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.

Do you see new, unique colors, or are you more sensitive to what’s already there?

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.

There’s gotta be a way to disable telemetry. My first thought is to cut whatever antenna is used to transmit your data to the corporation. It could be the same antenna used for radio, but I’d go without radio in a heartbeat if it meant Ford, Chevy, or whoever can’t spy on me in a car I paid $15,000+ for.

Of course, we shouldn’t have to do this. My first choice is to not give any of these car companies a dime of my money, but literally every single brand is doing it. This disgusting trend of spying on people should be illegal. It’s rapist behavior.

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.

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

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.

Most Americans, myself included, don’t like giving up personal rights for “security.”

To draw a parallel that I figure you’ll agree with - far-right rhetoric is on the rise and I think we should do something about it. As much as I disagree with Nazi rhetoric, I absolutely don’t think the “solution” to this problem is banning pro-Nazi speech by law. We could easily point to Germany and say “well they had a massive issue with pro-Nazi speech. They banned it, no more Nazi rhetoric! It’s that easy!”

The root cause of far-right ideologies (or far-left for that matter) isn’t that free speech exists, it’s unhappy people radicalized by their living conditions and culture. Germans lived through a terrible economic depression after WWI, where a lot of people experienced homelessness and malnutrition. Fascism gave everyone a job and fewer people starved, plus they stood up militarily to countries that levied the economic sanctions which ruined their economy in the first place. From their point of view, fascism saved them. Fascism didn’t happen because the government allowed pro-fascism speech to occur, fascism happened because the horrible economic and world-status of Germany pushed people too far.

Have you thought about what the root cause is behind school shootings and other senseless killings? A cursory understanding of American gun rights and laws, and how they’ve changed overtime, proves that the existence of certain weapons platforms is absolutely not the root cause. My grandparents could have literally mail ordered full-auto machine guns to their front door, yet school shootings literally never happened. If public access to guns = school shootings, they would’ve been 100 times more frequent when your grandparents were kids.

Even if we poofed guns out of thin air, the people who would shoot children would still be around. This “solution” does nothing to treat them. It also does nothing to prevent others from becoming as jaded and sick in the head. The end result is still a bunch of radicalized, fucked up people who will lash out at society in other ways besides school shootings. Maybe when the start blowing up schools, stabbing kids, and running them over with huge F-150s, the DNC will start saying “Public access to fertilizer, pointy metal, and cars is the issue! No more fertilizer = no more school bombings! It’s that simple!”

You: American exceptionalism; " nah, if it worked ; we woulda already done it!"

Me: I’d rather fix the root cause issue that pushes people to murder children, instead slapping a bandaid over what is 100% a social issue. Maybe we should take real effort to stop climate change. Maybe we should better fund our schools and make college free. Maybe we should increase minimum wage so anyone who holds a job, regardless of what it is, can support themselves and their family. Maybe we should make medical care free. Maybe we should restructure our prisons so they focus on rehabilitation instead of cruel punishment and slave labor. Maybe then, our society wouldn’t breed people that murder children because they’re so upset and jaded after growing up with zero prospects of having a happy and fulfilling future.

But our politicians would lose power and money if they fixed these issues, so they’ll instead say that AR15s are what’s murdering babies and if you don’t support banning them, then you’re pro baby murder. And people like you will gobble it up.

Practically all gun deaths are from suicides and organized crime.

It’s amazing that people believe the DNC when they say that 10 round mag limits and pistol grip bans are the answer, when they could just shift gears and give us what everyone wants. Single payer healthcare, better schools and cheaper/free college, higher pay so people don’t resort to crime to make ends meet…

But those problems are harder to solve, so let’s wipe our ass with the Bill of Rights instead and convince people to cheer us on while we do it.

Well, CCW insurance really only covers legal costs associated with CCW use. Unfortunately in some states, it’s entirely possible (and in some states likely!) that someone who uses their firearm in self defense can get charged with a crime or sued by their attackers, regardless of how justified their use of force was.

I’m aware of some policies that cover third party damages like hospital bills and property damage, but the victims in this case are never held liable anyway.

So am I missing something? Especially given that practically all gun violence and deaths come from suicide and organized crime, how does this bill help anyone? CCW holders are statistically much less likely to break laws than those who don’t have a license, these people really shouldn’t worry anyone. This reeks of political posturing to me.

Edit: Just read that the law requires bodily harm and property damage coverage, so nevermind. The only scenario where the CCW holder would be liable for those damages is if their use of force isn’t justified, so I’m still not sure how this helps anyone.

The only sure thing is that insurance companies will try to make as much money off this as possible, especially if it becomes required by law to have.

Depending on which modern definition of “militia” you choose, the National Guard either is one or isn’t one.

But remember that the Bill of Rights serves to restrict the government from passing laws that infringe on certain rights - so it doesn’t grant you and I rights, it instead prevents the government from impeding on some the Founding Fathers felt The People (white dudes) had. It’d be ass backwards to argue that the government allows us freedom of expression, for example. That’s a natural right.

Building on that, stating that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the National Guard is a shortened way of saying “the government may not infringe on the People’s right to have a government sanctioned and controlled branch of the federal Armed Forces.” Anyone with a cursory understanding of the American Revolution will know that this is not at all what the Founding Fathers intended the 2A to do.

Ahhh yes, but you see, on page 176 §12.4.11 of the EULA it clearly states that by using our products you’ve given us your consent to rip you off.

Why? Nuclear power is the most complex and expensive option of any clean energy source from what I know.