Guns anyone?

[Davin]

From reading the first post, it seems like wanting guns are like a blanky to help hide insecurities that would be better addressed with proper counselling.

The desire expressed is short sighted and counter productive to long term survival. It's also why a lot of post-apocalyptic "societies" in fiction make me cringe a lot.

Also, preppers always imagine themselves like vikings, going from village to village taking what they want. Unfortunately for most of them, by the time they make it to the next village they'll be too exhausted and weak to actually do anything.

Anyway, my position of guns has not changed with recent events because nothing in the recent events is different enough from past events.

[Drich]

don't be obtuse.
have i propagated anything? Have i extolled the need for guns? have i challenged any of your answers?

I just asked a question to see what type of people are here. We are two pages in at this point so if i had an agenda it would be known by now. Calm down dial the hate back a few notches and just read and respond to what is on page. no need to try and jump a head especially if there isnt anything to jump to.

I'm asking because my brother in law is a douche bag much like most of you who tends to lean towards the left. thought my dad and i were milisha/crazy people. someone broke into his shop, they stole 75K in tools and equipment, now the virus has got some people going into frenzy mode in the down town area he works in.

His value system much like most of yours are based on the idea of a utopian society. I find those who live in a less culturally diverse countries (all/most white) can hold out or play pretend society will never fail. but when reminded his value system is no longer at the top of the societal food chain, he like every other red blooded american (douchebaggery not withstanding) is not looking to be subjected by, or taken advantage of by people foreign or domestic who will force their will onto him.

I guess those such as yourself who live in a less culturally diverse part of the world can pretty much know that everyone who looks like you will think like you and there is no need to defend yourself because you all have agreed not to hurt one another.

Go ahead and call us communists or whatever other inane insult people like you like to throw around.

A rose by any other name would still the same.

Go on. You know you want to. All those inane insults in your head. Let them all out and feel better about yourself.

meh, I've got venues to bash you guys on.. this is a nice practice in playing nice.

[Recusant]

The OP invites a discussion that isn't particularly interesting. It's been chewed on so extensively in the US that it's nothing but a heap of saliva-soaked rawhide at this point. The rest of the world (outside places like Somalia) has long since left it behind, and mostly just watches the gory circus in the US in horrified bemusement.

It did however inspire a discussion that  appears to have some interest for members here. Drich may get around to participating in that discussion, and I'd be interested in what he might contribute to it.

Remains to be seen whether he's here exclusively to push an agenda while indulging his rancor, or is willing to engage in civil discourse. There's a notable trend to one and a sad absence of the other, though.

[Drich]

Drich, please learn how to use the quote function properly, if you have the time. 

my way is a little more efficient so say to go line by line giving you specific answers to individual queries.

You're not presenting a coherent argument, and you failed to answer the question.

if an arguement seem incohearant to you perhapse it is not always best to assume the person you are speaking with does not know what he is talking about, rather you simply do not understand the specifics on a subject you clearly have no mastery in.
IE you asked: how would a gun help you if you lived ina red zone.

The article i presented showed in a time of major civil unrest there was no police responses available to the korean community in LA riots of the 1990s. all the business owners of a given block of korean own businesses in la ba together and with their guns defended against men who wished to loot their businesses and destroy or burn down their homes and shops. so for 3 days and night these citizens fended off one mob after the other while all of the other businesses (90% of the total destruction done in the LA riots were to korean own businesses)  So again IF you were living in a red zone in an emergency situation where the police stopped protecting people in those neighborhoods you could ban together and defend your home and family just as these korean americans did.

Personally, I wouldn't mind trading insults with you, but that's not how things work here. You haven't presented a genuine argument, you've thrown around scare scenarios and claimed they demonstrate something that they do not. You want some response beyond bland dismissal, you do the work.

again i have presented scenario after scenario based on events that have happened all with in the last 25 years. My only question is what happens to your gun stance when one or more of these events happens at the same time. where is your conviction when it has been a month since the police have been by and they are burning people out of their homes?

Or I even left the dooms day event up to you in asking what would it take for you to change your gun stance.

then i pointed out that since most of you live within social and economic structures similar to yours, you typically do not see a threat. which i get. but what of those who live in more diverse populations?

Ah, so you fancy yourself something of a rules lawyer.

this is a bi polar mess.. Glob help me.. You tell me as a friendly reminder to READ THE RULES!!!  so I read them and did not see my supposed infraction, then i read them again and again... then added up my first few read throughs as this was a mandate for posting and presented you with a number.... Now you are persecuting me for doing what you have instructed.

