crkinnh

There's a lack in thought in this statement. Although immigration does not equal terrorism automatically, that does not mean that immigration cannot be correlated with an increase in terrorism. The US is a country built on immigration yes, almost completely from Christian European countries. A largely homogenous society is bound to lack problems with terrorism when terrorism is based on the use of violence to obtain ideological and/or political goals. However, countering your statement saying that terrorism in the case we are referring to does not create terrorism is a very narrow-minded point of view that leads to dangerous situations, like the attacks in Paris, Brussels, Nice, Berlin, and many other smaller acts throughout the continent. On the note of Canada, the attack you refer to, actually was a Quebecois separatist. In other words, they got sick of the immigration and relocation programs of the Canadian government, and acted out in direct response to that to obtain sovereignty in Quebec. It has very little to do with the thoughts we are talking about, it in and of itself this is the very definition of terrorism. The fact that you dismiss every other news source that isn't from 6 major companies in the US is very naive. All of these companies have the sole goal of profit, this includes clicks, and can even include the political establishment as Wikileaks has shown with the collusion (both for bribes and to benefit Turner's political goals) between CNN and the Clinton Campaign for example. Again, dismissing smaller news companies and websites as only having conspiracy theories, and "alternative facts" is a laughable statement, a broad oversimplification and frankly just isn't true. Does it happen; absolutely, but to say it's most of these outlets is an absurd statement. Also, to say that anything that certain president says is fake is a laughable statement. Are there things that he has said that are seemingly unsubstantiated, absolutely, however to say that that's the only way he can make himself relevant is simply untrue. Okay, what makes you think you know anything about US politics? I hate it when Europeans think they know American politics, and when you decide to judge what happens in America. They, and by extension you, know nothing about it. Also, if you took a look at S0berDrunk's country, he's Dutch, not from the US. The UK is now right wing, in practice, it's government has previously acted more left wing, especially on immigration. This could be because of the EU, but regardless has still occurred. Germany has a "center right" government, but still in practice acts like a left wing government with aspects of an authoritarian right wing government (or vice versa depending on how you view it). I don't need to point to the numerous policies that are anti men, anti white, and pro unvetted immigration from high risk countries. I can't comment on Greece because I don't know enough on their government to comment. I also can't comment on Hungaries government, as I don't know the specifics. France though, is basically in practice authoritarian right with many aspects cherry picked from socialism, very similar to Germany, but not with as many lax immigration policies. If anything, they're more left wing. They simply want to lessen the oppression by their governments on their liberty. The government refusing to listen on how the mass immigration (without any vetting) from countries that are ideologically polar opposite is just fueling this fire. The only thing they have that is moving further right is immigration, and nationalism. The rest is all moving to center right, and right libertarian policies. Frankly, I'm excited for a return to classical liberalism worldwide. Also, by the way, by using "xenophobic" out of proper usage you are contributing to that word losing it's proper meaning. Calling the reasonable tightening a country's borders from mass immigration from these countries that has caused nothing but problems xenophobic, is exactly why your ideology is losing. In practice it seems like it, but on second looks, it's actually authoritarian right with elements of authoritarian left. Actually, these statistics in Germany from just 2014 says otherwise. This is from before the mass immigration from Northern Africa and the Middle East to Europe nevermind after. I'll make a list for you for the top 10 countries in each crime in 2014 (before the mass immigration from these areas) in Germany. From left to right, furthest left being 1, furthest right being 10. Murder: Lebanon, Tunisia, Algeria, Afghanistan, Albania, Iraq, Somalia, Morocco, Iran, Russia Manslaughter: Algeria, Tunisia, Somalia, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Morocco, Iran, Albania Child abuse: Pakistan, Somalia, Tunisia, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Albania, Serbia , USA Sexual Assaults/Rape: Algeria, Tunisia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Iraq, NIgeria, Albania, Eritrea And the list goes on Don't forget the Sharia patrols throughout Europe. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38056243 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3480676/Father-hospitalised-Sharia-patrol-Austria-told-stop-threatening-wife-daughter-not-properly-dressed-fears-rise-no-areas-Vienna.html However, it should be noted that Sharia patrols have been around for a few years prior to this whole ordeal. However, you use the word assimilate very loosely, there are many different examples that prove you wrong that I haven't brought up. I won't bring them up yet, I have no need to, and it's almost 2 AM here anyways.

