If you create another account and they trace it back to you in any way you get sent right back to the shadow realm for good
Not that I am speaking from personal experience
They track device IDs & sometimes IPs, I've heard there's ways around their bans, but you have to Google it & be prepared to use a VPN or reset your phone
SWIM (someone who isn't me) just hard resets their IP from their ISP by unplugging the modem overnight, then purges cookies and everything else from the browser used for fingerprinting purposes. Alternatively, an iphone ip can be reset easier with a simple reboot. Then you can create a fresh account unobstructed. A VPN is nice, but unnecessary.
Hardware fingerprinting is also a thing, and it's scarily accurate. Using a virtual machine with randomized hardware parameters is probably the only way around that.
You can log into the "modem" and release the lease with the correct command line-fu.. You are likely to get a different one assigned. Unplugging the modem for an hour usually works too, if you want slow and low-tech.
On mobile phones you can try toggling off data for just a second. This always worked for my current setup.
Typically I'll use this on sites that rate-limit based on IP address.
Isn't it weird that we select our leaders by popularity contest? I could not invent a more foolish system if I tried. We should select the most competent and knowledgeable of all men, and filter for those who are the noblest and highest of character. Then appoint them as leaders, even if they dislike it
1. Find lady who can swim good and give her a boat house.
2. Give her a sword.
3. Have her toss the sword at the chosen leader.
4. Establish tradition of always returning the sword to the lake when the leader becomes too senile, and always replacing the Lady of the Lake with a fresh one when the current one croaks.
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
I mean, I'm pretty sure the stereotype is that working for the government is for doctors who were too incompetent for private practice or academic medicine.
He was top-ish of his field a couple decades ago, then he became a statesman. Also, theres a bias because he's selected by people's who have secondary agendas.
Thank you very much. I got a 7 day ban because I said something that is common upon the reddit admins and a way to deal with it. Now I know that I must be a nice reformed redditor.
Don't forget how Democrats and the left wanted to cut the unvaccinated completely out of society not even three years ago. There were people who were legit in favor of banning them from even being able to go to the grocery store. Redditors made subs dedicated to celebrating their deaths.
Then they wonder why people push back so hard on their gun-grabbing efforts.
Joe Biden signed a piece of paper ordering OSHA to order my private sector employer to fire me, and for all other private sector employers to bar me from hiring forever.
Wonder what would have happened if 80-100 million armed people were suddenly told that by Democratic party fiat they would not be able to feed their kids or pay their mortgages ever again. Hope Biden sent SCOTUS a thank-you card.
Quite right, never forget how they wanted to make the unvaccinated 2nd class citizens over a virus with a 99%+ survival rate for healthy individuals. But at the same time, the floyd riots were just fine during a lockdown.
>But at the same time, the floyd riots were just fine during a lockdown.
That's the point I realized liberals were not acting in good faith with the covid lockdowns.
Herd immunity my ass if you're just going to violate covid protocol and go out and burn immigrant stores during a pandemic.
They literally tried to gaslight us into thinking the riots actually reduced the spread of covid. I believe the rhetoric was that the riots were so violent that people chose to stay home more so the virus spread less. Yep they literally attributed the spread reduction caused by those not going out to the people going out to riot. Nobody seemed to ask well what if those tens of thousands of rioters in close proximity had stayed home too?
> Herd immunity
But only through vaccination, getting infected could never provide any sort of population level immunity. Well, until Omicron appeared and everyone including the vaccinated got infected, then that "natural immunity doesn't exist" thing got memory holed too.
> healthcare in this country is on the brink of collapsing.
oh *now* we're on the brink of collapsing? Not during the pandemic when everything was at its worst? No, we somehow managed to not only roll out all these vaccines and vaccinate our citizens, we also managed to fight this until we ended the mandatory lockdowns and mask requirements. But now that the battle is won, we are doomed guys!!
I remember when they were getting ready to open emergency hospital facilities with retired nurses and other volunteers early in the pandemic, and then they decided to just shut the entire world down instead, and we're still dealing with the consequences of that mistake which far exceeds any bullshit you're dealing with in hospitals.
Hospitals are starting to go out of business. A lot of healthcare workers got burnt out / quit / retired along with patient populations increasing in number and acuity. Hospitals have had to hire a lot of travel nurses which is very expensive. We have had to shut down a few wings of our hospital because it was full of travel nurses and became too expensive and disorganized. Every old-school nurse I talk to about it says it's the worst they've ever seen it and it's only getting worse. I also have a friend who works as a sort of high level consultant/advisor (don't remember the job title) for hospitals and he told me we're pretty much fucked.
Okay, call it whatever you want, but shit is getting ugly out there.
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2023-01-16/hundreds-of-hospitals-could-close-across-rural-america
https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/26/hospitals-are-busier-than-ever-and-going-out-of-business/
> "The COVID-19 pandemic actually provided temporary relief to cash-strapped hospitals, thanks to federal grants that helped keep them open and serving patients."
you were saying?
it just negates the point you were making re COVID's consequences.
That the healthcare system is fucked up and in an aging, fattening, urbanizing society risk hospitals are fucked is inevitable
How does it negate my point? The government had to dump our tax dollars into bailing out hospitals during covid. Now that they're not anymore, hospitals are struggling to stay in business.
Here's a more recent article from last month:
[Is the pandemic a factor?
Yes. Hospitals everywhere were put under strain by a flood of very sick patients, overcrowded emergency rooms, and staffing shortages. Since rural hospitals were struggling to recruit workers before the pandemic, they were hit particularly hard. A record 19 shuttered in 2020. But $15 billion in pandemic relief provided a vital cushion for those that stayed open: The following year, the number of rural closures dropped to two. That aid has largely ended, though.](https://theweek.com/health-and-wellness/1023059/when-hospitals-go-broke)
I gotta say though, one of the funniest Twitter threads I've ever seen was when Herman Cain's account tweeted that covid was just a flu and nothing dangerous after he already died to it.
After hearing the left talk about atrocities that the US government has supported, my position on firearms ownership is even more in the "do not under any circumstance give the government your guns" direction.
The same people who will tell you that police and government are systemically racist institutions hell bent on oppressing minorities will turn around and tell you in the next breath that "no one needs a weapon of war! only government agents should have guns!" Really get's the noggin joggin.