PICK A DIRECTION. Are you so intimidated by me you have to just offer a counter to everything i say no matter if it has you even contradicting yourself?!?!? Do you want me to read and follow the rules or not? if yes then stop being pissy/threatening for me having done what you asked!

If so you already know that doesn't work. Here's something to take on board, which as a rules lawyer, you shouldn't have missed: You haven't got a warning from me, you've got a reminder. You may not get any warnings at all. There is a rules enforcement process, but it's not a straitjacket. Staff can and will do what is deemed salutary for the site by skipping steps in that process.

which is fine, as i know you can't have a christian among you who does not know his place. but if you are going to pretend to violate me on rules i simply ask that it be an actually written rule you can point to when i asked for said rule violation.

This being the third time i've asked for that rule i supposedly violated.

I'm afraid you're not a very impressive rules lawyer. After seven readings you've failed to note that the first rule of this site is for members to "remember the importance of civility."

not a rule lawyer that is the limitation of your vocabulary. not mine. I simply wish to know is this a fair place to post or not. is this a rules be damned i as an atheist should always have the last word, or is there freedom of thought and speech if presented with is a structured rule set. The way you like to throw clout around i doubt the later.

[Davin]

The OP invites a discussion that isn't particularly interesting. It's been chewed on so extensively in the US that it's nothing but a heap of saliva-soaked rawhide at this point. The rest of the world (outside places like Somalia) has long since left it behind, and mostly just watches the gory circus in the US in horrified bemusement.

It did however inspire a discussion that  appears to have some interest for members here. Drich may get around to participating in that discussion, and I'd be interested in what he might contribute to it.

Remains to be seen whether he's here exclusively to push an agenda while indulging his rancor, or is willing to engage in civil discourse. There's a notable trend to one and a sad absence of the other, though.

I'm leaning towards agenda since they cower away from any and all opposition through various dishonest tactics and logical fallacies. It's weird how many people with an agenda come here thinking they're offering something new while being no different from what we've seen hundreds of times.

Anyway, I agree with you,  I found most of the responses to Drich and the conversations that sprouted up away from the boring introduction to be interesting.

[xSilverPhinx]

don't be obtuse.
have i propagated anything? Have i extolled the need for guns? have i challenged any of your answers?

I just asked a question to see what type of people are here. We are two pages in at this point so if i had an agenda it would be known by now. Calm down dial the hate back a few notches and just read and respond to what is on page. no need to try and jump a head especially if there isnt anything to jump to.

I'm asking because my brother in law is a douche bag much like most of you who tends to lean towards the left. thought my dad and i were milisha/crazy people. someone broke into his shop, they stole 75K in tools and equipment, now the virus has got some people going into frenzy mode in the down town area he works in.

His value system much like most of yours are based on the idea of a utopian society. I find those who live in a less culturally diverse countries (all/most white) can hold out or play pretend society will never fail. but when reminded his value system is no longer at the top of the societal food chain, he like every other red blooded american (douchebaggery not withstanding) is not looking to be subjected by, or taken advantage of by people foreign or domestic who will force their will onto him.

I guess those such as yourself who live in a less culturally diverse part of the world can pretty much know that everyone who looks like you will think like you and there is no need to defend yourself because you all have agreed not to hurt one another.

Go ahead and call us communists or whatever other inane insult people like you like to throw around.

A rose by any other name would still the same.

Go on. You know you want to. All those inane insults in your head. Let them all out and feel better about yourself.

meh, I've got venues to bash you guys on.. this is a nice practice in playing nice.

Suit yourself...more will come out eventually.

Based on your first posts in this forum, you seem to be more of a 'reacter' than a cool-headed thinker, Drich. Do they test people's impulse control in the US before allowing any nut to own a gun?

[Davin]

or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

In the realm of nature there's no such thing as stealing. Stealing  is a concept of civilization, without civilization there is no man made law. The fox takes a piece from the bears kill. The fox has the right to eat. The bear nor the fox are aware of any laws, they only exist within the laws of nature which is natural law. There is no natural law that denotes stealing. It's the Bears right to defend it's kill, and if not successful, oh well, that's life and the bear has to accept it, and it does.  Stealing is a punishable act only in civil law and can only be applicable to a sapient being that can comprehend punishment via reason. Being the Fox and the Bear exist within natural law, there is no one to create law for either.

