Where I Stand On Gun Control - A Canadians Perspective
The American founding fathers included the "right to bear arms" in the second amendment, so the citizens would have a chance to protect the republic, in the event of a fascist takeover.
We can't have a one-size-fits-all approach on guns. I think the right to own guns, should be determined by sequence of privileges earned by the individual. If the individual has never committed a serious crime, and doesn't show elements of mental illness, that most people agree is of concern, I don't care if responsible gun owners choose to buy an AR 15. What we need is a intelligent system that incrementally takes away the freedoms of the second amendment for citizens of concern. If someone shows a pattern of mental illness, that puts them at risk of suicide, or increases the chances of them harming others, then there should be a progressive checks-and-balances approach to intervene when necessary. These laws and regulations would have to be well-defined. The United State has the "Bill-of-Rights", and the constitution. We must defend the rights of responsible citizens at all costs.
I think at least 50% of society is stable enough to own a AR 15. Maybe 10% we don't want to own any kind of gun, and the other 40% would be up for debate. If we could amend the constitutions, to protect the rights of responsible citizens, while allowing individual intervention, when necessary, I think it could lead to some progress. We can't punish those who don't do the crime. Responsible gun owners should not get blamed for owning an AR 15.
I would allow guns to be confiscation from citizens of grave concern. People who engage in moderate to extreme domestic abuse. People who make posts on social media about their intention to commit mass murder. Responsible people should be able to keep their dignity, and own a gun. Theere would have to be a debate on how you setup an organization that would be responsible for interventions, to remove freedoms from citizens of concern. You can't punish those who don't commit the crime, but we can get smarter at interventions, when necessary.
Almost all of you have made some really good points. I need to show you the status of my page after 15 hours. The only one person who had given me, upvote hasn't even replied. I know upvotes are limited, but they do support this channel.
I always check steemd.com to see how many I can give out, and I try and give out 10 a day to people who take the time to write out interesting comments, even if I disagree with them.
I appreciate the comments, but I need to be get more than 1 cent for post like these.
After 15 hours, i'm less than 1 cent. ![2.jpg]
)
(
I've be giving out upvotes to those who put the time and energy into making good remarks. I would be nice if some of you returned the favor once in a while.
My apologies, my voting power had seriously dipped, so I waited for it to rise again, but then forgot. At elast a few comment votes to you will add up a bit (at the level I can)
It's ok some of my other followers have gave me like 20 comments with no vote, so I was thinking I had to say something. Mine has dipped too, so this is the last vote I can give until tomorrow. As long as people do the occasional tip i'm happy.
Thanks I appreciate it. I wasn't trying to be rude. Sometimes we forget. I'm following you. I really enjoy reading your comments. You have some well thought out ideas.
I appreciate how you really looked at this issue from a lot of sides, but one issue in the argument over guns needs to be dealt with. Why does a government or other individuals have the ability to infringe on the private property rights of individuals. Adam Kokesh explained it well here: https://steemit.com/guns/@adamkokesh/the-correct-libertarian-position-is-not-pro-gun. To me it is pretty straightforward. I cannot stop you, and you cannot stop me from owning what I want from a logically consistent basis, therefore regulation of guns it likewise logically inconsistent
I'm holding Adam Koskesh to a higher standard, because he has 10 years in the social media business. He has a higher responsibility to his audience. Even though he's right on a lot of things, he cuts too many corners for me to respect him. I'll give you another example of click-baiting BS, i'm sick off. It comes from the AMTV guy.
The tittle of his video is "MAN CUTS CHECK FOR $100,000,000 BITCOIN" We got to stop rewarding these guys, when they sell out for click-baits.
I get your feelings about Kokesh, I think his platform has promise, not this cycle, but I cannot just s make the change I want to see, I need to be a part of it. Anyways that aside I linked his article because he gave a concise case that gun rights and property rights are the same thing and there is no way to restrict gun rights without violating the logical consistency of property rights.
