Their recent ToS update: “We bricked your TV until you ‘consent’ to waiving your right to sue us if we do something illegal. Also, we won’t tell you what you’re consenting to up front, instead we’ll make you spend hours reading through pages and pages of legal garbage to find where we buried this statement.”

They know that nobody would agree to this if they put it in big bold letters right above the “agree” button, so they bury it behind hours of tedious reading so that people cave in and just “consent.”

If you roofy someone’s drink and pester them until they “consent” to sex, you would get thrown and jail and probably shanked in the liver. If Roku bricks the TV that you purchased and won’t let it work again until you consent to something that you’re nearly guaranteed to miss or not understand by design, their profits go up because people can’t sue them.

This capitalism hellhole can’t burn down fast enough.

You can make fun of their ego all you want to make yourself feel better.

But they have guns and you don’t.

Who’s going to win when if they kick your door down?

I understand where you’re coming from. Obviously, non-violent means of enacting change like voting in reform should be the first choice to get things done.

What options exist when nonviolent means are exhausted though? Your argument is essentially:

“The government has the means to oppress the shit out of us. If it happens to us, there’s no point in fighting back so just roll with it and let it happen. I feel it’s better to have others force a way of life on me that I fundamentally disagree with, than it is to risk my life fighting for what I believe in so myself, my children, and foreseeable future generations can live their lives free of oppression.”

With that, I hope you understand why I and many other disagree with your view.

Yep, we just gotta vote in people who will legislate it. Which means normal people who don’t take bribes donations from corporations will need to run for office and beat those who do.

So basically we’re doomed. We either need a modern day Teddy Roosevelt or we need to start building guillotines.

The ATF said that people at Waco and Ruby Ridge shot first too, turns out that was a lie.

We shouldn’t believe a word they say about this case yet, wait for an investigation to take place. For some ungodly reason, they have a track record of fabricating gun charges against people, surrounding their home with armed men, and claiming they were shot at first when stories like this hit the news.

I wouldn’t trust what the ATF has said yet. They fabricated evidence that people at Waco were selling machine guns and explosives to justify their standoff and raid there, turns out all of that was a lie.

They have all the incentive to take control of this story now so public opinion takes their side. Not unsurprisingly, they did the same thing after Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Even if everything the ATF said here is proven completely true, I agree - fuck the ATF, there was no reason to surround this person’s house and start shooting. We should all expect much more out of our government than this. Disband these thugs.

If you unnecessarily bring a gun somewhere and end up in a situation where you need to use it to kill people, you’re a murderer.

Even if he didn’t provoke anyone? As long as the gun isn’t pointed at anyone and threats aren’t made with it, there’s nothing provocative about it being there. I understand how others may feel different when their only exposure to firearms is what establishment news decides to show them, but reality is that the simple presence of a weapon like this is not alone a threat.

If Kyle instead brought a concealed handgun (ignoring how that’s illegal for a 17 y/o) and only drew it a moment before when he shot his first attacker, would your opinion change? How about if it was a knife, or a rock he found nearby? What if someone else jumped in and killed Kyle’s attacker instead?

He actively sought out the situation, and therefore bears some responsibility.

He did not actively seek out to kill people, you’re misinformed at best if you believe that, arrogant at worst.

I don’t feel that trying to stop property damage for a family friend’s establishment in the middle of a riot, where police refused to stop people, is a pattern of behavior I want to discourage people from doing. If a convicted sex offender tried to kill me for stopping them from destroying my friend’s livelihood, and I killed them in self defense, I wouldn’t feel remorse for my actions.

I’m happy the jury ruled on facts and not liberal propaganda. And I say that as a registered Democrat.

Thanks for the intelligent response.

Why do you feel that way though? I’m not being facetious or a troll, I genuinely want to know what facts about Kyle’s encounter that you (and probably others) base this opinion off of.

If someone chased you down unprovoked and tried to kill you, and you killed them in self defense, no one in their mind would call you a murderer. There are countless cases of self defense that are less cut and dry than this one, but no one bats an eye at them.

Tell me if you were told a different series of events than this:

The first guy chased Kyle while yelling threats about how he was going to kill him, cornered Kyle, then lunged at his gun before Kyle shot him. Kyle then ran towards police while a mob pursued him, throwing stuff at him including a heavy rock that hit him in the head knocking him down. The second guy ran up to Kyle while he was on the ground about was about to club him in the head with a skateboard before Kyle shot him, and the third guy ran up on Kyle and pointed a gun at his head before Kyle shot him.

Care to elaborate on why you think the trial was a sham? Do you disagree that this was self defense? Or are you simply upset that he had a gun?

The misinformation in this thread is real.

I’d bet money that most people here didn’t watch the trial or the videos of what happened. The media baselessly called him a murderer and that was enough for people to parrot it.

Anyone else have a stroke trying to make sense of the title?

That same logic suggests that Red states would kick Biden off the ballot if they’d like regardless of what the Supreme Court says.