First things first, it's great to be back in the forum here. Okay, there's a problem here. Is there a riot or a protest? There is a very big difference, as such would warrant a different reaction, and also if it is a riot would prove how batshit crazy those people would be/are. Dumb idea on their behalf, you never give ground to these people. The second you do is when you lose everything, even if you try to please them you never can. I'm sure you want examples, in the US I can give you a few. The people who are protesting are the same people who cry for diversity quotas, and when they are filled still cry for more diversity even though minorities might even be statistically over represented because of these quotas (I'm looking at you higher education). The people there are the same people that always cry about their "right" to have an abortion, still protest for it despite being ruled in favor over 40 years ago; they also cry that they are being oppressed in the same way again despite the aforementioned. These same people claim they are being discriminated against (not for) in the STEM field as a major example, yet can't describe how there's been hundreds if not thousands of scholarships specifically only for all women (not even for specific races or skillsets in women) for at least the past 10 to 15 years over mens. It baffles me with the amount of stupidity, and scaremongering these people do. Other than that, they would never do that because they would lose brand recognition. Why? You don't want foreign investment into your country? You don't know how much money in taxes Vancouver will make nevermind British Columbia do you? Even if you don't like his policies, his investment in your country is only beneficial to you. Seems a bit naive and short sighted to not want him in your country. I think you don't understand his target demographic. Anyone with around $1000 USD to blow a night (which is more people than you realize) can stay there, there's a conference center, champagne lounge, spa, "signature" restaurant, and also has luxury penthouses for sale (which once again attracts quite a few people). The point is that you don't understand the rationale behind target demographics and the multipurpose functioning of the building. I think you need to stop using a bi-lingual keyboard. In all seriousness, you already see my thoughts on this through the above.

Wait, wait, wait; you said that they were pushing their settlements further and further. This is true, and yes you are correct that it is (as far as I am aware of) against international guidelines, but this was never Palestine's claim. The current disputed land you are talking about was part of Jordan until 1967, and they no longer claim it. It is no more valid for Israel to claim it (as they gained it through war with Jordan), than for Palestine to claim it (they did nothing, they just claimed it). Why is it lawful for Palestine to claim another country's land, but under the same circumstances (which are even more justifiable than the other states claim) it is unlawful for Israel to claim it? Also, just note something, the very plan people bring up by the UN for the boundaries was rejected by the Palestinians prior to attacking the Israelis. Either way, the plan was never actually enacted, therefore it's still invalid to claim either way. That's why Resolution 32/20 of the UN doesn't make sense, just because a resolution was adopted, doesn't mean it's in effect until enacted (which it never was by the UN). Also, why aren't we talking about the fact that Palestine themselves disregarded the resolution (that never was enacted) by attempting to annex Israel? In fact, they were the proto Israeli's in that case, if you go by your claims.

Okay, I thought these reports that I found to be relevant to this chat. I came across some interesting reports from the US Govt that weren't classified or from "anonymous sources". https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf Something rather interesting to be noted is that while the Russians have used these tactics, these tactics are too widespread to be attributed to the Russians. Something that someone else pointed out is really important to this conversation: "The report indicates that this tool was detected on the machines in question following investigation. Further, the suggestion is that this adds weight to the probability of Russian involvement, because that tool is very popular among Russian hackers. However, that tool is also very popular among Ukrainian hackers. Where, Ukraine has spent the past several years attempting to gain western and especially American support in its competition with Russia. One might then conclude that Ukraine infiltrated the machines in question, and utilized this tool specifically for the purpose of incriminating Russia, in order to gain additional support from America and to apply additional pressure to its nemesis, Russia. After all, western and also American support for Kiev was waning. Kiev was concerned western sanctions against Russia may cease in the near future, which Biden directly suggested to them, where now we observe the continuance of western and American sanctions, as well as the addition of new sanctions and new pressures against Russia. Still, that's dubious. It doesn't matter whether or not that tool is popular in Russia or Ukraine. Anyone can acquire and utilize that tool. This incriminates no party. Yet if you wish to conclude the probability of Russian involvement is high because that tool is popular among Russian hackers, to be reasonable, one must also acknowledge that the probability of Ukrainian involvement is high because it's also popular in Ukraine. What's more: the tool isn't exclusive to government operatives. It's popularized by civilian hackers. The alleged discovery of this tool's usage soonest suggests civilian hackers, not government operatives, because civilian hackers utilize this tool regularly, and certainly more frequently than any government organization. Again, that's dubious as well. Any argument based in the demographics of the popularity of this tool is obviously fallacious, and proves nothing. No further "evidence" was presented by JAR." He was referring to the tool that left this signature: Yara Signature rule PAS_TOOL_PHP_WEB_KIT { meta: description = "PAS TOOL PHP WEB KIT FOUND" strings: $php = "<?php" $base64decode = /\='base'\.\(\d+\*\d+\)\.'_de'\.'code'/ $strreplace = "(str_replace(" $md5 = ".substr(md5(strrev(" $gzinflate = "gzinflate" $cookie = "_COOKIE" $isset = "isset" condition: (filesize > 20KB and filesize < 22KB) and #cookie == 2 and #isset == 3 and all of them }