He should stick to talking about the things he know. He needs to cut the sensational crap out. He would be respected a bit more. I watched a video of him getting arrested, and it looked like he trying to make the situation worse, just to gain some views. After he gets arrested his mom goes on d.tube to get people to feel pity. I don't know. Something about him seems sketchy to me. When people are put on a pedestal, they will start to mislead. His running for president thing is a joke. I wish people would support the honest conservatives that need the money.
Interesting read. But what is your countries stand on gun control and your view in that regard. As much as I know, Canada has no such issues of trigger crazy misguided youths like USA.
We have to find advanced ways of gets guns of crazy peoples hands, while respecting the right of normal people to purchase firearms. You can start wide-scale restrictions, the American culture would never accept it. If people weren't so worried about the government taking their guns away, they would support initiatives to keep them out of the hands of dangerous people.
Sure I feel you. 👌
Sorry. I was distracted and failed to answer your question on Canada. Canadian culture is basically totally anti-gun except for hunters owning rifles. Where I live, I would expect less than 1% of the adults owns a handgun. We don't have open carry. I only seen a young person with a handgun once in my life, and he was with a bunch of bikers doing cocaine at a party. Some of the gangs in Toronto have smuggled guns from the States, but other that that kids don't have guns. I'm never afraid of getting shot anywhere I go. There isn't a culture of violence in Canada.
Personally I'm scared of guns, but I know how the American conservatives think. They won't give their guns to the government. The only solution I see, is to pass laws to get it off the hands of crazy people. American culture is different.
Yes, but again, the operative question that goes yup the root of the issue, is, "who gets to decide?" the very same federal government that seeks to limit our rights. If given that power, they would, under the guise of public safety end up finding cause to restrict access to an inordinate number of citizens. Considering the number of people in prescription psychotropic drugs, or a past history of such prescriptions, plus minor recreational drug use, etc, and you have recipe for wholesale gun ban. We have to remember, that in the USA, the right to bear arms was buoy for hunting, or even home defense, but rather as a safeguard against tyranny. Thus, the government has a conflict of interest and should recuse itself in this issue.
I think your on to something. You don't deny the truth. You're concerned over who's in power, and how freedoms can be taken away. I guess we need a citizen government setup, where average citizens are entrusted to make tough decisions. It would be a complicated structure to design, but it might be the right path forward.
I don't understand why the word "not"is so difficult for me to type. Didn't mean to type buoy
I did not think of that one - nor seen it anywhere else. Bravo....since Sessions is a specialist at it, maybe we should ask him to issue a ruling on this?
:)
I still believe Sessions did the right thing in recusing himself, for two reasons:
I don't know much about him (from before being chosen, but seeing the guy he appointed to the FBI also (maybe seem?) turn against him, it has made me wonder. He could be picking good people, but the deepstate is getting to them one way or another, or theey could be pretending, so as to be effective, or it could be that whoever he chooses, they are all rotten.
Anyway, my comment about Sessions was meant to be a slice of humour, because we must remain capable of laughing at them and ourselves, or else we could grow afraid and become paralysed.
Oh, I caught your humor! With exception of Seasons and a few others, the boots in the administration were recruited by Rancid Penis, many of which were never Trumpers declaring open revolt against Trump. One thing that I don't like about sessions is his war against medical marijuana
Please check my comment re latest news (on this page). It sure made me happy. I guess Trump knew what would happen, so he appeared to favour change, knowing it would be blocked.
Yes, Ann Coulter best encapsulated this:
Democrats: We demand $30!
Republicans: We'll give you $10.
Democrats: OK, $200.
Lindsey Graham: DEAL!
Your thoughts would take us on a slippery slope. What you are suggesting is PC (Political Correctness), which would mean we are trying to play the same game the Globalists are playing.
Keep in mind that guns are meant to protect citzens from their own government, from internal enemies. In Canada, your rights have been diluted, but the criminals have not been affected. It is documented that in Europe, mosques are used as store rooms of weapons, grenades, and so on. If it is also true for Canada, why don't you tell me how you will fight if and when they decide to take over?
In Switzerland citizens are trained and have guns so as to protect their country from invaders; there your logic would make sense.
In the USA, guns are meant to protect the people from would-be dictators (of any kind).