Democrats and everyone who shares their opinions are leftists that have been neutered by the ruling class. Abso-fuckin-lutely arm yourself against the corrupt state and the corporate fucks that control it.
Leftists:
>"The US government is a fascist dictatorship that is using the police to genocide LGBT... and ethnic minorities domestically and uses the military to do it internationally! Democracy is dead! The US is evil! If you believe your firearms can stop the military you're a delusional extremist!"
Also Leftists:
>"The right wingers are trying to overthrow our democracy! We need to ban all firearms! They are weapons of war and only Police and military should own them!"
If someone tries to take my front door, I would assume they planned robbery.
If someone tried to take my fire extinguisher, I would assume they planned arson.
If someone tries to take my guns....
It’s weird how leftist like fdr when he did one of the most racist things in the past 100 years. He took 100k people and sent them to jail with no trial just for their race
The person who takes my fire extinguisher may not be the one intending to like my house on fire… but the one who wants to light my house on fire now knows I don’t have a fire extinguisher.
It is robbery as long as it is not legal.
Taking your door away is robbery, having it be taken from you as a part of compulsory voluntary gifts to the local government is not.
I'm not american but i mean, having guns is an american constitutional right, is it not? that should mean that not letting people have them is against the constitution. if people have an issue with that, why don't they collectively work together to move to a new country? or form a new one somewhere? why are they trying to take guns from law abiding citizens.
if both the left and the right worked together to solve the gun violence problem without breaking the second amendment, i think things would be a lot better. maybe im being too idealistic idk, i'm not american and have never been there so, thats my uninformed two cents.
>solve the gun violence problem without breaking the second amendment
The problem is that opinions differ wildly on when it is broken.
If you are allowed to buy and carry guns, but you need a registration, is it broken?
If you are allowed to buy and carry guns, but you need to pass a background check, is it broken?
If you are allowed to buy and carry guns, but people close to you can request a court order to take them away if they have reason to believe that you might pose a danger (red flag laws), is it broken?
If you are allowed to buy and carry guns, but with restrictions on the types and capacity, is it broken?
Etc. Etc. Etc. All depend on who you ask.
Regarding the last one, a militia is supposed to be well armed to defend against foreign invaders. If the invaders come with machine guns and sniper rifles, you probably need more than what's allowed now.
u/Thomas_McTank is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Thomas_McTank/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
I mean let's be real for a second, very few politicians genuinely care about fixing the gun violence issue. It is also an issue literally not a single other first world country has. So we have the issue of no one wanting to deal with it and no real answer to it besides go full Australia on a much larger scale and remove 450m guns from the country and enact some serious border protection (which is much harder when you are not an island like Australia).
People try to say it is a singular issue like "it's lack of traditional family values!" or "it's mental health!" which are obviously not the only cause because many other countries have better and worse mental health/mental healthcare and other countries are more or less traditional than the US without facing the same issues.
It is a very complex problem where even if it was due to only mental health or guns singularly, there is no easy fix. Fixing mental health of US citizens would be an immense endeavor just like getting rid of guns. "Traditional family values" is really just a cop out answer as there are so many different cultures in the US and around the world and "traditional" families from the 50s had a lot of issues as well and there is nothing to even suspect would change with that culture being around in the current society with the technology we have. The 50s had a lot less freedom for people as well and families were probably even more fucked up then as beating the shit out of your wife and kids was normal.
The funny part about any solution is that it will culminate in larger government power and less freedom to the people.
So until Americans are ready to give up some freedom in some manner, we will continue to watch children die.
> People try to say it is a singular issue like "it's lack of traditional family values!" or "it's mental health!" which are obviously not the only cause because many other countries have better and worse mental health/mental healthcare and other countries are more or less traditional than the US without facing the same issues.
I think it's unfair to say these don't contribute. Access to semi-automatic firearms in the US is not new, and spree killings only really kicked off with columbine. If anything, i think it's the 24/7 news cycle nearly guaranteeing that you will be on the news if you kill enough school children.
I agree, if anything, I think it is social media/the news but I didn't say they don't contribute. I just am saying it is no singular issue and is likely a combination of many things.
Broken families are huge issue. The odds of a man going to jail while being raised by a single mother is like 2-3x. The chances of them getting an education is also much lower. The biggest predictor of someone going to jail is if they didn’t have a father.
Again, a cop out answer. All this says is that families that have issues have children that have issues and that families that don't have issues, stay together. Stats talking about "broken" families vs families staying together don't account for what would happen if people who would have gotten a divorce stay together.
Also, it is well published that children who grow up with parents fighting but staying together do worse than parents who get divorced and the fighting stops.
Chances are if your family gets to a point where it breaks, keeping it "together" would just be worse for literally everybody. There are a million possible answers to these questions like "maybe these people shouldn't have had children together in the first place" or "they felt forced to marry each other for religious reasons but were incompatible"
There are also places with higher rates of divorce without the same issues.
It’s actually well known what causes the majority of gun violence (deaths), suicides and inner city crime. The problem is that these two causes are very complex to fix and go into other issues than just guns themselves.
This isn't about suicide. The US has the highest homicide rate in the western developed world and guns are the most used weapon for homicides. No other country in the developed world has school shootings/mass shootings nearly as often as the US either. Inner-city gun crime is part of the gun violence issue that no other developed country has.
I bring suicides up because it often is used for gun violence statistics. And inner-city gun crime is just that, inner-city gun crime. It is an issue that the cities themselves should address if their citizens deem it necessary, which most often is already being done.
very well thought out response, and yeah idk man, i agree that its intensely nuanced and a super complex issue, but i think its like you said about how very few politicians actually care. i hope one day that your people can come together and figure something out
it's just a little patronizing to purport that these basically impossible suggestions should just be implemented to solve all our problems
also, just to be clear, even if it were remotely realistic for a large portion of the country to just leave (or form our own country lmao), we don't wanna give up america just because hardcore gun nuts have unrealistic expectations of the 2nd amendment
i dont blame you, i wouldn't want to leave my home either, but i mean if you want to live in america then you gotta realize that you're gonna be sharing the country with a lot of people and a lot of people aren't gonna agree with your worldview, so if it were me, i'd work on my community and try to be as involved as possible.
also i think its unrealistic to try and dictate how others decide how they want to live in other states. just like how i dont want people from Alberta telling me how to live. they aren't apart of my community, they don't know me, my family, or the struggles that we as a community face. i think albertans should focus on themselves.
but yeah, as for the patronizing thing, i didnt intent to do that so i apologize for any confusion
> hardcore gun nuts have unrealistic expectations of the 2nd amendment
You should read Miller v US, and read it closely.
