Active Shooter on Youtube Property

[dean nelson]

Actually some info out there on no meat diets making people effing nutz.

So does it make them nuts or is it just something that you're more prone to do if you're already flipping nuts? Either way they all seem a bit batshit crazy to me!

 

[Lycanthrope]

Wow, you sound a little unhinged. Wouldn't be surprised we read about you some day.

Id guess you havent been paying much attention to what youtube has been up to recently. Theres plenty of reason for some people to be upset with them... It was only a matter of time before someone snapped. Better it was a far left wacko than a far right one tho, for most of us.

 

[Sum1]

I wonder if they tought the people at you tube the same thing they are teaching in our schools on how to protect themselves by cowering in a corner and holding books over their faces? Probably what saved their lives...

 

[dust in the wind]

Holding a book over their face - yeah that will work well for them. Remember the guy that used a thick book and had his gf shoot him with a gun. That didn’t end well for him either.

 

[Retired Educator]

Holding a book over their face - yeah that will work well for them. Remember the guy that used a thick book and had his gf shoot him with a gun. That didn’t end well for him either.

Well, you can't have a gun in school so obviously you need a thicker book. Perhaps 'War and Peace' will make a comeback.

 

[sl1000794]

Well, you can't have a gun in school so obviously you need a thicker book. Perhaps 'War and Peace' will make a comeback.

I'd go with the Bible.

 

[Lungdeflator]

Probably hasn't been a book at Youtube since tablets came out.

 

[eyexer]

The media handled this about as poorly as possible. Let's review:

We hear reports of a shooter at You Tube. The shooter is a white male; likely targeting an ex-girlfriend. Then word leaks out, no the shooter is NOT a male. So it's a white female, likely targeting an ex boyfriend. Later on, we see the shooter is clearly not white, so the reporting is just a "woman" (it was OK to previously mention race, but not once its apparent the shooter wasn't white).

Then we find out there was no ex boyfriend; the woman had no connection at all to any of the victims. She wasn't even from the Bay area. She was just an unhinged lunatic with an axe to grind against You Tube.

Nice work.

 

[fnznfwl]

Youtube is a bunch of content nazi's, sad to say but they probably deserve this...

So they edit content on the website they own as private business and innocent people deserve to be shot and killed? You sir are a special kind of stupid.

 

[gst]

California has the nations strictest gun laws

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...st-and-loosest-states/?utm_term=.82bf5bfc34a5


California leads the nation in mass shootings

https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...-shootings-in-america/?utm_term=.876387a8eff9


who really thinks the media will report this to any degree.

- - - Updated - - -

posted this in the politics thread about the march for life and am truly curious as to what people think. This is NOT intended to turn this into a Bundy/grazing argument at all, simply to see what people will actually support our 2nd for. What do we define as "govt tyranny"?

Had a conversation over the weekend and am curious peoples response.

Why do we need the 2nd amendment?

We conservatives claim it is to protect against govt tyranny?

What is this "govt tyranny" we claim it defends us from?

If a govt breaks/ignores the laws our elected representatives pass is that a form of tyranny?

If a govt takes private property without just and fair compensation as our Constitution requires is that tyranny?

If a govt sets up "free speech areas" and arrests those protesting outside those boundries, is that tyranny?

If a govt jails people on trumped up charges because they covet their property, is that tyranny?

If a govt arrests and holds someone indefinately simply for speaking out against a govts actions and stating they will exercise their God given rights (now protected by the Constitution) is that tyranny?

If a govt colludes to silence those that speak out against their actions is that tyranny?

If a govt targets groups based on conservative/constitutional ideologies of freedom and private property rights is that tyranny?

Each one of these things happened over 240 years ago and we conservatives embrace the actions and results of those that stood against that tyranny...........but yet each one of these things are again happening today and many of these same conservatives distract from the truth of those happenings instead of standing against them.......

So why then do we need the 2nd if we are not going to be honest about what our govt is doing?

If we are willing to ignore or distract and justify these actions that our Founders did not are we truly protecting what they gave We the people?

Just curious.

 

[KDM]

It NEEDS to stay in the political section GST. The last presidential election should tell you a great deal about what you're curious about.

 

[PrairieGhost]

Actually some info out there on no meat diets making people effing nutz.

Some of the most violent people in history were vegetarians.

 

[Stan's Dad]

Some of the most violent people in history were vegetarians.

hahahahaha

 

[Rowdie]

GST, you asked WHY we need the 2nd amendment. It answers your question in the Amendment....READ IT.......

- - - Updated - - -

California has the nations strictest gun laws

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...st-and-loosest-states/?utm_term=.82bf5bfc34a5


California leads the nation in mass shootings

https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...-shootings-in-america/?utm_term=.876387a8eff9


who really thinks the media will report this to any degree.

- - - Updated - - -

posted this in the politics thread about the march for life and am truly curious as to what people think. This is NOT intended to turn this into a Bundy/grazing argument at all, simply to see what people will actually support our 2nd for. What do we define as "govt tyranny"?

