Is it time to talk about guns?

That would be proper procedure if we were talking about something debatable. The purpose of the second amendment isn't. Most people know that. If you don't know common knowledge, don't blame me for not going to extremes to be your teacher. If you think my assertions of common knowledge are incorrect, it's your job to correct me with citations, not mine to support what's already well known.

 

What argument is that?

 

Again, they weren't revolting against the government in their minds, they were protecting the government.

 

What does it matter what "I think"?

I am in no position to exercise any control on the populace.

 

Quote my statement which you're having problems with so I can click it and go back to whatever it is. It appears you have gone down a rabbit hole.

 

Why are you stating the obvious while insinuating it is correcting anything I've claimed?

I never defended or excused those people's actions as proper.

I noted that they had motivation which was completely ignored by the legacy media.

More than that, even; they were demonized and ridiculed in the press.

That is furthering the divide in this country and fueling hate among fellow Americans.

Until we can learn to try to understand differing points of view and present issues as multifaceted, people are going to keep up with the nasty infighting and continue escalating it.

Maybe a new question to ask is, "why do we like that so much?"

We all know the election wasn't transparent and that it had issues. If the congress had initiated a bipartisan probe into election integrity instead of rehashing the events of that incident then we'd be on the road to greater unification as one people.

 

Your questions aren't addressing anything specific that I said.
And there's really no clear-cut answers, which is why opinions vary so greatly.
I see it as a balance between letting the people have their tools to do their jobs, and their recreational activities -vs- allowing free reign of terror. And anyone pushing unlimited access or advocating practical abolition is not promoting a balanced solution.

 

"We all know the election wasn't transparent and had issues."

SAYS YOU , TRUMP AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!! BULLSHIT!! SMARTEN THE FUCK UP!!

 

Italian thermostats

 

You know, the thing is, in reality there's no way to verify whether their suspicions were valid or invalid. So deluded, could be. Fools, definitely. Thinking they could force their way into the chambers and, what, at that point? I'll call it a mindless leaderless mob with no plan. Winging it on a whim, angry and disappointed. No rational thought process at all. There was nothing they could accomplish, they'd never get away with it, and they'd make a bad name for their cause. Rational thought would have exposed that, had it been employed.

There was a much larger number of people who came to show their concern over an election which had viable signs of corruption, and who never dared enter the building or get confrontational. They just wanted the election process investigated and were sensible enough to stay outside the perimeter.

 

In all the days since the election there have been no “viable signs of corruption”. What few problems there were can be overwhelmingly laid on the dirty doorstep of Republicans. This doesn’t begin to address the widespread voter suppression efforts by Republicans that have shredded the voting rights act. The “corruption” issue has all the earmarks of efforts from the St Petersburg troll farm that T—- embraced.

This is in the same league as the antivaxers who are going to do more research while systematically avoiding science and any pretext of logical investigation to embrace still more troll feces.