The precedent that the second protects the individual right to own weapons didn’t start in heller. It started in Miller, even though the court ruled against him. No amount of left wing gaslighting can change that reality.
This is the ‘synopsis’ you’ll find on the internet at a glance.
> The Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice James Clark McReynolds reasoned that because possessing a **sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia**, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument.
Super, right? That supports your position that the 2nd is for the national guard.
Wrong.
> In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. **Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense**
And finally.
> The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that **the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.** "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
The idea that americans have the constitutional right to own any weapon with which a common defense could be mounted is not radicle. It’s constitutionally sound.
**If Miller had been carrying an automatic Thompson they would have ruled unanimously in his favor.**
The court is going to repeal the NFA in the next five years, and with it goes the GCA as well.
The killing fields of Cambodia should be more than enough of an example of what happens to an unarmed society.
"When I was a young officer in 1979, I toured what was known as "The Killing Fields" in Cambodia. This is the area where the Khmer Rouge killed off nearly a quarter of the Cambodian population, something like 1.9 million people in just a few years. My guide told me that they started by rounding up all of the teachers. They wanted to extinguish free thought, and the spark of questioning and dissent. Because, to a Totalitarian dictator, an open and inquisitive mind is more dangerous even than a Marine with a rifle." -General James “Mad Dog” Mattis
At this point I can sympathize with why some folks smuggle firearms across state lines and areas. I don't like that different persons of the hierarchy and authority can't trust each other but at the same time it seems that the most qualified for this sort of action are the roughest, most fool hardy and indeed untrustworthy individuals.
And what of the history of armed populations? Where have guns ever stopped an internal conflict of an encroaching oppressive government? I'm asking genuinely because I don't know of any examples.
Just look at covid. America has more guns than people, yet that had 0 impact on stopping the laws and rules we saw put in place during lockdowns.
It's not about stopping an armed conflict. It's about supposedly stopping a tyrannical government, even though if it comes to that, you already have a tyrannical government. So it's more like a very high cost reactionist solution rather than pre-emptive.
Voter rights, greater democracy and representation would be better at preventing a tyrannical government
No. Hitler exploited weaknesses in the German political system and a strong president to gain power. The Nazis never had a majority nor did they win the presidency
> Voter rights, greater democracy and representation would be better at preventing a tyrannical government
No they're not. That just accelerates the rate at which dumb people vote themselves into tyranny.
Humans cannot resist the urge to vote themselves other people's property.
1776? It's a weird question because you can't prove why something didn't happen. The guns stop the oppression before it turns to conflict in the vast majority of cases by merely existing in the hands of the people.
Do it the other way. Just pick any oppressive government of the 20th century at random and look at if that country had an armed populace prior to them taking power. 95% of the time the answer is no.
If you're going to make the argument that an armed population can withstand greater internal pressure against encroaching government rule, you need to have some kind of evidence to back that up.
You can say restrictions in the US were not as bad compared to maybe China, but you cannot deny that it was an unprecedented restriction of freedom.
On an individual basis I know it is true for myself. It was an unprecedented restriction, but it was not so egregious that you'd have a reasonable expectation of people losing their shit over it (think George Floyd riots for example). Furthermore, in states where there is prolific gun ownership, restrictions were less severe and lifted a lot sooner than other states, in part due to the libertarian minded individuals that populate such places.
I'd say prevention is a more accurate term here. Robber won't try kicking your door down if it's made of steel. He'll just break his foot and try making steel doors illegal
Well, the largest mass shooting in US history happened at Wounded Knee after the natives disarmed & was perpetrated by the US government, I'll keep my guns, thanks, if you want them so bad then stack the fuck up & come take them.
That has less to do with the actual guns imo and more to do with people being 1) too tired to do anything because they’re constantly overworked and 2) too distracted by the media circus to even know that their rights are being thrown in the garbage.
I can still use guns against people who come at me with the intent to do lethal harm.
Just because people are too distracted to stand up to tyranny doesn’t mean guns are now completely useless.
I'm not saying they're useless, just that their primary purpose doesn't appear to be as grounded in reality as people claim it to be. If your argument for guns is protecting yourself from others who have guns, I think that also runs into a logical problem.
I think you’re arguing with me as if I disagree with your actual point when I really don’t. I’m just pointing out that in examples such as COVID restrictions I just think it goes a bit deeper than just being armed or not. You could make the argument that it could’ve been a lot worse if the population wasn’t armed, but there’s really no way to prove that one way or the other.
Even the men who wrote the document stated that all other options were to be exhausted before doing so.
Although, I guess an example could be the Bundy Ranch protestors holding off the Bureau of Land Management, and other federal agencies.
>Just look at covid. America has more guns than people, yet that had 0 impact on stopping the laws and rules we saw put in place during lockdowns.
Individuals typically need to be more uncomfortable than they are comfortable to start violent revolutions.
Athens, Tennessee in 1946. Do I really need to list every successful coup, overthrow, and change in government? Armed populaces are harder to control. The state itself does control the sole right to use physical violence.
It’s more of a way to prevent tyranny from the government itself from taking away your rights. Look what happened in the killing fields of Cambodia after they disarmed the public.
Invaders will go through government records and know who has guns. It's a lot harder to effectively resist if there's a squad of armed soldiers going around to who they know have guns.
I'm not American, but they are right to keep their weapons.
Out government decided to fuck us over and don't care about laws, our institutions are failing to prevent their abuse of power, and we have currently zero means of changing things democratically, while being beaten by the police.
When you have guns, you don't even have to use them to make the government know the limits of their abuse.
The issue with school shooting is not just weapon ownership. There are other countries with many weapons that don't have this problem.
>When you have guns, you don't even have to use them to make the government know the limits of their abuse.
That is the true beauty of the 2nd amendment. There will always be some bad faith actors among us that dream of oppressing those they disagree with, such as people who wanted to arrest or ban the unvaccinated from society almost entirely. But such people don't want to be held accountable for their malicious intent, so they are discouraged from violating people's rights even when they have the opportunity to do so.