I think you might find modern research into animal behavior to be both enlightening and interesting.

[Old Seer]

or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

In the realm of nature there's no such thing as stealing. Stealing  is a concept of civilization, without civilization there is no man made law. The fox takes a piece from the bears kill. The fox has the right to eat. The bear nor the fox are aware of any laws, they only exist within the laws of nature which is natural law. There is no natural law that denotes stealing. It's the Bears right to defend it's kill, and if not successful, oh well, that's life and the bear has to accept it, and it does.  Stealing is a punishable act only in civil law and can only be applicable to a sapient being that can comprehend punishment via reason. Being the Fox and the Bear exist within natural law, there is no one to create law for either.

I think you might find modern research into animal behavior to be both enlightening and interesting.

Have already done so. 

[Old Seer]

seer, youre uzing rightz in terms of natural law, i believe

natural law applies to organizms living in their natural state

the natural state of humanz is to live in societies

in societiez humans grant each other rights, some of which supercede others.

the freedom from stealing is one such right, by implication there iz no right to steal, under normal circumstancez.

are human societies consiztent with the natural perspective?

Not all beings have a tendency to herd, flock and gather to their own kind. But, do those that do participate in a society. Question: Is a cow herd a society. I personally don't think so and if one were to say they are I couldn't dispute it.  Society, it seems develops a - culture. Do cows have or develop a culture, I can't say. It seems a culture has to be developed from a cognizant effort, but cows aren't cognizant enough to reason out a culture. (I say) What I suspect is the natural gathering tendency lays the ground work for a culture or civilization to develop or be developed via reason.  One can then reason that there wasn't civilization until someone invented it and, until a cognizant entity came into "being".
   What became obvious to us is civilization was invented to take advantage of the many for the purposes of a few. Over time it became modified (many times)so the dominated could get a larger share of their labor, which this process still goes on today.  It also became understood that civilization was instituted by deception when a few gained control of the land, and in order for the others to be on it had to become subject to the few owners or owner.

  At the time civilization came into existence The inhabitants had to give up their natural rights 9existence)in exchange for man made rights, that is, living by the mandates of the land (societies) owners. The owner(s) of the land demand a fee from the inhabitants for living in the territory which today is represented by taxes. This is still an active process today. There are other things  to consider but it's to long of an explanation to undertake.
Civilizations fail and it will always be so because it's foundation is still rooted in and from the natural. In essence nature says, your not getting away with his buster and is continuously working against the artificial, and civilization say I'm eventfully going to beat you. True nature always wins because it always true and civilization is a lie. Nature will always be working against untruth because nature cannot lie, people can. Nature will overtake the lie because it is always present and active. A lie, an invention, and not natural has a life span and nature does not. Logic dictates that a lie cannot outlast nature.
The main answer to your post. One cannot create their own world, the way has to be found to live within the one that always is.

[Recusant]

Drich, please learn how to use the quote function properly, if you have the time. 

my way is a little more efficient so say to go line by line giving you specific answers to individual queries.

You can fisk away to your heart's content. I'm talking about bungling your placement of quote tags, requiring your correspondent to repair the mistakes, else compound them. You did it twice in succession in your replies to me.

I repaired the first (note the misplaced quote tag just before you said I was being obtuse) without comment. Then in your next reply to me, you added a superfluous quote tag that made it appear as if you were quoting yourself when you asserted that I'm either incapable or ill equipped to discuss the topic. Again, to produce a correct response I had to repair your error, which is why I commented on what was beginning to look like a trend. Trying to have a discussion with you would be a bit less unpleasant if you took the time to at least use the quote function in a competent manner.

You're not presenting a coherent argument, and you failed to answer the question.

if an arguement seem incohearant to you perhapse it is not always best to assume the person you are speaking with does not know what he is talking about, rather you simply do not understand the specifics on a subject you clearly have no mastery in.
IE you asked: how would a gun help you if you lived ina red zone.

You presented a specific scenario, which I quoted (living in "'The Red Zone' — gang turf for the Seven Mile Bloods") in my question. I asked you how possessing a gun in such a situation would help me or my family be safer. Your response had nothing to do with that scenario. Instead you went off on a rant about "city wide looting and the burning of homes and business" which clearly does not answer my question.

