A lot of random information going about the trump shooting. Though, I guess by now you'd have probably heard, but the wannabe assassin never got a shot off. The security sniper took shots at him immediately after spotting him before he could get shots off. He was set up though hours upon hours beforehand in some shrubbery. Somehow knew that trump would be golfing at his own golf course that same day and was positioned directly next to one of the holes. Apparently, he would have had to have been setup for roughly 6-12 hours ahead of time... or have known the former president would've been there beforehand. The federal government tried to take the case immediately as well, putting it in the FBI's hands... mind you, the FBI still has yet to say anything about the last attempt or to release anything noteworthy since. Noticing this, the local state forcibly took it from them and is doing its own investigation. Basically everyone is on board for it considering the FBI's track record of former shootings and important information to just so happen to go missing. Like how the Biden Jr computer and other evidence collected prior just so happened to have gone missing since its confiscation. As for Stan joking about gun control. While most people can think thats the easy solution, thats also the dumbest solution that fixes nothing. The people who want those then illegal guns will just find illegal methods of getting them. The only people you keep from getting them are the bog standard citizens. Even then, the guy was a fellon who was already banned from getting any guns normally. The gun he had was scrubbed of its serial number and all as well. So banning guns wouldn't have stopped that from happening. people seem to forget that making something illegal doesn't stop it from being used maliciously.
I know you may not have read this, but I feel I need to clarify why gun control is difficult in the USA. You can read it if you want, but I thought I would spill it out as I go over the counter because I think we need stricter control, but I understand the resistance. 1) Hunting: Many people depend on hunting to survive, and the government relies on hunting to keep wildlife under control. 2) Dangerous Wild Life: large portions of the USA are still untouched or preserved wilderness, and people need weapons to keep wildlife from destroying property or saving their lives. You feel safer with a gun when facing a bear. Plus, a herd of cattle or pigs turned into boars can be dangerous, and a way to slow down a hurd is to kill the head of a hurt or scare them away with a loud sound. 3) Safety: some people feel safe armed, especially those assaulted, and a gun does not require being physically stronger than their assaulter to survive. 4) Law and Order: There are areas in the USA that, due to their isolation from major population centers, cannot rely on the police since they can be a 30-minute to 3-hour drive from them, assuming they ever come. In such communities, the people more or less police themselves, and they rarely have shootouts. 5) Defense: An armed populace makes defending the nation from invaders easier or slows them down. The population can mobilize to fight or resist the invaders. I mean, look at France's resistance during WWII and, more recently, Ukraine, for example. 6) Military: It is easier to train people in firearms if a large percentage of the population knows how to do so. It may become very relevant considering how close we are moving towards WWIII. 7) Defending Rights Against Corrupt Government: the second amendment was made with the idea if the government becomes more dictatorial, the population could banned together to overthrow them. I mean, if Britain decides to go full dictator, how will the populace resist if the military decides shooting protestors is a good way to shut up dissent and enforce the nation under martial law. There is a reason that unless set in a post-apocalypse world, most fictional dictatorships are set in England. My counters, of course, are advances in military technology. A large military force would make it easier for the government to crush rebellions in the states unless the military supports the rebels. Crazy people can rally a megalomaniac to turn this country into a dictator. An armed populace may be necessary, considering the defense of the nation would lean heavily on crushing invaders crossing the sea, and criminals have an easier time committing crimes due to having unrestricted access to guns.
You have great points. I feel like the main issue is some states not forcing you to get a license. I can’t say much more than that because I don’t want to ruffle any feathers on either argument
I want to counter a common counter for (7), A lot of people will often cite that "even the most armed population will have nothing on the literal world super power that is the might of the united states military." The reality is likely a considerable portion of Personnel within all the branches of the US military will likely not fight and kill their own populace. Even if they do likely a large portion of the logistical personnel will not willfully work for a tyrannical entity bringing harm to their own people. Within a considerable amount of time without logistics or enough soldiers to fight and control the rebelling populous the tyrannical campaign in question would grind to a halt. Keep in mind the US military is basically the largest most well armed logistics' company on the earth, without logistics even a "home-front" campaign would fall short of absolute victory with not enough truck drivers to deliver fuel to tanks and aircraft. Or not enough naval convoys to protect shipping vessels that may hold vital parts to repair and mostly maintain said vehicles, in theory a campaign of this nature wouldn't last that long with a well armed populous in large enough revolt as with enough people armed they would feel they have the choice to not work for said entity whether it be transporting fuel, procuring it, repairing said vehicle the fuel is going to or driving said vehicle, EVERYTHING has to be maintained by a person and a civilian at some point up the ladder resulting in at least a heavily diminished portion left of said military in question with capability to fight at near full capacity. This would hopefully deter this eventuality. Less about an armed civilian populous actually fighting 1 on 1 with the military and more about giving the individual the choice to willfully not work for said entity if they are armed and are willing to fight or die for their freedom.
@@k0749 Good, you thinking, which is more then I can say most people do. I fear the greatest weakness of people is just assume the other is an idiot and not make counter arguments. Something I fear Rob did. Though, I will add the logistics of the USA is not as strong as one think. I can't say more then aging cargo fleet and well, DLA.
This was truly an experience.