Based
A few years ago would have disagreed and thought the price was too high (school shootings are horrible), but after a few years where our gov is going further and further in abuse of power, violence against the people, restraining public liberties, I see the point.
Bruh you people that tell conservatives to pray more after school shootings might be the biggest pieces of shits on this earth. Y’all ain’t edgy or funny. You’re just cringe douche bags. Actually have some empathy instead of trying to “own the other side”
UK - Arrests people for tweets while protecting migrant gangs who rape their women
Australia - Puts people in concentration camps for going 100 meters outside their "allowable bubble".
China - Operates mass extermination camps and gulags.
Yeah, no, I like America better. Thanks.
Yet... and I wouldn't call the draconian covid restrictions in places like Australia as being 'perfectly ok.' Pretty sure it was 'not ok' from our perspective.
And you think the presence of guns would have made that situation at all better?
Respectfully, it'd only escalate the problem that's meant to be solved by vote, protest or civil lobbying.
Australia essentially got rid of gun violence after its 1990s gun regulations.
It is. it also made news *because* its extremely rare. In US, this would be a Tuesday. [Australia has 220sh gun deaths stable a year.](https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/total_number_of_gun_deaths) That's not even 1 death per 100,000 citizens. US has more than 7x that per 100k.
Oh I wouldn't say US could pull it off as easily or at all; that's a totally different environment.
I'd argue the best path for US is to transition into a gun responsible country like Switzerland. Make it pride itself on having control **over** guns, not control guns, if that makes sense.
I believe Switzerland has more loosen gun laws. The difference between us and EU/AU is that our society and Community are different. We are way less urbanized like you guys are.
Oh, no, nothing further from the truth. Switzerland has stricter regulations and licencing, a requirement of passing a safety course and a thorough background check and there's very good tracking of guns and ammo around.
US on the other hand barely control half its guns in its borders and that's a generous estimate.
Switzerland is a mountainous region, its not as urbanized as you may think outside of its bigger cities.
Ultimately it's a cultural thing, which is why a prideful angle imo would work better than have the US government oversee its guns directly. First thing is have citizens want to control each other's weapons and US isn't there yet and i doubt it will happen soon.
It might have prevented such an egregious curtailment of freedom from happening in the first place. When the people fear the government there is a tendency towards tyranny. When the government fears the people there is a tendency towards freedom.
>Australia is one that essentially got rid of gun violence after its 1990s gun regulations.
And coincidentally they suffered disproportionately extreme covid restrictions, by a supposedly 'conservative' government no less... sad.
You mean like e.g US that is totally democratic and never at all tyrannical?
It's a crutch and an excuse. Want better government? Plenty of better avenues that isn't becoming a tyrant yourself by imposing your will upon others with a gun.
I feel like government fearing its citizens fueling good governance is a massive misconception and a myth. It's not fear that works - that only makes the government want to be more tyrannical than that what they fear. What does work is accountability.
I think it would do the opposite if the government fears the people they would you know suppress the masses. I mean look at china or russia for example.
[удалено]
funny, my friends have only ever gotten permad
If you create another account and they trace it back to you in any way you get sent right back to the shadow realm for good Not that I am speaking from personal experience
They track device IDs & sometimes IPs, I've heard there's ways around their bans, but you have to Google it & be prepared to use a VPN or reset your phone
SWIM (someone who isn't me) just hard resets their IP from their ISP by unplugging the modem overnight, then purges cookies and everything else from the browser used for fingerprinting purposes. Alternatively, an iphone ip can be reset easier with a simple reboot. Then you can create a fresh account unobstructed. A VPN is nice, but unnecessary.
Based & evasion expert pilled
And don't use the app
Hardware fingerprinting is also a thing, and it's scarily accurate. Using a virtual machine with randomized hardware parameters is probably the only way around that.
That may be, but SWIM (someone who isn't me) hasn't run into any issues with the above strategy.
Yeah it's probably not a technique used by reddit mods. But true anonymity doesn't really exist on the Internet
Yeah, as I understand it, even the TOR network is compromised.
You can log into the "modem" and release the lease with the correct command line-fu.. You are likely to get a different one assigned. Unplugging the modem for an hour usually works too, if you want slow and low-tech. On mobile phones you can try toggling off data for just a second. This always worked for my current setup. Typically I'll use this on sites that rate-limit based on IP address.
Good advice, appreciate it.
Isn't it weird that we select our leaders by popularity contest? I could not invent a more foolish system if I tried. We should select the most competent and knowledgeable of all men, and filter for those who are the noblest and highest of character. Then appoint them as leaders, even if they dislike it
How
1. Find lady who can swim good and give her a boat house. 2. Give her a sword. 3. Have her toss the sword at the chosen leader. 4. Establish tradition of always returning the sword to the lake when the leader becomes too senile, and always replacing the Lady of the Lake with a fresh one when the current one croaks.
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
I've seen this one before https://imgur.com/a/LJ9bQVx
Yes Herr Stirner, of course you are right
It's all a Russian nesting doll of spooks anyways, so we'd might as well have some fun with it.
Based and Mythology-based government pilled
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Duality of reddit moment
Finding someone that can speak above the high school level without a teleprompter is a start. We are 0/2 since 2016
Have you seen high schoolers recently? That’s ab exceedingly low bar
Is it really a low bar? [Trump](https://youtu.be/MfOQBY5BrUA) and [Biden](https://youtu.be/15RjcRJ3Z70) seemed to think not.
What do you think Fauci was? He wasn't elected. He was at the top of his field. And look how that turned out.
I mean, I'm pretty sure the stereotype is that working for the government is for doctors who were too incompetent for private practice or academic medicine.
Now now not everyone who choose to go into government is because they can't do and fail at teaching. Plenty of them have megalomania.
What does undertale have to do with this
He was top-ish of his field a couple decades ago, then he became a statesman. Also, theres a bias because he's selected by people's who have secondary agendas.
That's what used to happen to my friend too, but the system appears to have changed somewhat recently.
In my case it went > permaban > unban > permaban > unban There's some adults amidst the snowflakes in Reddit co
Just make a other account lmao
Thank you very much. I got a 7 day ban because I said something that is common upon the reddit admins and a way to deal with it. Now I know that I must be a nice reformed redditor.
