CLEARLY nothing because everyone knows that misrepresenting your opponent to force your own dogma into the conversation without any level of actual intelligence just to get the heckin moral superiorityino is the proper way to discuss these days.
Owning a gun is the logical step from the natural right to defend your life. If you are under threat of death by another individual, why in the fuck would you ever willingly put yourself at a disadvantage. Does your moral grounds of guns = bad really overvalue the rest of your natural life?
Someone invades your home, you grab a knife, congratulations knives are far more dangerous than a gun for every participant of the struggle and you have now made it statistically more likely to accidentally kill yourself. You use your hands, disadvantaged against someone with a weapon, death.
The point is literally that you have a personal freedom from birth to keep yourself alive and in a world that has afforded us better and better tools to ensure that, use them.
That's contradictory. Prevention is preparedness. As in pre-emptive. As in it's not an action to be ready for something before it happens, as the action only comes when needed. I keep a first aid kit not for fear, but use. Do I fear coming along to someone with a deep wound that needs suturing because I own it? Obviously not. You must have never heard the phrase, better to have it and not need it than be without.
I've yet to see any return of investment from an entire foreign industrial collapse but sure. I guess the projections of global economic growth going from 5% down to 0.3% is just my imagination.
You're probably thinking of Switzerland and they can't own personal ammunition.
As for the rest of your point, the second amendment is the hot button because those who want to take away the fundamental right to own arms are basically saying that rights are affordable. That's not how they work. As someone in this thread said, the bill of rights do not grant you these rights, they already existed and the bill is acknowledging them. IE, under no circumstances does the government have any capability or authority to deny or revoke it under any guise. The very concept of the people for the people would be erased otherwise.
If the culture of America legitimately swung overwhelmingly in favor of handing in their arms (never going to happen) cosmopolitanism tells us that is fine and good. If the government decides for you that everyone is in agreement, that is a spit in the face of liberty and a complete fabrication of their ability to revoke rights (which as stated they don't have).
I'm sure it was just a coincidence that Pritzker then also passed a bill that lawsuits regarding this anti-gun bill (among others) could only be tried in the courts of Chicago and Springfield, the only two courts willing to allow this dogshit. Right, it was really a fair trial.
I'm from Illinois, every county outside those has stated their dislike and contempt for this law enough that sheriffs have made mention they will not zealously enforce this. It is overwhelmingly a hated bill and there are piles upon piles of lawsuits in the lower courts that are now invalidated thanks to Pritzker's bullshit. They will be up for federal review and hearings on why the upper courts have made this faulty judgement despite the contempt, citing those lawsuits.
I'm sure it was also a coincidence that right after it was passed, the Pritzker family made notice they would be building a giant megaplex gun range and firearm museum directly on the border in Wisconsin where the banned items would be available for rent.
It's not fear, lmao, it's prevention. Do you wear a seatbelt because you fear dying in a car crash every day you enter it? Or is it preventing the possibility of that hypothetical serious injury?
No licensed CCW owner here is walking around armed like a schizo looking over their shoulder and afraid of every person they meet ready to fire. They simply understand there are humans in this world that would take advantage of you if they could, and if that situation occurs, why handicap yourself.
Government data itself from the DOJ shows you're less likely to be a victim of injury in crime by having a gun compared to simply not doing anything, hell having a personal knife could be more likely to get you killed. The point made is it's not the government's right to decide for us if we want to arm ourselves. The individual is enough to make that decision.
It was "shot down" because congress was not allocating the funds he wanted to spend to enact the relief. How dare the court actually uphold the constitution in respect to checks and balances and not let the president use executive power to supersede congressional debates and hearings.
It's so disingenuous to fight for something because you find it morally right in idea without understanding every nuance of the path it follows. I'd like young adults relieved of the debt economy we're building just as much as anyone else, but not at the expense of our institutional sanctity. Bad precedent is a slope.
E: meanwhile our dipshit congressmen that wouldn't allow the funds allocated are allowing 40 billion to foreign aid and repeatedly fueling our debt economy. Unironically indict Congress on corruption charges.
Love the cognitive dissonance of the populist backlash to Trump where even if you look at his 4 years and realize that logically he was pretty much an average (we haven't had a decent one in a loooooong time) president in all categories, he's somehow responsible for every bad in all industries, even where the checks and balances would have prevented him any influence over.
I would recommend looking more into it. Libertarianism at its actual fundamental, and not the heavily skewed incorrectly labeled types being seen here, is about freedom of the individual from oppression of tyranny and inefficient bureaucracy. The ability to live your life without determined rules set forth by a governing body that has long forgotten the plight of the common man.
You can even take two seconds to look at Wikipedia for the aggregated definition and see it's about liberty and personal autonomy. Often you'll hear, I don't agree with what you say but I'll die for your right to say it. Libertarians don't have to personally accept what you do, but they fundamentally believe the state should not interfere with it.
This is why rule of law and cosmopolitanism are such fundamental values, as if the state is not allowed encroachments on personal liberty, it's left to the citizenry to use the free market of ideas in determining what is acceptable or not.
Ancaps are an entirely different breed and are extremist in their views. Conflating them is like conflating a Tankie with a Social Democrat.
Beans are cheap and if you just want nutritional value they hit both carbs and protein in a great amount per ounce. Of course there's the studies showing regional genes benefit more from specific macro sources over others (IE an Asian would utilize rice glycogen better than oats), but if you want to hit the basics: beans
Concerts and bands. Myspace was a reaction, not a catalyst. Heavy social media use in that era was rare and niche. Hence why this pictured style was not as common as you might think it was.
Most children and teens are terminally online and their styles are symptom, not cause.
We try and then it's taken over by corrupt lazy union bosses that don't actually help or the company just fires you under an at will employment lie and hires scabs. The government has essentially been infiltrated by corporate American to pass legislation allowing them to break unions easier. Lobbying is our problem, not the lack of unions atm.
Over half of Congress would be indicted on corruption if we really gave a shit about threats to our society like the current political theatre claims.
Eh. As a zoomer (among the older ones) the styles today aren't forged from small local communities and interests like the image. Everything has been seeping into my younger cohorts' brains by social media and conforming to an identity they found online. Personally, it's unhealthy, and only getting worse for the next generations.
It's my opinion that thematic messages presented now are overt, with little nuance, and hold the same level of failure to look inward biases you claim. There is no discussion to be had when you hold a meeting with strawmen.
Great writers and media of the past were lauded for holding something that is presented as a moral evil up to caliber in logic and presentation. Taking a threat seriously so to speak. Look at an instance like Metal Gear, where despite the intent and presentation saying warmongering is bad, the writers still had the wherewithal to gauge a reasonable position you'd face fighting that ideology. You aren't meant to agree with Zero or the Patriots or BB. But you can see and understand their logic to lead these actions.
What is this but taking a child's doll and using it to spew word vomit level rhetoric that focuses on buzzwords and failed symbolism than actually addressing anything core to the point. If you want to make some preaching movie do it. But when you market your film as a lighthearted romp of self discovery involving an inanimate object, don't be shocked when people push back.
CLEARLY nothing because everyone knows that misrepresenting your opponent to force your own dogma into the conversation without any level of actual intelligence just to get the heckin moral superiorityino is the proper way to discuss these days.