The globalists and their communist lackeys are potential dictators. Let us take an example from the USSR. If they needed to imprison someone, but he was popular or his arrest could cause an outcry, they would certify that person as being mentally unstable and lock them away.
The moment the rights under the constitution start to erode, the citizens will lose all rights. We've seen this time and time again, where rights are taken away progressively (the UK has done exactly that, lately taking away the right of Free Speech).
Advice comes from the past; from those who had the experience of being enslaved by their own government and once they fought and won their freedom, they wrote the Consitution and warned the people that if progressive attempts are attempted against any of the clauses of the Constitution, people must rebel.
Am I being extreme? Well, what of the news today? From the Democrats demanding the R15 be banned, today the message is that they are presenting a Bill, to remove the rights for the American public (insane or sane) to own ANY guns. I see this latest move as being an interpretation by them of the compromise by Trump as being a weakness.
It is a case of the well known saying, "offer a finger and they'll want to take your hand".
I think you have reason to be concerned. I appreciate the effort you put into this reply. I think there is a lot of hated towards republicans, and we have to put something on the table. It wouldn't have to be a slippery sloped if we had well defined checks and balances, and we start getting laws writing through grassroots organizations, instead of elitist with hidden agendas. Sandy hook kinda spooked me, call it an inside job, but I don't see an autistic kid shooting up a kinder garden.
I also don't buy the Boston marathon bombing. Everyone that knew Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, said there was nothing weird about him. He was just a collage kid doing his own thing. It sounds like they were planning on framing someone else, and picked Dzhokhar in a panic. If the NRA was one step ahead of the Democratics, that could offer legislation that would confiscate guns from people that are clearly deranged. I would say people with known Schizophrenia, that doctors could prove in court. As long as the constitution guarantees at least 90% of Americans cam own whatever firearm they want, except weapons of war, tanks etc. It could be the answer. We clearly need to get have the ability to take guns away from crazy people. So we're going to have to figure out how to define it, without it being a slippery slop.
I would also take the gun away from a husband who beats her wife up, and puts her in hospital. There's enough Americans left to defend the constitution, without the help of crazy people. The governments first responsibility is to protect your right to life, so that's a contradiction with the second amendment, if the there is no action taken on citizens of absolute concern.
Consider this: Freedom of Speech is also protected by the Consitution, however, certain speeches are not allowed. For instance, one which is often quoted: Shouting "Fire" in a theatre.
The exceptions were tightly drafted, so that the courts do not have much leeway, thus no slippery slope was created.
With guns, there must be certain exceptions, I agree (I presuppose there already are some). However, mental health is something that is very hard to calibrate, so as to judge someone unfit to carry a weapon. Can you also prevent him from carrying a knife?
Do you recall how psychiatrists made a big thing about multiple personality disorder? The one personality kills and steps back, leaving the body to the other personalities, who are innocent of the crime. Do we have the right to punish the innocent personality in charge now? While we thrashed around with the ethics of it, the profession reversed themselves and announced there is no such disorder.
Since it has been found that certain drugs kids and teenagers are dosed with cause them to turn to violence, we could maybe say that while on the drug and for a period thereafter, they cannot be licensed to carry a gun of any kind.
As for domestic violence - I presume you want the same rule to apply to women who are guilty of domestic violence? I would say that the law must first become more unforgiving of domestic violence. Maybe we could have that when they are realeased, for the next 3 years they may not carry?
As you see, it is not that I see everything as black and white and stand against all changes in the laws. I am just worried that we do not leave loopholes that can be exploited in a scenario where the globalist elites take over. Of course, we also have to worry that their plans are not all dependent on their winning any elections.
I don't have all the answers here. I'm going to write an article on the national debt. It's something i'm very passionate about. I would love to take away the governments ability to borrow money. I'll invite you to join the debate, because I want to hear your thoughts and ideas. Very few people are talking about the Debt, and I think it's one of the biggest Trojan horses that's going to take down society. I'm also angry at trump for over-spending. He has no idea how to make real cuts.
Always, when he does something you do not like and you thought he opposed, keep in mind that he is under constant threat.