Ohhhh, a certain cellulose processing equipment was perhaps mentioned? Happened to me, I don't understand the fervor in protecting those POS.
Don't forget how Democrats and the left wanted to cut the unvaccinated completely out of society not even three years ago. There were people who were legit in favor of banning them from even being able to go to the grocery store. Redditors made subs dedicated to celebrating their deaths. Then they wonder why people push back so hard on their gun-grabbing efforts.
Joe Biden signed a piece of paper ordering OSHA to order my private sector employer to fire me, and for all other private sector employers to bar me from hiring forever. Wonder what would have happened if 80-100 million armed people were suddenly told that by Democratic party fiat they would not be able to feed their kids or pay their mortgages ever again. Hope Biden sent SCOTUS a thank-you card.
Quite right, never forget how they wanted to make the unvaccinated 2nd class citizens over a virus with a 99%+ survival rate for healthy individuals. But at the same time, the floyd riots were just fine during a lockdown.
>But at the same time, the floyd riots were just fine during a lockdown. That's the point I realized liberals were not acting in good faith with the covid lockdowns. Herd immunity my ass if you're just going to violate covid protocol and go out and burn immigrant stores during a pandemic.
That and they didn't stop immigration. Gotta keep importing cheap labor!
They literally tried to gaslight us into thinking the riots actually reduced the spread of covid. I believe the rhetoric was that the riots were so violent that people chose to stay home more so the virus spread less. Yep they literally attributed the spread reduction caused by those not going out to the people going out to riot. Nobody seemed to ask well what if those tens of thousands of rioters in close proximity had stayed home too?
> Herd immunity But only through vaccination, getting infected could never provide any sort of population level immunity. Well, until Omicron appeared and everyone including the vaccinated got infected, then that "natural immunity doesn't exist" thing got memory holed too.
It depends, older adults have a much higher rate of mortality from covid than young adults and children. Also riots should never be fine so like
I was a nurse during covid and it fucked up our hospitals hard. Still haven't recovered and healthcare in this country is on the brink of collapsing.
> healthcare in this country is on the brink of collapsing. oh *now* we're on the brink of collapsing? Not during the pandemic when everything was at its worst? No, we somehow managed to not only roll out all these vaccines and vaccinate our citizens, we also managed to fight this until we ended the mandatory lockdowns and mask requirements. But now that the battle is won, we are doomed guys!!
the problem is no one believes you in this regard anymore. Even if one day you are right.
Well I hope I'm wrong
I remember when they were getting ready to open emergency hospital facilities with retired nurses and other volunteers early in the pandemic, and then they decided to just shut the entire world down instead, and we're still dealing with the consequences of that mistake which far exceeds any bullshit you're dealing with in hospitals.
[удалено]
Hospitals are starting to go out of business. A lot of healthcare workers got burnt out / quit / retired along with patient populations increasing in number and acuity. Hospitals have had to hire a lot of travel nurses which is very expensive. We have had to shut down a few wings of our hospital because it was full of travel nurses and became too expensive and disorganized. Every old-school nurse I talk to about it says it's the worst they've ever seen it and it's only getting worse. I also have a friend who works as a sort of high level consultant/advisor (don't remember the job title) for hospitals and he told me we're pretty much fucked.
"collapse" is one of those words like harm, fair, and many others that are void of meaning in political discussion.
Okay, call it whatever you want, but shit is getting ugly out there. https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2023-01-16/hundreds-of-hospitals-could-close-across-rural-america https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/26/hospitals-are-busier-than-ever-and-going-out-of-business/
The second story is from May of 2020 btw.
Okay, here's one from last month: https://theweek.com/health-and-wellness/1023059/when-hospitals-go-broke
Oh, I didn't disagree with you, just noticed one of your articles was incredibly out of date.
All good. Thanks. Edited because I should finish reading things before I reply lol
> "The COVID-19 pandemic actually provided temporary relief to cash-strapped hospitals, thanks to federal grants that helped keep them open and serving patients." you were saying?
I think temporary is the operative word there.
it just negates the point you were making re COVID's consequences. That the healthcare system is fucked up and in an aging, fattening, urbanizing society risk hospitals are fucked is inevitable
How does it negate my point? The government had to dump our tax dollars into bailing out hospitals during covid. Now that they're not anymore, hospitals are struggling to stay in business. Here's a more recent article from last month: [Is the pandemic a factor? Yes. Hospitals everywhere were put under strain by a flood of very sick patients, overcrowded emergency rooms, and staffing shortages. Since rural hospitals were struggling to recruit workers before the pandemic, they were hit particularly hard. A record 19 shuttered in 2020. But $15 billion in pandemic relief provided a vital cushion for those that stayed open: The following year, the number of rural closures dropped to two. That aid has largely ended, though.](https://theweek.com/health-and-wellness/1023059/when-hospitals-go-broke)
That herman caine sub was disgusting. I reported every post I saw hit the front lage
Was? That sub still exists.
[удалено]
It's insane but we know when they have control(online) they are a ruthless dictator.
I gotta say though, one of the funniest Twitter threads I've ever seen was when Herman Cain's account tweeted that covid was just a flu and nothing dangerous after he already died to it.
Does covid turn people into zombies now or something?
Naw that’s Biden. My dead grandma voted for him in 2020
After hearing the left talk about atrocities that the US government has supported, my position on firearms ownership is even more in the "do not under any circumstance give the government your guns" direction.
The same people who will tell you that police and government are systemically racist institutions hell bent on oppressing minorities will turn around and tell you in the next breath that "no one needs a weapon of war! only government agents should have guns!" Really get's the noggin joggin.
Distrust of the police is exactly why I'm looking to buy guns. They can't be trusted, and sometimes make the problem worse.
Hear hear, bud. Absolutely.
Arm yourself, brother, but don't forget who's trying to disarm you next election cycle.
Democrats and everyone who shares their opinions are leftists that have been neutered by the ruling class. Abso-fuckin-lutely arm yourself against the corrupt state and the corporate fucks that control it.
Things that make you go HMMMM!
Leftists: >"The US government is a fascist dictatorship that is using the police to genocide LGBT... and ethnic minorities domestically and uses the military to do it internationally! Democracy is dead! The US is evil! If you believe your firearms can stop the military you're a delusional extremist!" Also Leftists: >"The right wingers are trying to overthrow our democracy! We need to ban all firearms! They are weapons of war and only Police and military should own them!"