Interesting, brings up things I've never even heard before surprisingly. I will say that in terms of recognition, I could've sworn they've done that with one of their previous treaties, I thought it was the one they signed in the early 2000's. However, something that should be noted is that Palestine hasn't ever actually been a state until recently (they were for like 2 years until their recently found independence). For example, the place that they now hold, the Gaza Strip, was actually part of and occupied by Egypt starting in 1949 until 1967 when Israel started occupying it until 1993. The West Bank on the other hand, is completely Israels. They annexed it, and claims that it's Palestine's land don't make sense because it was part of Jordan (who no longer claims the land), and was also gained after Israel's military conflict with Jordan. The situation over annexation is no different than the Soviet's control over the Baltics after WWII, but that wasn't considered conquest.

I don't know who this commented was directed at, it could've been me even though I wasn't blaming anybody. I won't comment on some of it because TheDivineHustle did a rather excellent way of responding to it. I will respond on something thought, and that is one of my specialties: war. Either way they are going to become terrorists, it's just a difference of where they are. The problem with Islam is how in the last part of the Quran's history being when they went to war, all their messages of peace were overwritten by that of war against the infidels/apostates (anyone not a muslim). This includes passages that specifically states anyone dying in the name of Allah is forgiven of any sins and gets rewarded. Furthermore, they are still in poverty if they go to europe and their education still lacks. This creates two problems: susceptibility to becoming radicalized, and an increase in all crimes. Even if they come, they will still become terrorists, it's just that less of them over time will probably be created, while more attacks occur within their new host countries. If they stay, they have two places to go the Syrian Army, or any of the rebel groups on a jihad. There is no such thing as a "moderate jihad", they are all terrorists. The funny thing is how our government is supporting them. We are bombing ISIS, yet we are supporting people who are doing the same things, and conduct joint operations with them. How does that make sense? We must not allow our governments to support terrorism of any kind, especially not only to fight a proxy war against Syria when so much is at stake with the potential results. Bombing them is a very small part of their hatred of us. One of the main reasons is because we represent all the things they are indoctrinated into believing they hate. We are the home of the Christian, the Atheist, and things like allowing homosexual relationships don't help our case with them. However, the main reason is our strong alliance with Israel. This is the reason we were attacked on 9/11. It all leads back to their hatred of the Jews. When we do bomb, we do it with precision munitions so as not to destroy unintended targets. The infrastructure we bomb is things crucial to the ISIS economy mostly, things like oil fields, banks, mines, warehouses, counterfeit making plants, supply depots, recruiting/training stations, and any infrastructure deemed a target for military or economical reasons like roads and bridges. In my opinion, we just need to stop fighting proxy wars in the Middle East, and stop fighting specific forces at best while hypocritically supporting the same type of fighters just because they haven't backstabbed us yet to bring down foreign governments.