The article i presented showed in a time of major civil unrest there was no police responses available to the korean community in LA riots of the 1990s. all the business owners of a given block of korean own businesses in la ba together and with their guns defended against men who wished to loot their businesses and destroy or burn down their homes and shops. so for 3 days and night these citizens fended off one mob after the other while all of the other businesses (90% of the total destruction done in the LA riots were to korean own businesses)  So again IF you were living in a red zone in an emergency situation where the police stopped protecting people in those neighborhoods you could ban together and defend your home and family just as these korean americans did.

Still doesn't answer my question. You're attempting to conflate a violent riot with a neighborhood in which violence is common. Whether you recognize it or not, those are two different situations.

Engaging in an armed standoff with roving mobs for days on end may seem like an admirable approach to you but I don't concur. Those people could very well have got themselves (and any family members with them) maimed or killed. I think that my life and the the lives of my family are infinitely more valuable than any and all material possessions.

Personally, I wouldn't mind trading insults with you, but that's not how things work here. You haven't presented a genuine argument, you've thrown around scare scenarios and claimed they demonstrate something that they do not. You want some response beyond bland dismissal, you do the work.

again i have presented scenario after scenario based on events that have happened all with in the last 25 years. My only question is what happens to your gun stance when one or more of these events happens at the same time. where is your conviction when it has been a month since the police have been by and they are burning people out of their homes?

Having a gun may prove useful in such an anarchic situation, or it may get me into a lethal confrontation that I might have avoided if I weren't depending on having a gun to get me out of trouble. Life is rarely as clear-cut as the fantasies of those who are militantly pro-gun.

Or I even left the dooms day event up to you in asking what would it take for you to change your gun stance.

It's clear you're not really interested in my position on guns in the US. Instead, you've made assumptions based on my comments. I'll spell it out for you. In my opinion, guns have their uses, but they are rarely the answer when it comes to interactions with other people.

We'll leave aside those who've adopted a violent criminal lifestyle--nobody here is advocating that. Some gun owners in the US have worked themselves into a position of fetishizing their guns. Some of them dream of the day when they think they'll be justified in shooting somebody. To me that mindset is corrosive and unhealthy.

There are far too many irresponsible gun owners in the US, and that has resulted in a disgusting and shameful level of needless, pointless bloodshed and death. Until there are better gun laws, that bloodshed and death will not decrease.

then i pointed out that since most of you live within social and economic structures similar to yours, you typically do not see a threat. which i get. but what of those who live in more diverse populations?

You know practically nothing about the people here you've been ranting at. Instead of engaging in a genuine discussion you're making a lot of ridiculous assumptions.

Ah, so you fancy yourself something of a rules lawyer.

this is a bi polar mess.. Glob help me.. You tell me as a friendly reminder to READ THE RULES!!!  so I read them and did not see my supposed infraction, then i read them again and again... then added up my first few read throughs as this was a mandate for posting and presented you with a number.... Now you are persecuting me for doing what you have instructed.

The rules of this site are clear. They do however assume that a person who joins this site will have the ability to think and to comprehend something so basic as civility.

I made a mistake earlier. I intended to copy and paste your insult, but failed to do so. I wrote: "Calling the general membership (except for a few it seems you think you might approve of) is not on." I meant to write Calling the general membership douche bags (except for a few it seems you think you might approve of) is not on.

I'm not worried about your feelings of persecution, and I'm not somebody you need to worry about either, as long as you respect the rules of this site.

PICK A DIRECTION. Are you so intimidated by me you have to just offer a counter to everything i say no matter if it has you even contradicting yourself?!?!? Do you want me to read and follow the rules or not? if yes then stop being pissy/threatening for me having done what you asked!

As a member of staff, it falls upon me to help maintain this site, and help keep the discussions here civil. I don't need to threaten you to do that, and I haven't. What I've done is pointed out the facts as they pertain to your behavior on the site. You've been a rather unpleasant guest here up to this point, and if you don't follow the rules you'll get the ban you appear to be striving for, which honestly wouldn't bother me. You seem to have come here with a rotten chip on your shoulder. I don't think you have any intention of being a long-term member of this site, but are merely looking for affirmation of some prejudices you've saddled yourself with.

You said you wanted to answer questions about Christianity. I have a couple of questions for you.

1. Do you consider yourself a good representative of Christianity?

2. Do you think any sensible person would want to learn about Christianity from a person who behaved as you've done on this site?

. . .  i know you can't have a christian among you who does not know his place. but if you are going to pretend to violate me on rules i simply ask that it be an actually written rule you can point to when i asked for said rule violation.