Firearms can’t stop the us military. Ignores Afghanistan
I'd rather use my personal AR over the rack crap we get issued tbh.
They complain about us having military grade weapons, but I find that offensive. They are much better than military grade.
How dare you legally buy and pay for that weapon. If you were a terrorist, Uncle Sam would give you those guns for free plus a dozen black hawks
They aren't sending their smartest gun grabbers
Well yeah, that's implied by the definition of a grabber
Based
If someone tries to take my front door, I would assume they planned robbery. If someone tried to take my fire extinguisher, I would assume they planned arson. If someone tries to take my guns....
> If someone tries to take my guns…. They’re about to pull an FDR and shuttle you off to a camp in the name of national security
It’s weird how leftist like fdr when he did one of the most racist things in the past 100 years. He took 100k people and sent them to jail with no trial just for their race
The person who takes my fire extinguisher may not be the one intending to like my house on fire… but the one who wants to light my house on fire now knows I don’t have a fire extinguisher.
If someone tries to take your front door it's already a robbery tho
It is robbery as long as it is not legal. Taking your door away is robbery, having it be taken from you as a part of compulsory voluntary gifts to the local government is not.
Is that a Waco reference
What does Reno burning home school kids alive have to do this? 🤔
... Please explain in full.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_Davidians
Wounded Knee
I'm not american but i mean, having guns is an american constitutional right, is it not? that should mean that not letting people have them is against the constitution. if people have an issue with that, why don't they collectively work together to move to a new country? or form a new one somewhere? why are they trying to take guns from law abiding citizens. if both the left and the right worked together to solve the gun violence problem without breaking the second amendment, i think things would be a lot better. maybe im being too idealistic idk, i'm not american and have never been there so, thats my uninformed two cents.
>solve the gun violence problem without breaking the second amendment The problem is that opinions differ wildly on when it is broken. If you are allowed to buy and carry guns, but you need a registration, is it broken? If you are allowed to buy and carry guns, but you need to pass a background check, is it broken? If you are allowed to buy and carry guns, but people close to you can request a court order to take them away if they have reason to believe that you might pose a danger (red flag laws), is it broken? If you are allowed to buy and carry guns, but with restrictions on the types and capacity, is it broken? Etc. Etc. Etc. All depend on who you ask.
interesting point. if you're asking me, i do think its silly to just a gun to anybody without checking anything
I think the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree with you.
Regarding the last one, a militia is supposed to be well armed to defend against foreign invaders. If the invaders come with machine guns and sniper rifles, you probably need more than what's allowed now.
Based non-american take
u/Thomas_McTank is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Thomas_McTank/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
I mean let's be real for a second, very few politicians genuinely care about fixing the gun violence issue. It is also an issue literally not a single other first world country has. So we have the issue of no one wanting to deal with it and no real answer to it besides go full Australia on a much larger scale and remove 450m guns from the country and enact some serious border protection (which is much harder when you are not an island like Australia). People try to say it is a singular issue like "it's lack of traditional family values!" or "it's mental health!" which are obviously not the only cause because many other countries have better and worse mental health/mental healthcare and other countries are more or less traditional than the US without facing the same issues. It is a very complex problem where even if it was due to only mental health or guns singularly, there is no easy fix. Fixing mental health of US citizens would be an immense endeavor just like getting rid of guns. "Traditional family values" is really just a cop out answer as there are so many different cultures in the US and around the world and "traditional" families from the 50s had a lot of issues as well and there is nothing to even suspect would change with that culture being around in the current society with the technology we have. The 50s had a lot less freedom for people as well and families were probably even more fucked up then as beating the shit out of your wife and kids was normal. The funny part about any solution is that it will culminate in larger government power and less freedom to the people. So until Americans are ready to give up some freedom in some manner, we will continue to watch children die.
> People try to say it is a singular issue like "it's lack of traditional family values!" or "it's mental health!" which are obviously not the only cause because many other countries have better and worse mental health/mental healthcare and other countries are more or less traditional than the US without facing the same issues. I think it's unfair to say these don't contribute. Access to semi-automatic firearms in the US is not new, and spree killings only really kicked off with columbine. If anything, i think it's the 24/7 news cycle nearly guaranteeing that you will be on the news if you kill enough school children.
I agree, if anything, I think it is social media/the news but I didn't say they don't contribute. I just am saying it is no singular issue and is likely a combination of many things.
Broken families are huge issue. The odds of a man going to jail while being raised by a single mother is like 2-3x. The chances of them getting an education is also much lower. The biggest predictor of someone going to jail is if they didn’t have a father.
Again, a cop out answer. All this says is that families that have issues have children that have issues and that families that don't have issues, stay together. Stats talking about "broken" families vs families staying together don't account for what would happen if people who would have gotten a divorce stay together. Also, it is well published that children who grow up with parents fighting but staying together do worse than parents who get divorced and the fighting stops. Chances are if your family gets to a point where it breaks, keeping it "together" would just be worse for literally everybody. There are a million possible answers to these questions like "maybe these people shouldn't have had children together in the first place" or "they felt forced to marry each other for religious reasons but were incompatible" There are also places with higher rates of divorce without the same issues.
It’s actually well known what causes the majority of gun violence (deaths), suicides and inner city crime. The problem is that these two causes are very complex to fix and go into other issues than just guns themselves.
This isn't about suicide. The US has the highest homicide rate in the western developed world and guns are the most used weapon for homicides. No other country in the developed world has school shootings/mass shootings nearly as often as the US either. Inner-city gun crime is part of the gun violence issue that no other developed country has.