I'm going to comment a little bit on this. The suspicions that it was a terrorist attack by an Islamic extremist was true. It was true to the pattern of terrorist attacks in Europe since the unvetted mass immigration of migrants from the Middle East and Northern Africa since the refugee crisis in Syria. I must add that most of them aren't even refugees, and most of them aren't from Syria, but took advantage of the situation. This specific incident involved a Tunisian migrant who stole the truck and drove it into the market. Rather almost too coincidentally (I'd even say suspiciously), he left behind his ID leading him to be identified as the perpetrator, and allowing the original suspect (another migrant for future reference) to be concretely solidly cleared on top of the past DNA test clearing him. ISIS also has claimed responsibility. This leaves the question, what do we do now? This is another example of Islamic terrorism in Europe, and might even be an example of government purposely condoning the actions in order to pass new restrictions on freedoms in Europe as well as another way to grab power. I've even heard claims (which in this case could very well be false) the government had known about the attack beforehand. Another reason this could be the government condoning the attacks is the fear of being called racist, which happens quite often now in Europe, especially with sexual assault and rape cases. No matter what, something has to be done, and it shouldn't be by limiting freedoms of the citizenry. I've heard numerous new laws of censorship when people try to bring up just how negatively the immigration has impacted Europe, including with the massive increase in violent and sexual crimes, as well as terrorism in general. When people bring it up as criticism, it's labeled islamophobic, and written off as hate speech. In many European countries, you'll even be prosecuted for speaking out against the current situation. Limiting the citizenry's rights to criticize their governments horrendously costly decisions is a sure way to pave the way for things to come. If there's anything I can say, is that we may have another post break up Yugoslavia on our hands, but this time around it's the whole of Europe. At the least, we'll see many new violent conflicts. That's just how I am calling it for the current situation.

Yes, a publicly released statement regarding whether or not Russia was involved in the "influencing" of the election via Wikileaks leaks from the DNC and John Podesta. As stated above in this comment, by the criteria I asked for, you did not provide anything. If I was still interested in looking at numerous stories all referring back to the same Washington Post article from Friday followed by a followup article from them, I would have asked. I'm looking for evidence that doesn't leave any room for skepticism. I don't believe it because there is serious credibility problems in that article. With the wording, and numerous other oddities, it seems to be faked in entirety. Furthermore, there is accountability problems because everyone cited is anonymous. With the same things that they have given as sources (which are none, but anonymous sources) I could say this: A government official declares Kim Jong Un as president. As they wished, they will remain anonymous. Sources tell us that congress in a closed door session declared him president after an illegitimate election of Hillary Clinton. That's no less credible as an article than the Washington Post article you sent me, and the others refer you to.

Everyone needs to remember that the DNC emails that Wikileaks obtained weren't hacked, they were leaked. This means that someone within the DNC had given the information to Wikileaks, this couldn't have been Russia in this case. Hack: use a computer to gain unauthorized access to data in a system. Leak: an intentional disclosure of secret information. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As I stated before, Julian Assange is no friend of any government. Yet has already stated that Russia is not the source of the emails. "The Clinton campaign, when they were not spreading obvious untruths, pointed to unnamed sources or to speculative and vague statements from the intelligence community to suggest a nefarious allegiance with Russia. The campaign was unable to invoke evidence about our publications—because none exists." This is from an article on Wikileaks itself by Julian Assange, here's the link. https://wikileaks.org/Assange-Statement-on-the-US-Election.html

The Washington Post is the only source for that, I read all the articles you sent, and both say the exact same information, and the LA Times specifically refer to all the information being from that article. All the articles that say the FBI and CIA think Russia did it lead you in circles, they all refer back to the Washington Post. The only evidence they have of this is a "leak" of information from an "anonymous source inside the CIA", and other unnamed officials. Do you think that since nobody's accountable at all, not even an organization's legitimacy like Wikileaks would be for example, that they would say that to give any reason possible to stop Trump or for that matter get a ton of money because of a story like that? Even better, the Washington Post article you sent me to (which both of the others refer you back to) includes this little gem "FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. are in agreement with a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the White House, officials disclosed Friday." They leave out many specifics in that, such as what officials? Where did they disclose this? Why haven't the CIA and FBI publically released a statement? Why is Obama the only official who seems to "know" about this situation even though this could, somehow, affect the legitimacy of the election (despite that only emails were released regarding corruption)? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- After this point in that article there's even more oddly vague details that should be very specific, and should refer to references like a normal article. " 'Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,' Brennan said, according to U.S. officials who have seen the message." This leaves the question, as to what US officials, and why they aren't referring us to anything else outside of this article that could back this statement up? Furthermore, the last word in that sentence is an interesting word choice when Brennan wasn't giving a message, he would have been giving a statement. My reason for bringing word choice up is because of the difference in definition for the words. Message: a verbal, written, or recorded communication sent to or left for a recipient who cannot be contacted directly. Statement: an official account of facts, views, or plans, especially one for release to the media. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The CIA and the FBI declined to comment on Brennan’s message or on the classified intelligence assessment that CIA officials shared with members of the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier this month," Why would they have any reason to decline to comment on the statement at all? Why is the report classified? It seems the Washington Post and all the media already know the answers, so why not just release a statement already? Furthermore, if this was the joint opinion of both the CIA and FBI, why did only the CIA share information to the Senate? Why didn't both? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "In the closed-door Senate briefing, CIA officials said it was now “quite clear” that electing Trump was one of Russia’s goals," How would they get information from a closed door Senate briefing? "according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters." God damnit, I swear that every one of these officials are anonymous! Who the hell's accountable for information that has the potential to escalate into a war with Russia? As for only CIA officials, see the last comment. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This article just goes on about numerous claims from unnamed officials, and goes in circles with itself, without a single credible source. This leads me to believe even further that this whole situation is false, and I already know it is.

