dartanjinn

You can self host VS Code.

This is why I use OMV and Nextcloud. A daily backup job duplicates everything to OMV. A weekly OMV backup job goes into Skiff drive. Fool me once...

Since when is Gnome the default? The default varies by distro...

$12/50 9mm is still high. Prior to 2020 50 9mm was ~$8.

20 5.56 was $4.50 for range ammo and currently around $8.50/20

In the next few years it'll come down substantially and then something will happen and they'll skyrocket again. It's how gun life has been for the past 30-40 years.

What's the deal with all the down votes and no comments? Every time I see post in this sub it's dowmvoted to hell with next to no engagement otherwise.

Just use imgflip.com - that's all it does is add text to images.

You think what's going on in Israel is in any way relatable to America? Weird...

What doesn't make sense is your use of the term "offline editor" - it's entirely nonsensical in this context. If they can't use an offline editor, they won't be any better with an online editor. It's like saying you need a 4 door car because you can't drive a 2 door car - it's the same thing with more seats. Photo editing is photo editing regardless of where the software is hosted.

Fair point on Russia. I was under the impression we were sending rifles to Ukraine because they didn't have any. I can admit when I was wrong. However, I will say a million guns in a nation with a population of 43M isn't saying much for their defense strategy. Now moving on cause I'm embarrassed...

I identified three different policies that you brought into the conversation as just that, different policies that you're using to satisfy a point because it helps your argument rather than say "I guess it's not exactly true."

Reciting the direct wording is not interpretation - it's stating the wording as written. What is there to interpret about "shall not be infringed?" It's as plain as it could possibly be.

Safety is not guaranteed, whether guns exist or not, therefore, it is perceived no matter what angle from which it's viewed.

I don't think I get your point on Germany - a state which seems to oppress it's citizens would not disarm those it seems to oppress? If that's your point it's silly and I think you know that but I still don't think that's what you were trying to say.

Of course it's more of the same, lol that was the point.

The genocide answer is that just because it hasn't happened in those places (yet) doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. It's like saying "people in Nigeria need food" then responding "No they don't, Brazil has plenty of food."

Ukraine was a dumb argument. Can we move on? Lol

Shifting your narrative into different wording to sidestep the point. You know exactly what I mean. I can tell you're an intelligent person, don't act dumb.

I'm implying no interpretation. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed - it's right there in plain text. It doesn't get any more straightforward than that.

I wasn't saying what you clearly cited was opinion. Why is that one even here?

It is perceived safety. If the wolf in your grandmother's clothing invites you in the house, the safety is perceived, it's not truly safe.

As for history, shall we start with Germany? Say, somewhere around 1929? We could do Cambodia circa 1975... We could do China maybe 1935 or so? Tiananmen Square comes to kind but I'm not sure what part confiscation played there so just bringing it up cause, well, frankly, they couldn't fight back. Wanna do Bosnia 1992? There's always Afghanistan....now.

You argue that it doesn't always happen but I argue that it does happen period. I'll take my chances. I hear Ukraine could use a few guns. Sure would have been useful to have them before the big R came knocking buildings over and killing civilians in the streets.

Laws are not protections. They give government license to punish you.

Saying guns should be registered, then some people shouldn't own guns, then felons shouldn't own guns - you keep shifting your narrative to dodge the arguments. Pick one.

The actual text of the amendment is not an interpretation - that's literally what it says, word for word.

They're only preventable in the manner they happened which is past tense. You can't say they wouldn't have happened otherwise. Again, your opinion is wrong. You favor sacrificing liberty for a little bit of perceived safety. It seems you haven't spent much time looking into the past other than some people died a couple years ago. Genocide has followed confiscation enough times in history that neither I nor anyone else should vote for any form of gun control because it's nothing more than an easily digestible double speak that ultimately breaks down to mean confiscation. If you want to vote your liberties away, that's on you. Stop encouraging people to jump off that bridge with you.

Well, as it happens, your opinion is wrong and that right there is why no one should have a say over who can have what.

Some people should be responsible enough to not use guns negligently or aggressively but they do. Doesn't mean you get to pick who does and doesn't get one. It's little statements like that one that expose little pieces of your sympathy to tyranny. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Gay black transgender democrat farmers on antidepressants with felony records should have the right to own guns. You don't get to decide who's worthy and who's not.