What a novel idea
I never heard of that before 
….. Sometimes, or most times us humans or is it aliens over react and the sensible thing would be to actually do the opposite. 
It's a shame when 50 years of pointing out a problem accomplishes nothing.What a novel idea
Our need or desire to blame ( an emotional reaction) often wins out over sensible intelligence.
Black lives don't matter when it is other blacks doing the shooting. It only matters when a white person kills a gang banger.It's a shame when 50 years of pointing out a problem accomplishes nothing.
45 years ago multiplying the police force X 5 could have stopped the trend.
The recent defunding the police has done what?
Lives obviously do not matter even slightly in Chicago. All these years and I've come to the conclusion that this is acceptable there. Not just to the governmental bodies and city counsel, but to the residents. They keep voting for this behavior to continue.
If the internet has made us dumber, maybe it could also make us smarter ?
It makes you and me smarter. It's the people who grew up being babysat by Facebook and Instagram while we were outside building cardboard forts, playing hide and seek and cowboys an Indians, Zorro, Superman and Batman.If the internet has made us dumber, maybe it could also make us smarter ?
It all depends on what messages we value.
See.... that'll teach you!
When this man, this senator, watches his own cute little anti gun speech, do you wonder how insane his argument against guns looks to rational, sane people. Does he not see the mistake in his argument?
The mistake is cowardice and an obvious systemic failure in training, not guns.
I'm thinking the police thought their job was to stop people from going into the school and getting shot up like the kids..... you know, protecting the citizens.
How a man with this mentality became a senator tells me a lot about voters in his state.
Arguments fall into the category of free speech. Arguing about how or why that person is arguing that way could be compared to one gun owner taking away another gun owners gun because it’s not the right gun to have.
and YES ! The opponent too, are you ready ? first one to get 21 by 2 wins that game, then I’ll see you tomorrow for another 
The founding fathers had just got out from under the rule of King George. They wanted to make sure we could fight back and keep our freedoms. That was the purpose of the 2nd. In those days, the people were the militia.Arguments fall into the category of free speech. Arguing about how or why that person is arguing that way could be compared to one gun owner taking away another gun owners gun because it’s not the right gun to have.
The only way free speech functions properly is if the foundation of expression is respected and not ridiculed or judged, but I get it . Let’s maybe try a different approach where I express and then you express. It’s a ping pong game, respecting the table, paddles, ball, the rules,
That gentleman podcaster has the right to speak and think that way, as does Highup who validates that speech, all I want to do is try to express a different view on where I see a possible misinterpretation of the bigger picture, or intent , from the founding fathers.
That sounds correct to me Rusty, but What I’m proposing ( read the previous post again ) is that the founding fathers chose Freedom of Religion and Expression as the very first amendment for a very important reason ! And that is so that we give respect and get respect , as mandated in the constitution. Every time someone is ridiculed or judged for a particular interpretation / expression, that’s a violation of the First Amendment.
We lost freedom of speech long ago.
I was watching Viva quite a while before that, but I never paid much attention to Canada's government, but I paid closer attention to his show during the strike. Man... Canada will never be on my bucket list. (I don't have one)
The man shot himself in the foot saying more guns is obviously not the answer.Arguments fall into the category of free speech. Arguing about how or why that person is arguing that way could be compared to one gun owner taking away another gun owners gun because it’s not the right gun to have.
The only way free speech functions properly is if the foundation of expression is respected and not ridiculed or judged, but I get it . Let’s maybe try a different approach where I express and then you express. It’s a ping pong game, respecting the table, paddles, ball, the rules,
That gentleman podcaster has the right to speak and think that way, as does Highup who validates that speech, all I want to do is try to express a different view on where I see a possible misinterpretation of the bigger picture, or intent , from the founding fathers.
I like the double meaning / Irony of that statement High, but please elaborate on your thoughts. However, I challenge you to listen to his comments again, but this time without a preconceived notion that this guy has an agenda. Take his comments on face value and then give us your free speech reply.