I already did. I made sure to do this before commenting here. This "investigation conclusion" was supposedly from a CIA agent who leaked the information anonymously to the Washington Post, the problem with this is that no one is accountable, and this could easily be misinformation. The only people who are reporting this conclusion are left leaning news outlets and fake news websites. Interestingly, I came across this clip from CBS News (a left leaning news company), this brings up all the problems with the Russian claim via the CIA.

I have yet to hear any statement from the CIA or FBI stating that Russia was involved in the election at all. The best I've heard is baseless accusations from DNC officials, and Obama (who wanted Hillary to win). Until the director from either one outright make a statement stating Russia has, I will be very skeptical of the claims. Furthermore, the only plausible action they could've taken is releasing emails from the DNC to Wikileaks. However, there are doubts in that statement because Julian Assange himself has stated that Russia is not the source of the emails from any of the DNC leaks, and I believe that this be true judging by his anti government stance. I have yet to hear from anybody in the DNC state that these emails leaked from any of the leaks (be it DNC or Podesta) are false, it's always deflection on to the bogeyman known as Russia. The point is that there is no evidence from anyone that has been publically released at the very least from a credible 100% unbiased source (like the CIA or FBI). Look it up, the only sources that say anything about those statements are left wing sites that are at the very most as credible as Fox News (not actually Fox News). Just check both the Facebook, and Twitter page of the FBI, neither have said anything about that, and this would be such a great matter that they would have said something on there.

I hate to tell you, but many of those reasons are either shallow as judgement, or misleading as a whole. For misleading for example, I'll go with the simplest and quickest one to debunk, which is the infant mortality rate. The main reason ours is so high is because if an abortion goes sour, and the baby survives, our law requires doctors to attempt to save it (which doesn't always allow them to survive). Thereby, this increases our infant mortality rate. Other than that, many of the statistics are extremely close in numbers, even by a margin of error. Basically, it's a shallow, heavily opinionated list that leaves out many necessary facts for actual comparison. Oh well, some good nationalism couldn't hurt every once in awhile to drown out the white guilt :)

I just wanted to remind you of something very important during this time after the election. The country is more divided now than ever with the exception of pre/post civil war. His job (as all presidents do during the transition) is to reunite the country as best as possible by lessening the more undesirable aspects of the campaign. At the very least until the inauguration. However, I do believe that it's also too early for him to choose a new appointee as a special prosecutor if he's not even inaugurated yet. The reason independents/moderates are no longer really that large of a group is a rather interesting topic that I had to really think about a while back, and the more that I saw the news, the more I realized it. It simply boils down to how far left the progressives in the Democratic Party have gone. With their stranglehold on the media, entertainment (subliminally changing views), and schooling as well as higher education; the far left has been normalized (progressives ideas such as socialism for example), while right wing views have been demonized and forced into constant defence. Basically the progressives and (for literally lack of a better term) socialists took over the Democratic Party and essentially made their own radical party, let's call it the "alt left". Now, things like to be in equilibrium, and this equilibrium came in the form of the growing radical alt right as a result of just how radical the left in this country really went. Before we continue about the alt right, let me state something very important, there is actually two groups of the alt right: the old alt right, and the new alt right. The old alt right include neo nazis and legitimate racists, while the new alt right are the new people who hold views that are right wing (yet not conservative), but not racists. Something misunderstood about blanketing the two together is that they actually are in a civil war right now (if you will). The alt right has grown in such large numbers is because of the alienation and exclusivity of the left wing, and their control on the country as a whole. It came as an equalizing force, a radical to counter the other radicals. It's not too hard of a concept to grasp, but actually might be a little contradictory to what everyone else might believe, and therefore they might believe it's false, but I have yet to see anything to contradict the statement ever.