I hope that at this point you have a better understanding of the rules here. Maintain a civil approach to discussion and as far as I'm concerned you're OK.

not a rule lawyer that is the limitation of your vocabulary. not mine. I simply wish to know is this a fair place to post or not. is this a rules be damned i as an atheist should always have the last word, or is there freedom of thought and speech if presented with is a structured rule set. The way you like to throw clout around i doubt the later.

It seems probable that if you manage to stick around, you'll be the one to get the last word in discussion with me. There is nothing novel in your chest-thumping and vitriol, and your aggressive Christianity is of no interest to me.

[billy rubin]

Not all beings have a tendency to herd, flock and gather to their own kind. But, do those that do participate in a society. Question: Is a cow herd a society. I personally don't think so and if one were to say they are I couldn't dispute it.  Society, it seems develops a - culture. Do cows have or develop a culture, I can't say. It seems a culture has to be developed from a cognizant effort, but cows aren't cognizant enough to reason out a culture. (I say) What I suspect is the natural gathering tendency lays the ground work for a culture or civilization to develop or be developed via reason.  One can then reason that there wasn't civilization until someone invented it and, until a cognizant entity came into "being".
   What became obvious to us is civilization was invented to take advantage of the many for the purposes of a few. Over time it became modified (many times)so the dominated could get a larger share of their labor, which this process still goes on today.  It also became understood that civilization was instituted by deception when a few gained control of the land, and in order for the others to be on it had to become subject to the few owners or owner.

  At the time civilization came into existence The inhabitants had to give up their natural rights 9existence)in exchange for man made rights, that is, living by the mandates of the land (societies) owners. The owner(s) of the land demand a fee from the inhabitants for living in the territory which today is represented by taxes. This is still an active process today. There are other things  to consider but it's to long of an explanation to undertake.
Civilizations fail and it will always be so because it's foundation is still rooted in and from the natural. In essence nature says, your not getting away with his buster and is continuously working against the artificial, and civilization say I'm eventfully going to beat you. True nature always wins because it always true and civilization is a lie. Nature will always be working against untruth because nature cannot lie, people can. Nature will overtake the lie because it is always present and active. A lie, an invention, and not natural has a life span and nature does not. Logic dictates that a lie cannot outlast nature.
The main answer to your post. One cannot create their own world, the way has to be found to live within the one that always is.

your logic is consistent regarding natural law and rights.

i would disagree about culture. i don't see a difference between a chimpanzee constructing a nest in a tree for the night and an architct building a colesseum. to me they are intrinsically identical, and differ only because one species has more brains and inclination to build bigly than the other.

a biologist i once knew told me that a duck exhibits culture every time it quacks.

thjis seems innconsistent:

What I suspect is the natural gathering tendency lays the ground work for a culture or civilization to develop or be developed via reason.  One can then reason that there wasn't civilization until someone invented it and, until a cognizant entity came into "being" . . .   At the time civilization came into existence The inhabitants had to give up their natural rights 9existence)in exchange for man made rights, that is, living by the mandates of the land (societies) owners. 

if gathering is natural, hen society is natural, and if  civilization is inevitable.then civilization as we see it is natural too.

but you seem to disagree.

what is the natural state of humans, if gathering =====> society =====> civilization is not?

[Davin]

or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

In the realm of nature there's no such thing as stealing. Stealing  is a concept of civilization, without civilization there is no man made law. The fox takes a piece from the bears kill. The fox has the right to eat. The bear nor the fox are aware of any laws, they only exist within the laws of nature which is natural law. There is no natural law that denotes stealing. It's the Bears right to defend it's kill, and if not successful, oh well, that's life and the bear has to accept it, and it does.  Stealing is a punishable act only in civil law and can only be applicable to a sapient being that can comprehend punishment via reason. Being the Fox and the Bear exist within natural law, there is no one to create law for either.

I think you might find modern research into animal behavior to be both enlightening and interesting.

Have already done so. 

So you disagree with it?

[Drich]

From reading the first post, it seems like wanting guns are like a blanky to help hide insecurities that would be better addressed with proper counselling.

i guess you can also tell you therapists about how helpless you were went two guys armed with a baseball bat work you and your family over as they looted your house, oh but you can't as between a viral outbreak shutdown and no power you therapist won't be able to take your secular confession for failing our house hold.

