I used to be pro-gun and 2nd Amendment but the increase of frequence of school spree-shootings and spree-shootings in general, has me second-guessing and doubting pro-gun support. Basically, the bottom line is, USA is already a “fascist dictatorship”. Thus the argument for “against government tyranny” is a moot-point. It doesn’t matter whether US citizens have guns or not, to resist government tyranny, because US citizens already voted in favor of it. The die is cast on that topic. The Federal Government was already voted into pro-socialist agendas, from healthcare, health insurance, to military, to social security, and through all aspects of life. The Federal and State government already dictates to average US citizens what they can or cannot do. “Rights” are a sham, of Modernity. They don’t really mean anything. They don’t really grant anything. They’re mostly outdated, liberal talking points.
The main problem of Modernity is that 1) people don’t know what real problems are, and even if they did, then 2) they wouldn’t know real solutions to those real problems.
Thus this matter of spree-shootings falls into two categories: 1) take away people’s (machine) guns, or 2) say that “but we’ve gottaaaaa do somethiiiiiing aboooout mental health!!!” The real problem is that nothing is being done about the issue. The politicians lack backbone to enforce radical changes. And underneath that big problem, is another big problem, that Moderns don’t really understand the cause, the how, the why, of spree-shootings in the first place. Society is turning against itself. Person is turning against person.
I’ve heard that “other countries have problems of their own”. In France, Moslems are spree-shooting music clubs with AK-47s. In Israel, Moslems are blowing themselves up with explosives, as well as other Middle Eastern countries. So you take away the guns, and extreme violence still occurs. Therefore the real solution is found in deeper questions. 1) Can extreme violence be stopped, and 2) if it can be stopped then how??? I don’t really have answers to whether or not extreme violence can be stopped. Maybe it can’t. And if it can’t, then the second real solution would be to mitigate the damages, and restore health as quickly as possible. I don’t think anybody is really applying this track of mind: mitigate damage and restore health quickly.
That would be the most reasonable response.
However, from the signs of this conversation, civilization and Moderns are far, far behind the curve.
At least Silhoutte is willing to have dialogue, unlike most others here. That is some hope. The rest is empty rhetoric, without significance.