4fe181
    study link: http://content.healthaffairs.org/conten … 1067.short)

    Nevertheless, I am for restraining guns from the severely mentally ill, with the caveat that I don't like the government deciding who is or is not mentally ill.

    I'm not a fan of Stefan Molyneux, but he has a point when he says, "If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very pro-gun; you just believe that only the Government should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions."

    There's really no such thing of being anti-gun, there is being anti citizens having gun and pro government having guns. if you trust your government that's fine, but only 20% of Americans do. (http://www.people-press.org/2017/05/03/ … 1958-2017/)

    In Europe, there's no way they're able to get a gun.


    Europe has small countries where a single law might be applied to the entire land. America's state system means that even in Chicago bans guns entirely, criminals could still get them from Indiana and bring them back. Any gun control law, to be effective, would need to be enormously wide, and America isn't going to be doing that any time soon. In other words, when Las Vegas and Chicago pass gun regulations, they are disarming innocent people, criminals aren't even getting their weapons there.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2017 edited
    Aidabaida wrote
    @BodBH: if you want to talk about mental illness and guns, that's fine, but I was more discussing broad gun control. But in terms of mental illness...

    First of all, lets remember we have no evidence the shooter in Las Vegas was mentally ill.


    That's right, I just heard his brother say on TV he didn't even had a parking ticket. Basically, it currently seems this was a law abiding citizen who somehow snapped? Something like this. No criminal, no outlaw, not somebody with any ties to criminal milieu. So how did he get that machine gun?

    Aidabaida wrote
    Second of all, lets remember even a study from the left-wing Washington Post determined that, "people with mental illnesses are no more dangerous to others when they have equal access to guns."
    (article link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever … 6a5f4fe181
    study link: http://content.healthaffairs.org/conten … 1067.short)


    I was aware of this study, but I doubt this logic with simple common sense using the following thought experiment.

    What would have happened if the same man who caused the Las Vegas shooting, had lived in the Netherlands? His mental condition and whatever reason that led up to the horrific acts he committed today are also identical. Either if he planned to do this for weeks, or the thought occurred to him this morning.

    He would have to get associated with a gun club. This club would first of all do some simple checks - does he have any kind of criminal record? Does he have any history of mental instability? In this case probably neither (as the first reports show), so he would then need to take shooting lessons for an extended period of time, before he'd even be allowed to take a gun home with him. This would only be able to be a small gun which holds a limited amount of bullets (btw, I know this because the boyfriend of my sister owns a gun, and he has to abide to some strict check-ups).

    This individual, he would need to plan this for years, under social surveillance of the whole community with who he'd be taking these shooting lessons and regular home check-ups from law enforcement. Would this then result in what happened today? I personally doubt it.

    Aidabaida wrote
    Nevertheless, I am for restraining guns from the severely mentally ill, with the caveat that I don't like the government deciding who is or is not mentally ill.

    I'm not a fan of Stefan Molyneux, but he has a point when he says, "If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very pro-gun; you just believe that only the Government should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions."

    There's really no such thing of being anti-gun, there is being anti citizens having gun and pro government having guns. if you trust your government that's fine, but only 20% of Americans do. (http://www.people-press.org/2017/05/03/ … 1958-2017/)


    If you ask me, there's some really crooked logic going on in that quote.

    If you want anyone to have access to guns, you want it to be those individuals who are highly trained to handle the guns, to deal with situations under high pressure and stress, who are abiding the law, and who are enforcing the law. I personally am against guns, but if I need anyone to have them, it's them. If the people do not trust them, that's a different problem entirely that needs to be fixed, but then still, it's them I trust more than the average Joe.

    Aidabaida wrote
    Europe has small countries where a single law might be applied to the entire land. America's state system means that even in Chicago bans guns entirely, criminals could still get them from Indiana and bring them back. Any gun control law, to be effective, would need to be enormously wide, and America isn't going to be doing that any time soon. In other words, when Las Vegas and Chicago pass gun regulations, they are disarming innocent people, criminals aren't even getting their weapons there.


    That's true - it would need to be a widespread thing. But if this is something that would really need to happen, then that should happen. Saying 'it cannot be done' is no argument. It's like gay marriage, that was also done on a large scale, and it was something people said would never happen, but thank God it did. Sure, this is a different matter, but the problem is that so many states are opposed to proper gun control. And that's a problem.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2017 edited
    BobdH wrote
    That's right, I just heard his brother say on TV he didn't even had a parking ticket. Basically, it currently seems this was a law abiding citizen who somehow snapped? Something like this. No criminal, no outlaw, not somebody with any ties to criminal milieu. So how did he get that machine gun?


    possibly he had the gun before the ban in 1986. possible he found it. either way, it wasn't legal.