Had a conversation over the weekend and am curious peoples response.

Why do we need the 2nd amendment?

We conservatives claim it is to protect against govt tyranny?

What is this "govt tyranny" we claim it defends us from?

If a govt breaks/ignores the laws our elected representatives pass is that a form of tyranny?

If a govt takes private property without just and fair compensation as our Constitution requires is that tyranny?

If a govt sets up "free speech areas" and arrests those protesting outside those boundries, is that tyranny?

If a govt jails people on trumped up charges because they covet their property, is that tyranny?

If a govt arrests and holds someone indefinately simply for speaking out against a govts actions and stating they will exercise their God given rights (now protected by the Constitution) is that tyranny?

If a govt colludes to silence those that speak out against their actions is that tyranny?

If a govt targets groups based on conservative/constitutional ideologies of freedom and private property rights is that tyranny?

Each one of these things happened over 240 years ago and we conservatives embrace the actions and results of those that stood against that tyranny...........but yet each one of these things are again happening today and many of these same conservatives distract from the truth of those happenings instead of standing against them.......

So why then do we need the 2nd if we are not going to be honest about what our govt is doing?

If we are willing to ignore or distract and justify these actions that our Founders did not are we truly protecting what they gave We the people?

Just curious.

The "we conservatives claim its to protect against govt tyranny" comment in nonsensical at best. (trying to be nice) You say that likes thats the only reason it exits, and while many may claim that's one of the reasons.....The Amendment itself states the real reason!

 

[espringers]

Google "vegan diet psychosis".

 

[PrairieGhost]

Google "vegan diet psychosis".

Hitler's public image as a vegetarian was already being fostered and from 1942 he self-identified as a vegetarian.

Hitler was just one crazy vegetarian, there were many.

With that being said, consider this. Two of the bloodiest killers in history were vegetarians! Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Both these men need no introduction and were notorious for mass homicide.

“But any intuition that vegetarianism and humanitarianism go together was shattered in the 20th-century by the treatment of animals under Nazism. Hitler and many of his henchmen were vegetarians, not so much out of compassion for animals as from an obsession with purity, a pagan desire to reconnect to the soil, and a reaction to the anthropocentrism and meat rituals of Judaism. In an unsurpassed display of the human capacity for moral compartmentalization, the Nazis, despite their unspeakable experiments on living humans, instituted the strongest laws for the protection of animals in research that Europe had ever seen. Their laws also mandated humane treatment of animals in farms, movie sets, and restaurants, where fish had to be anesthetized and lobsters killed swiftly before they were cooked. Ever since that bizarre chapter in the history of animal rights, advocates of vegetarianism have had to retire one of their oldest arguments: that eating meat makes people aggressive, and abstaining from it makes them peaceful.”

Last week Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Airlines, announced that he was giving up eating beef after studying its impact on the environment. This is not the first time an international thought leader has pronounced his love of a meat-free life.

You know what's wrong with this? You don't grow grain on rocks and highly erodible land. The best way to harvest natures abundance (grass) is to graze it. Grazing and beef preserves the environment not destroys it. You either have cattle, or bison and elk. These people are rightly thought of as fools because they think we can grow wheat or corn in areas that cattle graze. They are clueless, and this is one of the big reasons many vegetarians quote.

 

[gst]

It NEEDS to stay in the political section GST. The last presidential election should tell you a great deal about what you're curious about.

So we can talk about those that are marching to limit or abolish the 2nd amendment in the normal section......but asking a simple question about examples of why we claim the 2nd is needed is banished to political??

Alrighty then.

- - - Updated - - -

GST, you asked WHY we need the 2nd amendment. It answers your question in the Amendment....READ IT.......
The "we conservatives claim its to protect against govt tyranny" comment in nonsensical at best. (trying to be nice) You say that likes thats the only reason it exits, and while many may claim that's one of the reasons.....The Amendment itself states the real reason!

I have read the 2nd many times.

" "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.""

So please explain why those examples I listed are not a threat to the security of a free state? Explain how govt tyranny is not a threat to the security of a free state.

"nonsensical"???

""The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833"

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Read the list of greivances in the Declaration and see how many you can say are happening today.

- - - Updated - - -

The last presidential election should tell you a great deal about what you're curious about.

I will wait until these midterms before I make any assumptions about what I am curious about. I fear the last election was more about "anyone but hillary" than a return to the Constitution.

 

[Rowdie]

GST...AGAIN SMH You asked why we need the 2nd.....I answered....Its in the Amendment... "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
So any of a thousand different things could threaten our security. Thus WE THEN NEED THE 2nd Amendment...End of story



- - - Updated - - -

YES An over the top tyrannical gov't could be ONE REASON!

 

[gst]

GST...AGAIN SMH You asked why we need the 2nd.....I answered....Its in the Amendment... "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
So any of a thousand different things could threaten our security. Thus WE THEN NEED THE 2nd Amendment...End of story

YES An over the top tyrannical gov't could be ONE REASON!