A lot of random information going about the trump shooting. Though, I guess by now you'd have probably heard, but the wannabe assassin never got a shot off. The security sniper took shots at him immediately after spotting him before he could get shots off. He was set up though hours upon hours beforehand in some shrubbery. Somehow knew that trump would be golfing at his own golf course that same day and was positioned directly next to one of the holes. Apparently, he would have had to have been setup for roughly 6-12 hours ahead of time... or have known the former president would've been there beforehand. The federal government tried to take the case immediately as well, putting it in the FBI's hands... mind you, the FBI still has yet to say anything about the last attempt or to release anything noteworthy since. Noticing this, the local state forcibly took it from them and is doing its own investigation. Basically everyone is on board for it considering the FBI's track record of former shootings and important information to just so happen to go missing. Like how the Biden Jr computer and other evidence collected prior just so happened to have gone missing since its confiscation.
As for Stan joking about gun control. While most people can think thats the easy solution, thats also the dumbest solution that fixes nothing. The people who want those then illegal guns will just find illegal methods of getting them. The only people you keep from getting them are the bog standard citizens. Even then, the guy was a fellon who was already banned from getting any guns normally. The gun he had was scrubbed of its serial number and all as well. So banning guns wouldn't have stopped that from happening. people seem to forget that making something illegal doesn't stop it from being used maliciously.
Please do a few runs with modifiers 🙏🙏🙏
I know you may not have read this, but I feel I need to clarify why gun control is difficult in the USA. You can read it if you want, but I thought I would spill it out as I go over the counter because I think we need stricter control, but I understand the resistance.
1) Hunting: Many people depend on hunting to survive, and the government relies on hunting to keep wildlife under control.
2) Dangerous Wild Life: large portions of the USA are still untouched or preserved wilderness, and people need weapons to keep wildlife from destroying property or saving their lives. You feel safer with a gun when facing a bear. Plus, a herd of cattle or pigs turned into boars can be dangerous, and a way to slow down a hurd is to kill the head of a hurt or scare them away with a loud sound.
3) Safety: some people feel safe armed, especially those assaulted, and a gun does not require being physically stronger than their assaulter to survive.
4) Law and Order: There are areas in the USA that, due to their isolation from major population centers, cannot rely on the police since they can be a 30-minute to 3-hour drive from them, assuming they ever come. In such communities, the people more or less police themselves, and they rarely have shootouts.
5) Defense: An armed populace makes defending the nation from invaders easier or slows them down. The population can mobilize to fight or resist the invaders. I mean, look at France's resistance during WWII and, more recently, Ukraine, for example.
6) Military: It is easier to train people in firearms if a large percentage of the population knows how to do so. It may become very relevant considering how close we are moving towards WWIII.
7) Defending Rights Against Corrupt Government: the second amendment was made with the idea if the government becomes more dictatorial, the population could banned together to overthrow them. I mean, if Britain decides to go full dictator, how will the populace resist if the military decides shooting protestors is a good way to shut up dissent and enforce the nation under martial law. There is a reason that unless set in a post-apocalypse world, most fictional dictatorships are set in England.
My counters, of course, are advances in military technology. A large military force would make it easier for the government to crush rebellions in the states unless the military supports the rebels. Crazy people can rally a megalomaniac to turn this country into a dictator. An armed populace may be necessary, considering the defense of the nation would lean heavily on crushing invaders crossing the sea, and criminals have an easier time committing crimes due to having unrestricted access to guns.
You have great points.
I feel like the main issue is some states not forcing you to get a license.
I can’t say much more than that because I don’t want to ruffle any feathers on either argument
I want to counter a common counter for (7), A lot of people will often cite that "even the most armed population will have nothing on the literal world super power that is the might of the united states military."
The reality is likely a considerable portion of Personnel within all the branches of the US military will likely not fight and kill their own populace.
Even if they do likely a large portion of the logistical personnel will not willfully work for a tyrannical entity bringing harm to their own people. Within a considerable amount of time without logistics or enough soldiers to fight and control the rebelling populous the tyrannical campaign in question would grind to a halt.
Keep in mind the US military is basically the largest most well armed logistics' company on the earth, without logistics even a "home-front" campaign would fall short of absolute victory with not enough truck drivers to deliver fuel to tanks and aircraft. Or not enough naval convoys to protect shipping vessels that may hold vital parts to repair and mostly maintain said vehicles, in theory a campaign of this nature wouldn't last that long with a well armed populous in large enough revolt as with enough people armed they would feel they have the choice to not work for said entity whether it be transporting fuel, procuring it, repairing said vehicle the fuel is going to or driving said vehicle, EVERYTHING has to be maintained by a person and a civilian at some point up the ladder resulting in at least a heavily diminished portion left of said military in question with capability to fight at near full capacity.
This would hopefully deter this eventuality. Less about an armed civilian populous actually fighting 1 on 1 with the military and more about giving the individual the choice to willfully not work for said entity if they are armed and are willing to fight or die for their freedom.
@@k0749 Good, you thinking, which is more then I can say most people do. I fear the greatest weakness of people is just assume the other is an idiot and not make counter arguments. Something I fear Rob did.
Though, I will add the logistics of the USA is not as strong as one think. I can't say more then aging cargo fleet and well, DLA.
I read this and still don't care
@@Chaos_Senpai That’s fine it’s your opinion.
I swear stan played doors...
Aaaa
name a more iconic duo then the British and the desire to remove Americans rights kek almost like we did a entire revolution over these things lol.
We have a prime minister who is trying to remove all the British rights