There’s no evidence that suggests these photos were posted by Trump’s campaign, and BBC didn’t mention who posted them despite having talked to them.

I doubt it’s just me, but when I read the headline, I assumed that Trump’s campaign posted these photos. How else would it be news worthy? “Trump supporters post AI generated photos of Trump in an attempt to garnish support for Trump” is a normal Tuesday activity for these loons.

This “journalism” is just rage bait, in my opinion.

America takes awful care of its citizens, some other countries certainly do better. I wish we’d focus more on addressing the root cause issues that push people to commit violence instead of superficial actions like banning weapons, though. Even if all guns disappeared overnight, the conditions that incentivize violence would still be around.

I mean, “mass shooting” used to colloquially mean a random act against the public. I feel like people still think it means that when they see stats like this, but practically all the shootings in this stat are from gang violence and organized crime. A drive-by is a mass shooting.

Not to downplay the severity of it, but I hope people aren’t thinking that there have been ~45 Kroger type shootings this year already. Solutions that address crime like this are different than addressing sick, politically motivated domestic terrorists. Not to say we don’t need a lot of both, though.

Bernie wasn’t much of an anti-2A advocate until he ran for the Democratic bid in 2016. Align with party values or get out.

Our country is sick. Healthcare is inaccessible and right out unaffordable, the Bible belt vilifies science, education is both piss poor and stupid expensive, we’re the richest country on the planet but a tiny handful of grubs are hoarding all the wealth, something something preaching to the choir.

People wouldn’t commit politically motivated domestic terrorism if living here wasn’t made intentionally shitty by the people in charge. I want our planet to stop burning, but they’re only focused on revoking trans rights or whatever fabricated problem they’re whining about this week. Americans need to wake the fuck up and stop being so complacent.

I interpreted Donjuanme’s comment as sarcastic, where “no way a background check would’ve stopped this” implied that they thought a background check wasn’t performed, but if it would’ve been, this murder wouldn’t have happened.

Not everyone who commits a violent crime with a gun has a previous record of doing that, or other indicators that would fail a background check for that matter. Not a lot of anti-gunners seem to remember that though, which is partly why I interpreted the comment that way.

You can’t trust Amazon reviews either though.

* Sellers frequently farm good reviews by including cards in their packages that state “give us a 5 star review and get a full/partial refund!”

• Sellers update their listings with good reviews with different pictures, descriptions, etc. which effectively creates a different listing while carrying over a large review count.

* Amazon doesn’t allow reviews after 30 days (?) from purchase, so items poor durability will not have that reflected in their reviews

It’s a damn shame, but between this broken review system and their incredibly low quality items and quality control, they’re not worth the money or headache to use. Especially since most of their products are no name Chinese garbage that are exclusively available on Amazon. They’re basically Wish, Tubi, or Alibaba.

Edit: Amazon must’ve updated their review policy since I’ve last used them, 2+ years ago. They explicitly ban monetary rewards for good reviews, and I don’t see a mention of review deadlines either. The only references I found about their review deadlines is a few Reddit posts from a year ago. So my bad!

If nothing’s changed though, they still sell hot garbage.

Do you take your fire extinguisher with you to the store also?
When you drive there, do you make sure to buckle your five point harness and put on your full visor helmet?
Do you carry you basic EMS kit with you at all times? What about a couple doses of narcan? EpiPen?

I was highlighting the convenience/safety tradeoff in taking basic precautions against low probability but high risk events. You were incorrectly stating that people feel like they need to carry a gun just to grocery shop, and I explained how that was false. Not sure how that went over your head, but it clearly did.

My point is, the gun is a big piece of equipment for a very niche contingency. There are significantly more likely threats that you can take care of with less burden to your daily life than even the modest inconvenience of carrying a weapon.

Ok, name a few? How else would someone mitigate risk of human threats against their life? I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at, but you don’t have to forgo carrying a weapon for self defense in order to eat healthy and exercise to mitigate risk of heart failure. Carrying a gun everyday also isn’t a burden, and I enjoy range time and training. People should be allowed means to self defense if they want it. If they abuse it, they get their rights taken away. It’s really quite simple.

Don’t pretend that you need to carry a gun to the grocery store.
You want to carry a gun, for whatever reason.

If the goal is having means for self defense against people, concealed carry is the only effective way to achieve it. Pepper spray, taser, knife, or anything else is objectively ineffective. I don’t need a gun to grocery shop, but I do need a gun if I want adequate self defense.

No one thinks the gun is just gonna magic itself out of the holster and shoot someone.
The point is the gun doesn’t make anyone else feel more safe. No one thinks to themselves “oh good, a stranger with a gun has arrived. That’s just what this Baskin Robbins needed”.

The goal isn’t to make other people feel safe, the goal is to help myself and my loved ones. Other people will never know that I have a gun on me, so whether I actually have one or don’t doesn’t change anything from their point of view.