> Cash is vastly vastly preferred for restaurants in the USA by both sides.
What two sides are you referencing? I can't fathom that customers is one of those sides. Cash is just about my least preferred method, maybe second only to writing a check.
Sure, I believe there are lots of folks who prefer cash. I just don't think "vastly preferred" is accurate. [1] suggests that only 20% of all transactions are using cash...
It has more to do with OP who said "45 more months of this nonsense". Even if the current guy dies or is unable to run, there are plenty of other folks willing to carry on down the same path in his stead. 45 months might be optimistic.
> that in America there is a constitutional right to bear arms that shall not be infringed.
That's not clear-cut. The language of the amendment is more nuanced than that, and the interpretation you're using is a modern one. In the not-so-distant past, it was interpreted as meaning that states could have well-regulated armed citizen militias, not that everyone has a right to carry a firearm.
> The second amendment was always intended as an individual right.
Well, I disagree. However, this underlines that the issue isn't so easy. It's one of several areas where the constitution isn't nearly clear enough in its meaning and can be reasonably interpreted in contradictory ways. That's the very essence of not being clear-cut.
We don’t have to guess or interpret the founders intentions on this. There are several quotes from them that affirm this as being intended as an individual right from the very beginning of our founding…
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
-Thomas Jefferson
“The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.”
-James Madison
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
-Alexander Hamilton
By most estimates we have more guns than people in this country and a not insignificant amount of people would refuse to willingly turn over their firearms to the government. The toothpaste is already out of the tube.
In a world where the second amendment was repealed, what gun control laws would you like to see passed and what would you expect them to accomplish?
Also, how would you account for the increased violent crime rate due to average citizens being unable to defend themselves against armed criminals?
Additionally, how would you propose that we the people keep our government from becoming tyrannical in the absence of our right to bear arms? It seems particularly absurd to give up our right to firearms when so many people are expecting our current president to become a tyrannical, fascist dictator.
With no second amendment, you could plainly ban firearms altogether.
Demonstrate that there would be an increase in violent crime without guns.
The current government was elected in a society with guns. The best way to prevent tyrannical governments is an educated populace that doesn’t vote for tyrants.
> With no second amendment, you could plainly ban firearms altogether.
Banning them doesn’t get rid of them. As the saying goes, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
> Demonstrate that there would be an increase in violent crime without guns.
As a corollary to my previous point. Criminals will still have guns because they are criminals and they don’t have any respect for the law. They will be emboldened by knowing that every potential victim they come across will be unarmed.
> The current government was elected in a society with guns. The best way to prevent tyrannical governments is an educated populace that doesn’t vote for tyrants.
What is preventing a government from declaring marshal law and suspending elections as soon as the citizens are disarmed? You greatly underestimate how afraid the elites are of an armed populace.
Most rural communities will not be willingly surrendering their firearms under any circumstances. They are heavily armed, yet they have very low rates of gun violence, at least until tyrants come for their guns that is.
Contrast that to urban areas where extensive gun control laws are in place. The issues are social and cultural and are not something that a gun ban will solve.
We are not Western Europe or Australia.
Also, like I said in another comment, guns are everywhere here and that toothpaste is already out of the tube. Most guns are not registered. No one knows for certain how many there are and who owns them. There will at best be no cooperation with forced confiscation, and most likely there will be active resistance against such a tyrannical incursion upon the rights of free people. Even law enforcement and large swaths of the military are unlikely to cooperate with confiscation efforts.
> The issues are social and cultural and are not something that a gun ban will solve.
Citation needed. Where have gun bans failed and why? Mexico, central, and South America, primarily because it’s so easy to obtain weapons in the U.S. and smuggle them down.
> There will at best be no cooperation with forced confiscation, and most likely there will be active resistance against such a tyrannical incursion upon the rights of free people.
Citation needed. There are absolutely nut jobs that won’t follow the law, but that’s true of any law. The solution isn’t to not pass laws. These folks will be dealt with like any other criminal.
You make a lot of assertions that seem to stand up to even the tiniest bit of scrutiny. You don’t back any of it up with any data.
You think that truth and integrity matter. They don't. Once you disabuse yourself of that notion, you are left with the meme and with the story. And while you think that the story is how he is wrong, he does not care because his story is about the things he wins.
Example - the climate. Everything in the US government was bleached from the words "climate change", but he is bent on occupying Canada and Greenland, both places which will be much more profitable when the ice melts. People can continue shouting from the rooftops that there is a climate change and he denies it. While they are busy doing that, he positions himself to profit from the incoming disasters. All the better if he can speed them up by selling more petrol.
Example 2 - government cuts. Will they make the government more effective - no. Will they make his cronies richer - yes, while making other people poor and easier to exploit. Is that a smart plan - no, but he is not the one paying the price, so it is fine.
Example 3 - tariffs. Ask yourself not who loses from them, but who wins when the dust settles and the new trade agreements are signed. And I can bet you that no matter how many american households suffer from stackflation or whatever, the household of Trump will not be one of them and they will get out even richer out of that.
> This is simply not a problem wired technology ever had.
I had plenty of wired sets where you had to hold the cable just so in order to get audio to play through. Happened a ton with those cheap crappy skullcandy earbuds, but would also eventually happen with the higher quality stuff too.
For myself, the point is that I don't have to download another app store ever. If fortnite wants to get me (and roughly 50% of US mobile users) to play their game, they _have_ to follow the rules of the app store we have decided suits us best. If, however, other app stores are allowed, then there are no rules. No gatekeeper.
> You still have to explain the magic bullet impossibilities
This has been explained ad nauseam. The bullet went in a straight line.
> Oswald as known CIA asset (CIA reports show this)
I’m sure the CIA has used a lot of unstable people all over. It’s not inconceivable that one of them went on to commit an assassination without being directed to by the CIA. Sometimes things are just boring.
I completely agree that this is the most likely case.
That said, the public deserves to know the extent of the CIA's involvement.
I would be wholly unsurprised if it turned out to be some Mujahideen type deal where taxpayers invested a bunch to up-skill this guy, left him alone once the reason for the investment was over and he eventually came back around to shoot at us.
What two sides are you referencing? I can't fathom that customers is one of those sides. Cash is just about my least preferred method, maybe second only to writing a check.
reply