For instance, what is keeping him in power and alive and able to fight the deepstate is not the voters, but the military. So, to keep them happy, he had to spend hundreds of billions. They want a war? He cannot say no, all he can try to do is limit them.
Obama pushed up the debt without any excuse (and mislaid $3 trillion?). I would rather the debt go up, but Trump keep us out of the clutches of the globalists (Soros, Bill Gates, Rothschild and so on. Sh*t, what about the EU, with Hillary they were planning to take over the USA deepstate).
Once Trump wins a few extra (crucial) States and has ability to control Congress/Senate, then you'll see a new Trump.
He is risking his life and that of his family - he is not the Anti-Christ as some think, so he cannot pull off miracles. We need to back him and ensure he has the power to really be the President of the United States.
Good comment, @arthurbravo . Following
Thanks. Reciprocated.
To hear Benjamin Fulford tell it from his sources, the US petrol dollar (central bank) has been rejected by a host of nations including China; a global reset back to gold (even backing a crypto currency) is imminent; throw in the reports that EO from last Fall to seize assests from criminals against humanity went into full affect, and the shut down of deepstate underground bases, and I conclude one of two things: Trump can approve a hideously irresponsible-looking budget because he's bowing to the system; or, he's acting like money grows on trees because he knows the US is going to get a windfall bigger than the wealth of many small nations if jubilee is declared and stolen assets are redistributed.
I obviously suspect the latter. But I can't verify any of the factors that make me suspect that.
I guess we see eye to eye on this.
I subscribe to Breitbart and an annoying feature is that I get emails that look as if they are from them, but are from advertisers. One of the 'business advisors' sent me an email a few weeks back, saying that on 3rd March the US$ will not longer be the international currency, that other countries will be depositing with the IMF for a new currency to be created. They explained that despite the huge 21 trillion debt, because it was the international currency, all countries were forced to keep it strong, but that from the 3rd it will collapse to a tiny percentage of it's current value.
My first thought was, that then it should be safe for Trump to close the Fed Reserve Bank and create a new dollar - as president Kennedy did, days before they killed him.
I had thought the IMF is controlled by the U.S. - am I wrong?
Let's hope Trump lives through all this shit - and that we do too...
As a side thought. Many countries need the USA as their customer, or else much of their industry would collapse. How will they survive if the USA dollar were to collapse, as they are supposed to be planning?
You are aware that the pearl-clutching and synthetic outrage is being orchestrated by the very same mass media that is sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, and that the common thread among all mass killings in the past twenty years, is that they were all on - or had recently stopped taking - prescription psycho active drugs. We don't have a gun problem. We have a cultural problem, and a drug problem - neither of which will be cured by banning gun ownership.
In the USA, we already have ownership restrictions for convicted felons. I would only support limitations on wife beaters, proceeded they are given due process, and not simply based upon her word. Despite the sensationalist new coverage, the dirty secret is that mass shootings are not up, compared to previous years or even decades. Read about Operation Gladio in Europe, and even Behold The Pale Horse, written decades ago, that forecasted false flag school shootings to generate public outrage against gun ownership, and being in sweeping gun laws (what happened in Europe). I will not give them up. Plus, the dreaded AR15 Is only used in one percent of all gun crimes, and only two percent of all mass shootings
Everything you say sounds rational. However we know government power is always abused. Obama wanted to seize guns from people that couldn't do their taxes. Which will be what happens when abusive democrats like him get back in power. Mental gun seizures will sky rocket if they cant get an outright ban.
Liberals use to be the ones with the progressive ideas. They wanted safer working conditions, fair wages, the end of racism, environmental protection, and anti war. Now its like lets tax everyone to death, because the rich deserve to be punished. Let's have transsexual parades, while framing straight men for shit they didn't even do. Anyone who's speaks out against giving hormones to boys has to feel ashamed of themselves? I was a liberal, but when I didn't see any liberals speaking out against Obama's trillion dollar deficits, I had a little fun, and started listening to conservatives. Now I might not be about drill baby drill destroy the earth kinda guy, but when they talk about limited but defined power, it made sense. Liberals thinks spending makes society great. They think money just grows on trees, and they are entitled to everything, even if their children have to pay for it.