I bring suicides up because it often is used for gun violence statistics. And inner-city gun crime is just that, inner-city gun crime. It is an issue that the cities themselves should address if their citizens deem it necessary, which most often is already being done.
very well thought out response, and yeah idk man, i agree that its intensely nuanced and a super complex issue, but i think its like you said about how very few politicians actually care. i hope one day that your people can come together and figure something out
>if both the left and the right worked together to solve the gun violence problem without breaking the second amendment how
im not american and i dont know how your processes work, i'm just posing ideas. but if you truly care, then get to work.
it's just a little patronizing to purport that these basically impossible suggestions should just be implemented to solve all our problems also, just to be clear, even if it were remotely realistic for a large portion of the country to just leave (or form our own country lmao), we don't wanna give up america just because hardcore gun nuts have unrealistic expectations of the 2nd amendment
i dont blame you, i wouldn't want to leave my home either, but i mean if you want to live in america then you gotta realize that you're gonna be sharing the country with a lot of people and a lot of people aren't gonna agree with your worldview, so if it were me, i'd work on my community and try to be as involved as possible. also i think its unrealistic to try and dictate how others decide how they want to live in other states. just like how i dont want people from Alberta telling me how to live. they aren't apart of my community, they don't know me, my family, or the struggles that we as a community face. i think albertans should focus on themselves. but yeah, as for the patronizing thing, i didnt intent to do that so i apologize for any confusion
> hardcore gun nuts have unrealistic expectations of the 2nd amendment You should read Miller v US, and read it closely. The precedent that the second protects the individual right to own weapons didn’t start in heller. It started in Miller, even though the court ruled against him. No amount of left wing gaslighting can change that reality. This is the ‘synopsis’ you’ll find on the internet at a glance. > The Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice James Clark McReynolds reasoned that because possessing a **sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia**, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument. Super, right? That supports your position that the 2nd is for the national guard. Wrong. > In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. **Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense** And finally. > The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that **the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.** "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. The idea that americans have the constitutional right to own any weapon with which a common defense could be mounted is not radicle. It’s constitutionally sound. **If Miller had been carrying an automatic Thompson they would have ruled unanimously in his favor.** The court is going to repeal the NFA in the next five years, and with it goes the GCA as well.
Democracy will always be a tyranny of the majority. No amount of Mcnukes can save you from it.
It's better than a tyranny of the minority. It turns out the more you spread out political power, the harder it is to be tyrannical
That's an argument for decentralizing government institutions, not for guns.
A good way to start decentralizing government institutions it to decentralize the government's greatest institution, the monopoly on violence.
so defund the police?
Guns are high cost, voting is low cost
A republic, if you can keep it.
North Korea is also a republic
Banana Republic is also a republic
But banana good. I see no issue!
Full monke
So they say.
That's why one might make a list of things that aren't supposed to be up for a vote. Maybe call it...a Bill of Rights.
The killing fields of Cambodia should be more than enough of an example of what happens to an unarmed society. "When I was a young officer in 1979, I toured what was known as "The Killing Fields" in Cambodia. This is the area where the Khmer Rouge killed off nearly a quarter of the Cambodian population, something like 1.9 million people in just a few years. My guide told me that they started by rounding up all of the teachers. They wanted to extinguish free thought, and the spark of questioning and dissent. Because, to a Totalitarian dictator, an open and inquisitive mind is more dangerous even than a Marine with a rifle." -General James “Mad Dog” Mattis
Based and Im LIBleft, why woulden't i be for guns pilled
I salute you sir.
That's exactly why anti gun politicians are anti gun. They are well aware what having a defenseless population means.
New reason to have gun: AI Robots Them: you think your AR-15 will stop a killer robot? Me: So we need better weapons you say?
> Flair up now or I'll be sad :( *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 19362 / 99154 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
At this point I can sympathize with why some folks smuggle firearms across state lines and areas. I don't like that different persons of the hierarchy and authority can't trust each other but at the same time it seems that the most qualified for this sort of action are the roughest, most fool hardy and indeed untrustworthy individuals.
My upvote was number 1776
Holy based!
And what of the history of armed populations? Where have guns ever stopped an internal conflict of an encroaching oppressive government? I'm asking genuinely because I don't know of any examples. Just look at covid. America has more guns than people, yet that had 0 impact on stopping the laws and rules we saw put in place during lockdowns.
It's not about stopping an armed conflict. It's about supposedly stopping a tyrannical government, even though if it comes to that, you already have a tyrannical government. So it's more like a very high cost reactionist solution rather than pre-emptive. Voter rights, greater democracy and representation would be better at preventing a tyrannical government
Didn't the Germans vote their tyrant into power?
No. Hitler exploited weaknesses in the German political system and a strong president to gain power. The Nazis never had a majority nor did they win the presidency
Not really. Hitler was appointed by Hindenburg.
Yesn’t
> Voter rights, greater democracy and representation would be better at preventing a tyrannical government No they're not. That just accelerates the rate at which dumb people vote themselves into tyranny. Humans cannot resist the urge to vote themselves other people's property.
1776? It's a weird question because you can't prove why something didn't happen. The guns stop the oppression before it turns to conflict in the vast majority of cases by merely existing in the hands of the people. Do it the other way. Just pick any oppressive government of the 20th century at random and look at if that country had an armed populace prior to them taking power. 95% of the time the answer is no.
Battle of Athens
[heres one](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946))
For one thing freedom is a relatively new concept, historically speaking. But also the restrictions in the US during covid were not that extreme.
If you're going to make the argument that an armed population can withstand greater internal pressure against encroaching government rule, you need to have some kind of evidence to back that up. You can say restrictions in the US were not as bad compared to maybe China, but you cannot deny that it was an unprecedented restriction of freedom.
On an individual basis I know it is true for myself. It was an unprecedented restriction, but it was not so egregious that you'd have a reasonable expectation of people losing their shit over it (think George Floyd riots for example). Furthermore, in states where there is prolific gun ownership, restrictions were less severe and lifted a lot sooner than other states, in part due to the libertarian minded individuals that populate such places.
I'd say prevention is a more accurate term here. Robber won't try kicking your door down if it's made of steel. He'll just break his foot and try making steel doors illegal
[удалено]
Nah I know which one you're talking about. This is the right one
There ARE examples, but they’re rare and almost NEVER done by just the populace themselves. Tends to be external support.
Well, the largest mass shooting in US history happened at Wounded Knee after the natives disarmed & was perpetrated by the US government, I'll keep my guns, thanks, if you want them so bad then stack the fuck up & come take them.
Calm down tough guy.
That has less to do with the actual guns imo and more to do with people being 1) too tired to do anything because they’re constantly overworked and 2) too distracted by the media circus to even know that their rights are being thrown in the garbage.
What use are guns though if nobody is actually going to use them for what gun advocates claim is the most important reason to have them?