The whole situation in Israel is a ****storm. It's really not clear cut for who's in the right or in the wrong at all times. I will say however, that Israel's borders have almost exclusively been gained by counterattacks in wars involving countries that have completely surrounded them and attacked them unprovoked. Even moreso, most of the land that the Israelis have gained have continuously been offered back to the Palestinians and the other countries that have been at war with them, and the only one who's accepted the offering for their land as long as they accept peace has been Egypt. Furthermore, Israelis do not purposely try to kill Palestinian civilians, they avoid it as much as possible. The problem lies in the tactics the Palestinians use, in which they hide weapons, ammo, and fighters (usually actively in combat) in heavily populated civilian buildings and areas, while at the same time blocking the civilians from leaving those areas (even though Israel warns them to leave the areas with pamphlets, radio, and even recently starting to call them on their cell phones even up to a week in advance before anything happens). That's on top of the terror attacks that occur against civilians in Israel on a daily basis. That's the story that never gets told, and that's why I can never support the Palestinians no matter what is happening to them. In what world would violence get them anywhere, especially even moreso against innocent civilians?

Genius- no, but his statement is partly correct at the very least. The fact that you don't acknowledge it is ridiculous. To boil it down, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) limits the amount of CO2 a factory can output which has a detrimental effect to productivity in manufacturing due to the amount of CO2 output by production of an amount of products, and if they want to produce the same amount they would normally be able to- they'd have to either develop ways to lessen the output to legal limits or develop devices to lessen CO2 output unless they want to lessen production to keep the legal amount output. All this screws companies over of a lot of money, so much that it might not even pass the break even point financially. All of this means that companies have a higher incentive to move to countries like China who have no CO2 limit on top of no minimum wage, and the more companies that moved to China, the more companies are forced to also move in order to compete with their competitors financially- unless they want to run their companies into the ground. I'd never take Trudeau. Trudeau is wayyyyyy too far left. In my opinion he's already running Canada into the ground, nevermind his views- which I must say to just read his statement after Castro's death as an example.

Turns out it was a mix of vehicular assault and a mass stabbing rather than an active shooting. The only person who fired shots was a police officer who neutralized the threat.

This is similar to the system that Nebraska and Maine use, just a heads up for you. This is not debating anything.

Well, I know in the end no one will care, so here we go. In this election we Libertarians had absolutely NO ONE. Gary Johnson was absolutely not the right candidate for the party, he was at best a pot smoking Democrat who left his party because he didn't fit in with the Marxist, Feminist, or other social justice narratives that hijacked the political left in the West. That's not the point. Here's the thing, my family all voted Trump, but I can't see through his unconstitutional rhetoric. It's not the border talk, it's not the 'racist, misogynist, homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic' talk, it's not the flip flopping on certain issues, it's the fact that he is attacking the 1st Amendment. I'm glad he's in support of the 2nd Amendment, but trying to limit the press, and make even more severe libel laws for things that are against him even though libel laws are already good enough to go against anything that is actually a problem. Now, compared to Clinton, he definitely is the better option. However, it's only because he is going to bring change for the better. How can trying to stay out of Syria as much as possible be bad? How can trying to strengthen ties with Russia be bad? How can accepting migrants who are from countries that aren't even Syria, and have already broken international laws be good? Nevermind that they haven't provided any benefits to the EU countries that accepted them, that they also increased all crime rates, and that terrorist attacks have skyrocketed. How can wanting to bring manufacturing back be bad to anybody? This is the end of the Clinton Dynasty in politics, and that's something to be thankful of despite Trump. Hey, I guess there's nothing to do but wait and see what happens now.