While I disagreed with the old liberals, their causes were noble and just: Looking out for the little guy, fighting corruption of big business, etc. Now, they have abandoned that in favor of flooding us with occupying armies of semiliterate unskilled peasants who 85% of which go on government assistance, and 90% of which will likely become permanent-underclass bloc-voters for the democrats. Net-net: They have betrayed their black and blue-collar voters for a new protected class. They have jumped the shark.
1st March, 2018:
Ok guys, @texagonia , have you seen the news that the Republicans blocked any changes to gun control:
https://www.infowars.com/senator-america-needs-idiot-control-not-gun-control/
https://www.infowars.com/u-s-congressional-republicans-reject-new-limits-on-guns/
Isn't it nice to start a new month with good news?
I really like Alex Jones for making us think deeper, but don't forget he's a businessman. He over-pushes sensationalism to bring money to his platform. He's a bit of a sellout, but he does enough good where I can respect for challenging the system. Take some of his stuff with a grain of salt, because he does make stuff up a little too much.
That means we have nobody to trust. Drudge and Breitbart also have to make money, or else they cannot survive.
I agree that there are a number of things I do not like about Alex, which btw is also my name, the worst of it being his ham acting and silly voices (he has infected those who work with him, apart from Knight). He does exaggerate his titles, which I consider clickbait, but I've never caught him telling a lie.
It's funny because I invited you to the gun debate, and you showed up, and we're all getting along, and learning a thing or two. I do the same thing with liberals, and invite them to my debate on overpopulation, and they act like I need to explain why I have the right to be there. I was on the homesteading forum. I'm thinking to myself, you dudes are about "sustainability". Why are you're offended about some guy asking for your opinion on over-population?
I ask a conservatives to give their opinion. They don't get offended, they just give their opinion. The liberals lecture you on when it's appropriate. It's like you have to join their group, or you don't have the right to be there. Even talking about environmental issues, I'm get more done with conservatives, because they are hungry for the truth. Even if i'm arguing with conservatives, and everyone gets frustrated, they still follow you, because they are curious about what you're going to say next. I think the liberals are more into style, and the conservatives are digging deeper for substance.
For the conservatives, I hope so.
For the liberals, I hope it is a temporary thing.
Does anyone here recall from many years ago, there were so-called 'specialists' to help families deal with problem-children, plus those who have been brainwashed by sects.
They called it "tough love".
With certain Scout Masters, being a boy Scout served as a tough love camp (training area), but not enough of them to save an entire generation.
What if someone starts a de-programming camp for parents to send their kids for three months, if they see signs that their child is turning (or being turned) into a snowflake?
Could we call it a business idea? or just something we all desperately need?
That's because the liberal doctrine isn't a philosophy; it's an orthodox cult, requiring strict, unquestioning adherence, under threat of violence or death. That's why they get along so well with radical Islam.
Not all liberals are bad. I enjoy talking to the scientist, who actually know facts. I like some of the independent journalist making programs on sweatshops. They just don't realize the divide and conquer strategy of political correctness. There too stuck in their small thinking bubbles. I don't like self-righteous hipsters, and snowflakes who think sexual diversity is a good idea. When did liberals start worrying more about a boy desire to grow tits, over real threats such as gang violence?
I didn't say they were bad. I said they were cult-followers. No different from the victims of Nigerian 401 scams, the more you show them the proof of them being scammed, the angrier they get at you, and support their scammer more than before.
I've been giving you lots of upvotes lately. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen any from you in a long time. Maybe your voting power is down, but as a polite reminder, we all support each other here.
You might want to check out my post on Cheetah Bot :)
Alex is extremely intelligent. He picks things up that know one else see's. I don't think there is anyone else that could replace him.
I like Ben Shapiro. He's about as honest as it gets. He's lied about climate change. We know it's real. Mountain glaciers are melting, and not all of it is because of the sun. They have lasers that can calculate to what extent CO2 reflects long-wave radiation, back to earth. Although I have all the concerns about carbon taxes, and bankers hijacking environmentalism for their own agenda.