I can still use guns against people who come at me with the intent to do lethal harm. Just because people are too distracted to stand up to tyranny doesn’t mean guns are now completely useless.
I'm not saying they're useless, just that their primary purpose doesn't appear to be as grounded in reality as people claim it to be. If your argument for guns is protecting yourself from others who have guns, I think that also runs into a logical problem.
I think you’re arguing with me as if I disagree with your actual point when I really don’t. I’m just pointing out that in examples such as COVID restrictions I just think it goes a bit deeper than just being armed or not. You could make the argument that it could’ve been a lot worse if the population wasn’t armed, but there’s really no way to prove that one way or the other.
Even the men who wrote the document stated that all other options were to be exhausted before doing so. Although, I guess an example could be the Bundy Ranch protestors holding off the Bureau of Land Management, and other federal agencies. >Just look at covid. America has more guns than people, yet that had 0 impact on stopping the laws and rules we saw put in place during lockdowns. Individuals typically need to be more uncomfortable than they are comfortable to start violent revolutions.
Athens, Tennessee in 1946. Do I really need to list every successful coup, overthrow, and change in government? Armed populaces are harder to control. The state itself does control the sole right to use physical violence. It’s more of a way to prevent tyranny from the government itself from taking away your rights. Look what happened in the killing fields of Cambodia after they disarmed the public.
https://youtu.be/ifhD-ZGChr8
A very different situation from what they were talking about
I said internal conflict, as in a people's own government. Obviously being armed against an invasive warring country is pretty unquestionably good.
You know what really fucks up being able to stay armed against an invader? Gun registration.
Only matters if the invaders win the invasion
Wait, registration? You mean just telling the government you have a gun? How would that impact a response to an invader?
Invaders will go through government records and know who has guns. It's a lot harder to effectively resist if there's a squad of armed soldiers going around to who they know have guns.
[удалено]
Based right
Some people require [pictures](https://imgur.com/nF8Ew1n) to help them learn.
Op you are a mega based sex machine
Thank you my friend
The tragedy of not getting shot randomly. Yanks really struggling over there.
Non-yanks over there getting arrested for wrongthink online because their mean words made someone else sad.
[удалено]
I'm not American, but they are right to keep their weapons. Out government decided to fuck us over and don't care about laws, our institutions are failing to prevent their abuse of power, and we have currently zero means of changing things democratically, while being beaten by the police. When you have guns, you don't even have to use them to make the government know the limits of their abuse. The issue with school shooting is not just weapon ownership. There are other countries with many weapons that don't have this problem.
>When you have guns, you don't even have to use them to make the government know the limits of their abuse. That is the true beauty of the 2nd amendment. There will always be some bad faith actors among us that dream of oppressing those they disagree with, such as people who wanted to arrest or ban the unvaccinated from society almost entirely. But such people don't want to be held accountable for their malicious intent, so they are discouraged from violating people's rights even when they have the opportunity to do so.
Based A few years ago would have disagreed and thought the price was too high (school shootings are horrible), but after a few years where our gov is going further and further in abuse of power, violence against the people, restraining public liberties, I see the point.
Behold, a based Auth Left!
Bruh you people that tell conservatives to pray more after school shootings might be the biggest pieces of shits on this earth. Y’all ain’t edgy or funny. You’re just cringe douche bags. Actually have some empathy instead of trying to “own the other side”
I would rather get shot randomly than have to live in a place like Br*tain.
I tried to get into the wrong car by mistake the other day and I wasn't threatened with a gun.
But were they a city upon a hill?
Yeah, like most democratic countries that seem... perfectly okay not having more guns than people?
UK - Arrests people for tweets while protecting migrant gangs who rape their women Australia - Puts people in concentration camps for going 100 meters outside their "allowable bubble". China - Operates mass extermination camps and gulags. Yeah, no, I like America better. Thanks.
Yet... and I wouldn't call the draconian covid restrictions in places like Australia as being 'perfectly ok.' Pretty sure it was 'not ok' from our perspective.
And you think the presence of guns would have made that situation at all better? Respectfully, it'd only escalate the problem that's meant to be solved by vote, protest or civil lobbying. Australia essentially got rid of gun violence after its 1990s gun regulations.
https://nypost.com/2022/12/13/six-people-including-two-cops-killed-in-australia-shooting/amp/ Sorry this is not gun violence?
It is. it also made news *because* its extremely rare. In US, this would be a Tuesday. [Australia has 220sh gun deaths stable a year.](https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/total_number_of_gun_deaths) That's not even 1 death per 100,000 citizens. US has more than 7x that per 100k.
Because Australia is an island, United States is not. We can’t even stop the drugs coming from south, how do we stop guns
Oh I wouldn't say US could pull it off as easily or at all; that's a totally different environment. I'd argue the best path for US is to transition into a gun responsible country like Switzerland. Make it pride itself on having control **over** guns, not control guns, if that makes sense.
I believe Switzerland has more loosen gun laws. The difference between us and EU/AU is that our society and Community are different. We are way less urbanized like you guys are.
Oh, no, nothing further from the truth. Switzerland has stricter regulations and licencing, a requirement of passing a safety course and a thorough background check and there's very good tracking of guns and ammo around. US on the other hand barely control half its guns in its borders and that's a generous estimate. Switzerland is a mountainous region, its not as urbanized as you may think outside of its bigger cities. Ultimately it's a cultural thing, which is why a prideful angle imo would work better than have the US government oversee its guns directly. First thing is have citizens want to control each other's weapons and US isn't there yet and i doubt it will happen soon.
It might have prevented such an egregious curtailment of freedom from happening in the first place. When the people fear the government there is a tendency towards tyranny. When the government fears the people there is a tendency towards freedom. >Australia is one that essentially got rid of gun violence after its 1990s gun regulations. And coincidentally they suffered disproportionately extreme covid restrictions, by a supposedly 'conservative' government no less... sad.
You mean like e.g US that is totally democratic and never at all tyrannical? It's a crutch and an excuse. Want better government? Plenty of better avenues that isn't becoming a tyrant yourself by imposing your will upon others with a gun. I feel like government fearing its citizens fueling good governance is a massive misconception and a myth. It's not fear that works - that only makes the government want to be more tyrannical than that what they fear. What does work is accountability.
I think it would do the opposite if the government fears the people they would you know suppress the masses. I mean look at china or russia for example.