The desire expressed is short sighted and counter productive to long term survival.

how many times has your home nation been invaded? ironically my countries invasion stopped when just about every man was armed with a cartridge firing gun. so again how is this not a long term solution? in the op outline there is no authorities or help coming. which is a real thing that has already happened several times in the last 20 or so years. the only thing that differs is in my scenario two catastrophes happen at the same time. setting up a 6 month or more scenario without the protections of our current society. I am simply asking you all to look at that situation, but you all keep changing it to fit your anti gun narrative. why can't you be honest with the op? don't like the answer you will give? don't like the idea of having to die for your principles?

It's also why a lot of post-apocalyptic "societies" in fiction make me cringe a lot.

so again if faced with what you do not like. do you roll over and die? do you succumb to the new post apocalyptic society do you fight to maintain your current way of life/world views?

Also, preppers always imagine themselves like vikings, going from village to village taking what they want. Unfortunately for most of them, by the time they make it to the next village they'll be too exhausted and weak to actually do anything.

have you never ridden  in a bus or car? do you know old diesel trucks can run off anything that burns? like old school busses who can carry 60 to 80 'invaders from village to village without them having to expend much effort.

Anyway, my position of guns has not changed with recent events because nothing in the recent events is different enough from past events.

this is the dishonest answer i was talking about. My OP question did not ask what is your current position on guns given the situation. I created a situation and asked the question. a question you went a long way round to avoid just to answer your own strawman.

[Drich]

don't be obtuse.
have i propagated anything? Have i extolled the need for guns? have i challenged any of your answers?

I just asked a question to see what type of people are here. We are two pages in at this point so if i had an agenda it would be known by now. Calm down dial the hate back a few notches and just read and respond to what is on page. no need to try and jump a head especially if there isnt anything to jump to.

I'm asking because my brother in law is a douche bag much like most of you who tends to lean towards the left. thought my dad and i were milisha/crazy people. someone broke into his shop, they stole 75K in tools and equipment, now the virus has got some people going into frenzy mode in the down town area he works in.

His value system much like most of yours are based on the idea of a utopian society. I find those who live in a less culturally diverse countries (all/most white) can hold out or play pretend society will never fail. but when reminded his value system is no longer at the top of the societal food chain, he like every other red blooded american (douchebaggery not withstanding) is not looking to be subjected by, or taken advantage of by people foreign or domestic who will force their will onto him.

I guess those such as yourself who live in a less culturally diverse part of the world can pretty much know that everyone who looks like you will think like you and there is no need to defend yourself because you all have agreed not to hurt one another.

Go ahead and call us communists or whatever other inane insult people like you like to throw around.

A rose by any other name would still the same.

Go on. You know you want to. All those inane insults in your head. Let them all out and feel better about yourself.

meh, I've got venues to bash you guys on.. this is a nice practice in playing nice.

then maybe we can take this discussion where freedom of speech is not something frown upon. there are other forums who all christians and atheist equal say. (I can get away with breaking you guys enmass and the admins allow it.)

[Drich]

The OP invites a discussion that isn't particularly interesting.

it must been hard growing up for you. As you Never have anything nice to say and everything you do say is super critical often stabbing at self worth. that is an absorbed character flaw old sport. your dependance on it make you look sad and weak. (did you see what i did there  )
if this were true then why are there 7+ pages of comments in what 3 days of active responses?
not to poop on this web site but truthfully just in the political forum there is one other subject that comes close.

1. who do you think you are fooling?
2. where do you get your delusional insults?
3. do you think it helps you by starting of negatively?

It's been chewed on so extensively in the US that it's nothing but a heap of saliva-soaked rawhide at this point.

that is until most moderates and slight left citizens gave up on the BS most of you can still hold on to, and started buying guns enmass. to the point where we have never had such guns and ammo shortages here. which is why i decided to ask you guys if it would change your mind.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52189349

The rest of the world (outside places like Somalia) has long since left it behind, and mostly just watches the gory circus in the US in horrified bemusement.

and how many first generation or illegal somalis do you have in your neighborhood? Again it is easy to preach social collectives whe you all share the same pigment and back story.

It did however inspire a discussion that  appears to have some interest for members here. Drich may get around to participating in that discussion, and I'd be interested in what he might contribute to it.

Remains to be seen whether he's here exclusively to push an agenda while indulging his rancor, or is willing to engage in civil discourse. There's a notable trend to one and a sad absence of the other, though.

i have no idea what you are on about here. Essentially if i am reading this right. you have hijacked my thread/changed the subject. and are baiting me in another thread to break the rules, now you are calling me out for not allowing your attempt to hijack this thread and allow you to change the nature of the OP i started?

Fine your web site what is the new topic?