I was university for four years. Back in 2006, they said will user fear to sell books, and will all get rich. I said whatever happened to integrity? You should sell the truth for the sake of the truth, not to push your own agenda. I remember being in a room with about 10 people bragging how they bought an Al Gore ticket for $400. They didn't like me too much. Ben Shapiro is also a fiscal conservative, and that's one of my top priorities. I'm surprise that we don't get more environmentalist supporting conservatives, because sustainability is a conservative principle. If climate change why didn't they develop a a plan to help third world countries stop rapid population growth? Instead they just want endless taxpayers to be born.
Who says they are not trying to stop population growth? You did not read about the Kenya sterilisation of over half a million girls? They used vaccinations to do so, but six catholic bishops became suspicious and send six (one each) vaccinations to a laboratory in Johannesburg, for analysis. They found various heavy metals, insecticide etc in the vaccinations (which cause brain damage), but, the most important, the found a certain chemical used for sterilising animals. The laboratory said it is known that this chemical can also sterilise human beings.
I recently made a post about two person handling the experiments at CDC - it turns out they were responsible for experiments perfomred on Agent Orange (used heavily in Vietnam) and they declared it safe, not harmful to humans or the environment.
Bill gates openly admits the vaccinations will bring the population down to "manageable" levels. He was among the first to visit Trump after he won the election and apparantly warned Trump not to interfere with the vaccinations, or else, next year (2018) a new virus could appear which will kill at least 30 million people. Trump had already appointed Kennedy to investigate CC and vaccinations in general, but he stopped talking about it and has remained silent since then. To pretend a new virus will appear because of people not being vaccinated is stupid kind of logic and only makes sense if you think of it as being a threat.
BTW, did you know that after agent orange was banned, Monsanto was going bankrupt, so, in exchange for a large chunk of shares, Bill Gates handed over to them all his research on creating GMO's?
I consider Gates not only evil, (despite his charming appearances on TV) and because of his high intelligence, one of the most dangerous to the future of mankind, of the cabal. At least India had the sense to ban him and the WHO, after they discovered that they had experimented on 600,000 Indian girls.
We used to say, as a way of proving what we say, go google it. With them now deleting all info against the agenda of the globalist cabal, I cannot say it, but I have downloaded tons of material, if you want it, we can maybe work out a way for me to make it available for you.
EDIT: Enf og 2015, they announced they have vaccinated over 10 million girls in the USA. Not children (boys and girls): just girls.
The Kennedy team found that 80% of black boys are brain damaged to some degree (brown skin kids are more susceptable to damage by the vaccines. If you are an American, know this then: you will have to support tens of millions thrrough taxes, once they grow older.
That's the problem. It's all being done in secret. None of the useful idiots will support ethical policies on population control, such as offering free vasectomies, after someone has a few kids, education, the end of poverty, relationship development.
Mainstream liberals are too worried about political correctness, to even talk about what's going on in Manila, Philippines. Again it gets back to @Texagonia's comment "Who gets to decide?" Well the choice can be the individual, but rather then elite using poison in secreat, it be better to educate third world countries, why it's unsustainable to have 6 or 7 children. Shit's being done in secret, because the average person is too lazy, or too worried to think of good ideas. You got conservative liars saying overpopulation is a myth. Well the world's running out of fish, and the rainforest are more than half whipped out. I don;t want to be taking away peoples freedoms, but future generation might have to ration, just to survive. What's keeping the economy alive is oil, and I don't buy the peak oil myth. I think we're going to run out in a 100 years or so. You're paying a fortune to buy food at the groceries stores, because demand can't keep up with supply.
If you have the time. Here's a 20 minute documentary on overpopulation in the Philippines. There is just not enough resources to get these people out of poverty, if they keep breeding at insane levels. The government is so lazy to figure this shit out, they rather use poison, and possibly chemtrails, which is putting thousands of species at risk for extinction. Maybe they are using poison because they are too stupid to know how to do it ethically. I think the government is corrupt, but don't think they are as smart as people claim. Look at their ineffectiveness to come to consensus after a big conference. Taxpayers pay for all their meeting, and they just see it as a wine & cheese party. No motivation to put pencil to paper, and get shit done. Over-population shouldn't be censored. Conservatives should demand ethical solutions. It would derail their hidden agenda.