Okay to get to the point of my question............so are these listed happenings which happened 240 years ago as well as again today a threat to the security of a free state?

If a govt breaks/ignores the laws our elected representatives pass is that a form of tyranny?

If a govt takes private property without just and fair compensation as our Constitution requires is that tyranny?

If a govt sets up "free speech areas" and arrests those protesting outside those boundries, is that tyranny?

If a govt jails people on trumped up charges because they covet their property, is that tyranny?

If a govt arrests and holds someone indefinately simply for speaking out against a govts actions and stating they will exercise their God given rights (now protected by the Constitution) is that tyranny?

If a govt colludes to silence those that speak out against their actions is that tyranny?

If a govt targets groups based on conservative/constitutional ideologies of freedom and private property rights is that tyranny?

- - - Updated - - -

Rowdie the point of my question you seem to have missed is if "conservatives" are attacking those that state they are simply willing to exercise their 2nd amendment rights as they protest the actions of the govt I listed.........because making that statement damages the fight to protect our 2nd amendment rights..........what good is the 2nd amendment?

In short if those that are actually willing to embrace the 2nd for the purpose it was written are maligned by those claiming to support the 2nd........were do we stand?

People who never threatened anyone or fired a shot that were protesting those actions I listed have been condemned as "radicals" by people that claim to be conservative (both on and off this site) simply for stating they were willing to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.

So once again I ask, what is the 2nd amendment good for if the conservatives that claim to support it will not support those that say they are willing to actually exercise it for the intent it was written.

By no means am I calling for an armed insurrection, just trying to understand what power the 2nd still has when we are told by so called conservatives we should not even say we are willing to exercise our 2nd amendment rights to be politically correct and not inflame others so not to damage this 2nd amendment protections.

 

[Rowdie]

Holy FK you like to ask a LOT of questions...have some time to kill....so I'll give some thoughts

Okay to get to the point of my question...Get to the point of you question? LMAO now that funny.........so are these listed happenings which happened 240 years ago as well as again today a threat to the security of a free state? AS I STATED EARLIER YES many of these could be reasons. How many reasons you wanna talk about? How bout alien invasion? It also mentions a "free state" Many may claim we are not as free as we think. We could have a whole thread about "Free State"

If a govt breaks/ignores the laws our elected representatives pass is that a form of tyranny? ?? maybe

If a govt takes private property without just and fair compensation as our Constitution requires is that tyranny? Wouldn't it just be easier to list the defn. of tyranny and then list some things that could be considered tyranny?

If a govt sets up "free speech areas" and arrests those protesting outside those boundries, is that tyranny? NO

If a govt jails people on trumped up charges because they covet their property, is that tyranny? I suppose

If a govt arrests and holds someone indefinately simply for speaking out against a govts actions and stating they will exercise their God given rights (now protected by the Constitution) is that tyranny? OMG how many examples are you gonna list??

If a govt colludes to silence those that speak out against their actions is that tyranny? Silence in what way? Again defn

If a govt targets groups based on conservative/constitutional ideologies of freedom and private property rights is that tyranny? Is this really the last one...can't there be more examples? Like is it tyranny to make a law that forbids me to pay a gal for some sex (or her me), when if no money changes hands its fine?

- - - Updated - - -

Rowdie the point of my question you seem to have missed is if "conservatives" are attacking those that state they are simply willing to exercise their 2nd amendment rights as they protest the actions of the govt I listed.........because making that statement damages the fight to protect our 2nd amendment rights..........what good is the 2nd amendment? HUH??? WHAT GOOD IS IT??? REALLY?? THAT'S YOUR POINT?? I guess you're right its no good through it out...repeal it. SMH

In short (in short hahahahahaha) if those that are actually willing to embrace the 2nd for the purpose it was written (read that purpose again) are maligned by those claiming to support the 2nd........were do we stand? ??? I know where I stand but I'm not sure about you?

JUst because the gov't can by tyrannical in a lot of areas ... especially in your eyes... does that mean we still don't need the 2nd Amendment for..... this reason "being necessary to the security of a free State" It's there to secure our FREEDOMS and yes many laws infringe on them. But when someone says "why do we still need it?" That's just stupid

People who never threatened anyone or fired a shot that were protesting those actions I listed have been condemned as "radicals" by people that claim to be conservative (both on and off this site) simply for stating they were willing to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.

ya ya ya tell that to the slaves in the 1800's and to the Natives who truly had land stolen.

So once again I ask, what is the 2nd amendment good for (I guess nothing in your eyes) ::wowzers:: if the conservatives that claim to support it will not support those that say they are willing to actually exercise it for the intent it was written. OMG?? So support are carzy azzes....or ...or ..or..I guess we don't need it any more (In my best baby voice)

By no means am I calling for an armed insurrection, just trying to understand what power the 2nd still has when we are told by so called conservatives (who the fk are you talking about?) we should not even say we are willing to exercise our 2nd amendment rights to be politically correct and not inflame others so not to damage this 2nd amendment protections. I'm not sure I've heard anyone say this...that I consider to the right