As for rioting, I am not aware of, but as for if he would lose was an entirely different story. His comment was we'll see, it was entirely possible at the time that the election was going to be rigged based on George Soros's owned electronic polls, and the actual rigging of the DNC primary against Bernie Sanders. I will say that it is entirely a possibility that there was rigging on both sides to a small extent, and with the upcoming recount we might see to what extent this occurred, and possibly by whom. He never even said any of this, you are putting ideas and words into his mouth. He said "If she gets to pick her judges, there's nothing you can do folks...although the Second Amendment folks maybe there is". The bolded part is the part you are referring to, this did not advocate for assassination- actually it was rather vague. It was supposedly meant to be about the influence and reliability of 2nd Amendment activists who are unwavering in support and unity. It definitely left room for interpretation, but I did not personally take it as an assassination threat. As of today, I have yet to hear of a protest of the electoral college itself. I have seen and heard many protests that want Clinton to become president, but not a single one against the system itself. You should, thank god that they've more or less stopped blocking traffic on highways and roads. At the time, this was a serious safety concern for emergency crews, however, I still have yet to see any actual evidence of them blocking ambulances (outside of one BLM protest earlier this year), but that's a different topic. It was definitely a possible danger to themselves and others. It also blocked people from getting to and from work, and disrupted commerce, while at the same time accomplishing nothing because they were trying to protest against something that can not be changed (not the electoral college, the election result itself). Thank god.

You know, I hate to bring back up a long silent topic in this forum, but I was curious as to what happened in this thread since I really last was on. Now putting aside that Canada and Germany do not have an underlying crime problem in most of the country in and of itself, those numbers (homicide being generalized) include suicides. Guns don't have to be a problem, look at the statistics for the Czech Republic for example with extremely lenient laws for guns in Europe, it has a whopping 0.12 homicides with a firearm per 100000 people in 2014. How about Switzerland in 2014 with another whopping 0.09 homicides with a firearm per 1000000 people in 2014? How about Austria with another 0.12 in 2014 despite the one of the highest rate of gun ownerships in Europe? These statistics are all from Gunpolicy.org by the way. Let's also not forget that this is ALL homicides with a firearm, which means all deaths from everyone including the government and suicides by guns. The true rate of murders in Austria for example with both hand guns and long guns combined is 0.02 murders per 100000 people despite the civilian populace collectively owning 2,500,000 guns. Guns do not have to be a problem in and of themselves. As previously discussed, neither have an underlying crime problem, however what kind of gun control are you referring to? Gun control is a broad topic in general. It can range from the type of firearms owned to who can own them and how. Honestly can't disagree with that definition. That's why the government owns them, that's why the police owns them, that's why the civilian populace in the US is able to own them. In a perfect society, where crime is not an underlying problem, as it isn't in my state where gun homicides (all deaths by handguns including government and self defense, exempting suicide in this case) with a handgun were 0.23 deaths per 100000 and homicides with a long gun was at 0.00 homicides per 100000 (excluding suicides, found on gunpolicy.org), the guns are there to make sure the government doesn't start overstepping it's bounds without the threat of armed rebellion. If the type of gun is the problem, clearly my state does not have that problem because NH allows everything from bolt actions to semi auto pistols to AR-15s/AKs even to full auto .50 BMGs. In fact, my state actually has the most full auto (by ATF definition) machineguns per capita of any other state in the US http://www.fosters.com/article/20130120/GJNEWS_01/130129919. The type of gun is not the problem. Let's put an emphasis on the "NOBODY", that phrase means everybody including the military and the police as phrased. Furthermore, blanket terms such as "hunting rifle" is just as meaningful as "sniper rifle". There is no clear definition of hunting rifle by anyone, similar to sniper rifle. In fact, just because of that similarity in specificity, that means that any rifle used for hunting is a hunting rifle. This is just as any rifle used by a sniper is a sniper rifle. And if firearms other than "hunting rifles" are so much of a problem how come rifles like the Tavor, QBZ-95, VZ-58, SKS, and SVT-40 are unrestricted in Canada? All you need to obtain one is the same requirements for a standard "hunting rifle." And for shotguns, a shotgun can include things such as the Taurus Judge for example, the Saiga 12, or even the AA-12. As for handguns, simply put- self defense. In the US we don't want your 'ideas' for how we should deal with self defense, we want something that will work. And not everyone can 'learn to fight', for example the elderly, and physically disabled. As for full autos, yeah, no one really needs one. They mostly are just for fun nowadays because they are so expensive ($10,000 and up) and so hard to get even by European standards, it's almost not worth it (M240Bs are expensive, but they pay off- I know personally). Let me remind you though, that AR-15s are not full auto, they are actually are semi auto, just like a Ruger 10/22 or Ruger Mini-14.

