Sorry for your loss. Give it another try and see if you can spot the nice looking babe in the video. I did and I got wood.

Following on from above.

I didn't say you quoted me or anything about me. It was a "warning". My argument might have lead people to believe that I was against gun control. I gave the warning that it would be dumb to make any assumptions. I can't quite see how you missed this.

If you think it is not dumb to make assumptions, please let me know.

The 2A specifically says "arms". There is plenty of debate and case law regarding what arms they meant. Suffice to say there isn't a shadow of a doubt that it means firearms (long and short) of all varieties commonly available.

"doesn't mention anything about not restricting the types of armaments people can use"

It does restrict the government from making laws in this regard. The 2A is a law restricting government, not the people. "shall not be infringed" literally means you shall make no law that affects this right in any way.

You don't know whether advocates care if other arms are regulated. If I were to hazard a guess I'd say you are very wrong.

Gun control means whatever the group in control wants it to mean. Anything else is false. If they want it to mean taking away all of your guns, then that is what it is.

Constitutional amendments can indeed be changed. It is very, very difficult to do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

EDIT: I see now you said Kingsman. Haven't seen that movie.

"Nevermind" said in my best Emily Litella voice.

Another idiot just like Trump right here folks.... I'd rather see all you Right Wingers deported than the immigrants....

Oh Great. Now I have to watch the movie to see if you mean Kaiser or Kevin.

I don't see what you see, and I don't know what kind of microphone he has.
Still, you're free to call it fake, I just don't agree.

I see what you did there.

Bob, I have to disagree. There is no need to use that many question marks.

I think newt clearly said the title was dishonest. He also stated at the end, *lies for the misleading title

No personal attack there that I can see. Unless you are Paris Cloud.

Never believe some people are unlovable even if that's true. Some people believe they are unloveable. Those are the people that have had bad things happen to them. Don't let them scare you. They will try to give you their fear in an effort to see how you respond. That is your chance to make a world of difference. Instead, give them your understanding and your hope and your trust just as they tried to give you their fears.

I know. They told me.

1) It doesn't matter who the creator of the video is. What matters is what you see.

2) It doesn't matter if there is a point or not. What matters is what you see.

Do you see the war paint? Do you see the reason for the war paint?

Be careful where you walk.

Carnivore, which intercepted all of any targets internet traffic without a warrant, was fully implemented by 1997 and has since been replaced with software like NarusInsight that records all internet traffic through any isp....again with no warrant.
If you believe governments aren't capable of seeing everything you've ever done online, you're fooling yourself. There's no such thing as real internet privacy.
This is hardly new, but it remains upsetting.

@JiggaJonson,

When you say:
...I'm against promoting the idea that torture works...

I can see where you are coming from on this. In the sense that it might then encourage people to accept using it, because it works.

My problem with that line of reasoning though is that torture actually is effective. The simplest proof being that we wouldn't have every single national intelligence agency using it(directly or indirectly by a less squeamish ally as we 'civilized' nations prefer to do it).

Your links to the ineffectiveness of torture only look at the narrowest possible goals from it. Somebody like Saddam Hussein usually didn't care about Jack Bauer style, minutes count specific intel. Getting the names of everyone you knew or 'conspired' with mattered, and torture IS effective at getting people to talk. The trouble your links note is that torture victims will say literally anything to get you to stop. When looking for information though, victims can't name real people unless they know them. Better still for guys like Saddam, if you get yourself 3 victims in the same movement, you can cross reference things and build a list of suspects. To more ethical nations like us that's unactionable intelligence, but if you don't care if you sweep up 5 innocents along with the 5 people that really were a threat to you, it still 'worked'.

Torture also is widely used simply as a tool to instill fear. When your citizens have seen the broken shells of people who's loyalty was deemed questionable, fear keeps them in step. It worked for Saddam until external forces stopped him, and it's helped keep 3 generations in power in North Korea.

Getting back closer to the video, things we don't like don't go away just because we refuse to talk about them. Rape, torture, and violence aren't like the boogeyman that will go away if we just stop talking and thinking about them so much. We need to accept that there are terrible things in our world that people do and benefit from doing them. These are things that people use to gain a feeling of power, or to truly gain real tangible power over other people.

Of course we have to discuss them responsibly, and the danger of shaming victims is an equally real thing to be aware of. At the same time though, humor is one of the ways of bridging the gap to people dealing with trauma, so jokes about things that cause trauma like rape, violence and torture have an honest place in making things better as well.

Thanks ant =) Hope you are doing well, nice to see that you are still sifting!

@newtboy,

missed your reply, you need to check the video again as you clearly didn't watch what I'm watching.
You said:
"I disagree 100%. Sane people did this to stop the rapidly escalating anger between the kids and (disgusting) black Israelites before the kids attacked the Israelites, which seemed inevitable because no one was controlling the kids (or the small group of Black Israelites) and the kids were getting more and more rowdy."
At 1:09 the Black Israelites are making fun of the kids specifically because they are "keeping their distance". At 1:11 the kids are presumably standing/jumping doing one of their school chants, moving no closer to the black Israelites. At 1:12 after the chant, the kids all sit down. After the kids have been not only 'keeping their distance', but sitting down now for a minute is when Nathan Phillips comes in to 'de-escalate' things. You can not honestly paint that as looking like an 'inevitable attack' was coming from the kids. The reality is the kids were staying back, and sitting down while the Black Israelite adults continued trying unsuccessfully to escalate things.

You later said:
"and note smirk boy is not there, he gets into the stationary elders face later. "

If you look at 1:13, smirk boy is 3 rows back from the elder. If you watch till 1:14 you notice that the camera man isn't moving, but Phillips gets further and further away because is walking slowly into the crowd of students. The students don't so much surround him, they make way as he invades their personal space until they move until about 1:15. If you watch 1:15, the camera is the same place as it was back at 1:11, the kids are at the same distance from the camera and the same location on the stairs, but now you can't even see Phillips because he's so far into the group.

I gotta admit, I'm a little floored you can come away still seeing what you want to see...