    What would have happened if the same man who caused the Las Vegas shooting, had lived in the Netherlands?


    isn't this thought experiment a little pointless? The netherlands is so different from the United States (to start, the U.S. is 237 times larger and has 307 MILLION more people), that a comparison seems futile. No, this probably wouldn't have happened in the Netherlands, a much different country with a much different culture with much different variables, but that's slightly irrelevant... the netherlands gun policy might work for them, but it probably wouldn't work for a vastly different nation.

    If you want anyone to have access to guns, you want it to be those individuals who are highly trained to handle the guns, to deal with situations under high pressure and stress, who are abiding the law, and who are enforcing the law. I personally am against guns, but if I need anyone to have them, it's them. If the people do not trust them, that's a different problem entirely that needs to be fixed, but then still, it's them I trust more than the average Joe.


    but the police ARE your average Joe, albeit with more training. you don't become a better person just because you're a police officer. Don't get me wrong, I strongly support the police and respect them, but neither would I trust them to have all the guns.

    That's true - it would need to be a widespread thing. But if this is something that would really need to happen, then that should happen. Saying 'it cannot be done' is no argument. It's like gay marriage, that was also done on a large scale, and it was something people said would never happen, but thank God it did. Sure, this is a different matter, but the problem is that so many states are opposed to proper gun control. And that's a problem.

    well there's a big second amendment standing in the way of that. there's no constitutional law on gay marriage, there is constitutional law on guns. changing that would require an amendment to the constitution, and I do think it is a valid argument to point out, no, that's most likely not an option.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
  6. There is the concept of "monopoly of violence", when there is a certain "right to be violent" bestowed by the citizens (via the social contract) to the state to maintain safety. So yes, a police officer is allowed (via use of force and, especially use of deadly force regulations, which in the US are actually public for each and every local and state police department!)

    Therefore this trust is given to the government who uses law enforcement (the word choice can't be accidental here) agencies to maintain order. This gives the law enforcement "elite" the power and obligation to maintain security by identifying and eliminating (by any means necessary) threats.

    Now, the trust may be sometimes questioned and that's obvious. The whole Black Lives Matters situation is ome thing and the most shocking aspect of it is, really. You can download the police regulations. They're public domain acts, available at police department websites. I, myself, checked that out. That's part of the trust, isn't it? We do give you the right to use force (the "monopoly of violence"), but what allows the use of force (or deadly use of force as the term for shooting goes) is transparent and clear for those who do not have that privilege. The easiest test is to make sure that everything was done by the book. It's really that simple. Police officers are under huge scrutiny and due to recent events the pressure does get too high perhaps. But the law is the law. Enforcing the law doesn't allow not observing it.

    And this has done a lot of bad. Because a little thing often forgotten is that taking a life is, usually, a very traumatic event for the person who actually takes it. I've heard of a police officer who after (legally) shooting a suspect started crying and sobbing "Why did you do this?! I told you to stop!". This is natural. If there is any evil action cinema did is actually forgetting that subtle nuance. I was positively shocked (as a 12 year old) and I still am that this is actually (albeit shortly) explored in The Rock when Nicolas Cage makes his first kill. He gets used to that quite quickly, but still. The fact that there is a traumatic reaction to that (and that, of all people, Michael Bay actually lingered on his reaction, too!) is a very rare occurence in mainstream cinema.
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2017
    There is the concept of "monopoly of violence", when there is a certain "right to be violent" bestowed by the citizens (via the social contract) to the state to maintain safety. So yes, a police officer is allowed (via use of force and, especially use of deadly force regulations, which in the US are actually public for each and every local and state police department!)


    completely agree with most of your post Pawel, well spoke and persuasive as per usual. smile

    I'd just remember the real reason for the second amendment is not self-defense, it is defense against government tyranny.

    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. -- Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence

    history is rife with examples of government turning fascist. I mean, the left has been constantly speaking in terms of 'resistance' to Trump's 'regime', and framing him as a fascist, I'd think even they'd agree with Reagan that freedom is always only one generation away from distinction.

    I liked how Ben Shapiro put it, "The fact that my ancestors in Europe did not fear government tyranny is why they are now ashes in Germany."

    a monopoly of violence is not a monopoly of weaponry.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.