Although I agree with you on some of the points, never even denied that guns are tools that can kill, and even said that the NRA agrees with you on treatment and responsibility in ownership of firearms. I'll repeat some of the things I said because it's obvious that you didn't listen or understand all the content of the material nor all its context. Now, putting aside the fact that we know at the very least he owns guns in Germany, we at the very least knows he has an interest in firearms. If we dissect his name to the words colt and smith, then we get a possible career. Does that mean that he actually is that (gunsmith with Colt), no it doesn't, however it wouldn't be too irrational to believe that he is one. A career choice like that is significantly more believable than being Superman. It's more of a joke, it's pointing out the fact that you said that "People act way too casually about guns, as if they were toys or candies." I pointed out to you that literally no one is so casual as to do that. If people (meaning all people, you never specified gun owners) really did treat them like candy, then that so called '11th commandment' I made up would sound rational, which it doesn't, it sounds absurd. Respectfully, when did I ever deny this? You know what, here's the NRA safety webpage. http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx Okay, and I don't need anymore background knowledge than he has already given to recommend the legal acquisition of those in Germany. I already know that he has gone through the hoops needed to obtain them in Germany to begin with, why should I need anymore reason than to recommend that he goes through them again to get that? I think you are the one putting words in my mouth, especially since I have said some of the same things in my replies (albeit some indirectly). You have an even better day

So advising someone to get a gun from before the 1900's because they aren't restricted in a country where guns are heavily restricted, and because they are also rare, I must be a problem? It's not like I can't tell by this point that he doesn't own a firearm to begin with, hell, his name is Coltsmith with his avatar being Colt Canada. Clearly he has some sort of firearms training based on his previous comments, and based on his name. Not to mention one of his most recent reply saying that he owns firearms in Germany. If anything YOU are what's wrong, literally no one believes that there is this 11th commandment saying "I get an AR-15, you get an AR-15, we all get AR-15's!", but you make it out to be that. Then you got to education. Hell, the NRA have been saying the literal exact same thing about education and owning a gun for well over 30 years now. Oh, and another thing, if guns can only kill, then how come mine haven't? What about my competition rifle? That wasn't explicitly made to kill. Seems to me that you've never been around a gun in your life based on your brief description of guns.

I did actually mention that. I'll bold it for you because it's in the middle of that. It was because there was 58 years of not having a mass shooting of any type (1915-1973), so there was an insanely low amount of mass shootings on average per year in that time period. Yeah, there were actually 16 in the 23 years starting with the second shooting and ending with Port Arthur. You just proved my point. I was pointing out the sudden explosion of shootings in that time period prior to the enacting of gun control. Yet from 1915 (the first mass shooting) to 1973 (the second mass shooting) there was 58 years in between. I pointed out that there was an explosion in shootings starting that year. What is important to note though, is that after the enacting of the gun control, Australia still has had 4 mass shootings within the past 20 years after Port Arthur (1996-2016). This still leaves the frequency higher than those 58 years without gun control. You know, I'm actually really happy about that. If you can get your hands on one, do it. Well, the truth is that these two separate clauses are talking about two separate things, and can be taken in many different ways. Some argue that the first clause states that citizens have the right to form a militia (which I agree with), however, we can't form a militia that is recognized by the government anymore because all states have repealed the laws allowing you to do that. In fact, the only way to be recognized as a militia is if you are designated a terrorist organization for no reason other than forming a 'well regulated militia'. Take the Michigan Militia as an example. However, it is also incorrectly argued that the militia is the only ones who should have guns. This is when people forget about the commas. The second clause is a separate right, which is the right to keep and bear arms (something I also agree with). The truth is that the 2nd Amendment doesn't give us anything. The first few amendments are simply a reminder to the government of our natural (god given) rights, it's no different to the 1st Amendment. Please read District of Columbia v. Keller. Please read it, but if not, I urge you to watch this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9AU1uyzglc Finally, I'd actually like to thank you. You know what you are talking about, and there is no harm in anything either of us is saying.