When SA lived under apartheid, the ANC told their people to have as many babies as possible, so that the percentage of blacks goes up. It may have been a necessary strategy at the time, but they have run the country for more than 20 years and still refuse to tell their people to cut back. Running out of water and with them now grabbing land from productive farmers, the country will soon be starving.
I want to live forever...but now, I am starting to be glad I am old and don't have many years left. It may be a copout, but I don't want to be a part of the world we have created. As you say, changes could have been brought about humanely, but we are not a humane specie - we only like to think we are.
When SA lived under apartheid, the ANC told their people to have as many babies as possible, so that the percentage of blacks goes up. It may have been a necessary strategy at the time, but they have run the country for more than 20 years and still refuse to tell their people to cut back. Running out of water and with them now grabbing land from productive farmers, the country will soon be starving.
I want to live forever...but now, I am starting to be glad I am old and don't have many years left. It may be a copout, but I don't want to be a part of the world we have created. As you say, changes could have been brought about humanely, but we are not a humane specie - we only like to think we are.
One of my biggest problems, is we live in a generation of mass-narcissism. We're being forced to celebrate degeneracy. You older folks understood how to be classy. You had tasteful music. I didn't get that opportunity in school. I had to learn it the hard way. The youth have been deliberately screwed up. They do everything to promote a culture of narcissism, so people no longer care about the thing's that are important. Get them interested in being shallow to disarm their higher thinking abilities. Rap music was created to weaponize the minds of African Americans so they can get them in prison. If we can get rid of diabolical narcissism, I we can have a chance. The worlds problems can be tackled if we can force everyone to be honest, even if they have a difference of opinion.
If I come back as a human, I want to live as a North American Indian 700 years ago. I want to live in a world without money and technology. Never having to work 9 to 5, and living off the land.
A sad fact: Towards the end of the last century, because of improvements in the economies of African countries, people were having less babies. Studies showed world population will increase to 9 billion, despite less babies being born, due to the increase of the life span. Thereafter the population, after peaking, will shrink - and fairly quickly.
Fifteen years ago, estimated average lifespan was, in the USA (if I recall correctly) at 81 and still growing. Now it is dropping back to 75 and is expected to drop further to about 65 or less (and that is without the depopulation schemes in force).
That directly affects everyone alive now, but nobody seems to give a shit. Shrugging and saying, what can I do, is cowardly and turn people into sheeple.
I've been mad lately. I got 109 followers. I have this kick-ass conversation going. I know a lot of people are reading this, but they don't stop to commit? Every bodies afraid of controversy. Why are the snowflakes afraid of their keyboard? Everybody is so afraid of offending somebody, or posting a comment that might look stupid. So what? It's ridiculous.
Sorry. but you would do better to better to think of your followers as being somewhere between 5 to 10% of the number you see. Most are newbies who have no interest in visiting our posts.
I sometimes wish I could find an app that examines who my followers are and whether they have ever visited my posts (apart form the once-off time, when they followed). Anybody with less than one visit to a post in an entire month, I want them deleted.
I am on Gab, and there I spend half my days posting insulting comments, trying to rile people into thinking for themselves and actually doing something to save themselves. When they post of something that angers them and they make threatening comments, I riicule them for thinking that by making the post they think they have accomplished something, taken a stand that will frighten the globalists...etc. I also try to point out what concrete steps they should take.
Some understand and like me, but some hate me. Guess which ones hate me.
Re visitors: I thought that each time I open a post, I register. I am told that it only registers unique visitors.
I love it. Best breakfast I've had all month
I find it rather amusing to have the gun debate with Europeans, because they look at me as if I'm speaking a different language. I guess that's what happens to people who lived centuries under tyrannical rule, and worship their captors. That's the difference between citizens and subjects.