I keep wondering when you will ask what i mean by easy access to guns. Dumb people always take several steps back into their beliefs before fighting back.
Yes. Fascists don't need to seize guns and have a complicated relationship with them. Nazi Germany is the easiest example. Gun ownership for true Germans and completely disallowed for 'the other'. It does vary though, which is part of the difficulty in defining fascism and identifying fascists.
I'd argue you are more of a debate lord. Telling me you won't respond, then making more false stupid statements.
Gun people have sanitized history to support improved sales in the past. Its completely accepted these days that removing guns from a population under fascism is required.
Expanding the argument doesn't disagree with my point, easy access to guns is stupid. Never disagreed with mental health or education. Stupid people tend to imagine who they are arguing against, which is why you imagined i disagreed with you on those points.
Fascism does sometimes include siezing of guns. But it's not a required component. The talking point about guns saving us from Fascism is a sales pitch from the 50s and 60s. Guns don't save anyone from Fascism. It does drive sales up though.
Banning some guns is part of regulation, unless you don't understand how regulation works.
My 'wut' is about you fundamentally misunderstanding how regulation works. I'm not allowed to drive a semi because I don't have a class A license. Just like I shouldn't own an AR-15 to control the local deer population.
Hah, thank you. Feel like I'm arguing with some who lacks the ability to understand nuanced argument. Its OK to be wrong or disagree on a topic without being 100% right or wrong is a lesson that seems to be disappearing these days.
I dont want firearms to be removed, beyond restricting access. Including logical fallacies is how I single out people with weak ideologies. Weak beliefs always lean on logical fallacies when challenged.
Move the goalposts again if you wish. Individual harm caused by thermite is relatively limited, even in a war like setting. Lighting a forest on fire doesn't require thermite. Unless you're a fuckin idiot or in middle school
The current administration is too inept to effectively remove firearms. Fascism has always existed in the US, but its more obvious today than in 1940. We don't win by clinging to guns and pretending they will provide retribution.
I won't elaborate on the very basic knowledge I have of explosives because you seem to think knowing about thermite makes you threatening lol.
Just checking the thread... but holy fuck you are weirdly obsessed with drones and thermite. I responded to you elsewhere and I want to make it more clear. I have the education and skills required to design and build the things you are acting like you know about. Even though I have the credentials, I hate flexing them in this capacity.
You are sort of useless from a short reading of your comments. Bring something to the table before arguing about things you don't understand.
Thermite is only dangerous in very specific situations. You aren't some scary bad ass because you think you know how to make bombs. Bigger and better explosives are made with other things that get you put on a list for buying to much of.
Guns need to be regulated is such a broad statement. Its meant to allow dumb people to interpret it however they want. Easy access to guns is objectively stupid.
So many people die in the willamette every year. For anyone that lives near it; it's too early in the season to float the river without a kayak/canoe/boat. Its going to be hot as hell next weekend and I'm expecting to hear about a few more bodies found in the river. It's one of the few times I feel bad for the sheriff. having to pull dead bodies out of the water seems like hell on earth.
They're arguing with an imaginary person and reciting talking points. I'm not sure they understand that I like guns, but understand that we need to control access to them.
I'm not afraid and don't think they should be banned. I like going shooting in the woods for fun. Cars require registration and a license like guns should.
Easy access to guns is objectively stupid. Read what I say without implying things.
Napalm is not styrofoam mixed with gas, full stop.
I thought about this for a while and nuance is missing from my argument. I was thinking of a specific few men who were basically human garbage. Like talked down to women and treated them like objects, and also sucked ass at their jobs.
It's fine to think society should give everyone a sense of value. I disagree on the everyone part.
It must be the 90s again to see someone saying that styrofoam and gasoline makes napalm lol. That is not actual napalm. It could hurt people, but it's more like being lit on fire in modern plastic clothes than it is napalm.
Having easy access to guns is just objectively stupid.
I've seen so many men just suck at doing adult stuff in my life and career. It's not a problem of men not having the opportunity to show value, it's more that they expect to have value without providing anything. So if you feel useless, it's more of a you problem that current media allows you to blame other people for.
Capitalism is causing some of these issues. The core issue is men expecting the world to hand them a sense of value.
I keep wondering when you will ask what i mean by easy access to guns. Dumb people always take several steps back into their beliefs before fighting back.
Yes. Fascists don't need to seize guns and have a complicated relationship with them. Nazi Germany is the easiest example. Gun ownership for true Germans and completely disallowed for 'the other'. It does vary though, which is part of the difficulty in defining fascism and identifying fascists.
I'd argue you are more of a debate lord. Telling me you won't respond, then making more false stupid statements.