# a theory.....on guns in america



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

I guess I'm watching a little (a lot?) more tv theses days...
Seems like the majority of US movies, old & new, and a lot of the tv shows I see quick promos fir each night - those NCIS shows etc. - feature guns & shootings. And a lot of it seems inconsequential ....esp. all the shooting & killings in old western & crime movies. I'm wondering if americans have become immune or nonchalant to all this gun violence in the media over the years ,& now take it as being somehow "normal"? and on it goes....
any comments?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Of course, these Americans consider themselves as being immuned from a bullet and it's a god-given "normal" right for them to carry guns (under the whatever amendment) ... until they receive one. The violence on TV doesn't help either.

One adjective/verb description: desensitized (people and not applicable to just Americans ... )


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

America was born in violence. Much different than Canada.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I found it one of the most frightening things when living in America. This, and far-right extremism, are why I left the US and won't be going back.

In the time I was there, one rural man pointed his rifle at me. I've spent many years in rural ON and MB and nobody in Canada would ever do this. I later learned from his neighbours that this man was a gun nut, and was armed to the teeth at home (with machine guns, military weapons, etc).

At least one of my coworkers routinely brought a handgun to the office.

Another coworker offered to lend me his gun when I was complaining about noisy birds outside my bedroom. He suggested I could shoot a few of them to scare them off / teach them a lesson. When I said I can't handle a gun (no training, no license) he politely -- and enthusiastically -- offered to come to my place and do the killing himself.

I used to go to a university library to focus and get work done. I carefully studied the exits and formulated an evacuation strategy in case of a mass shooter. Thankfully it never happened at that particular campus, but while I lived there, a nearby college (Umpqua) did actually have a mass shooting.


After a few years living in America, I also started to understand why everyone had a gun. I started to think I should get one too. Why? Everywhere you go in the US, you are surrounded by lunatics who have guns. If someone breaks into your home, he probably has a gun and will happily shoot you. If you encounter an angry man on the street, he likely has a gun too.

So the logical thing is to get a gun yourself.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think it is the laws they have in the US.

There often is little restriction on who can buy or own a gun, but the sttrangest to me is the "open carry" concept.

I have no problem with people owning guns, but they should have background checks and complete extensive training.

They should be a "level up" from non-gun owners and be proud they achieved that level. I think it should be difficult to achieve that level....not easy.

That makes for responsible gun owners and fewer of them, as many people wouldn't want to bother with all the requirements and training.

There are Youtube videos of young guys walking down the street carrying weapons for the sole purpose of having someone call the police and then wait for them to arrive.

They giggle and laugh when a couple of police cars arrive to "check them out". It is all so they can post videos online.

But it frightens the public, wastes valuable police time, and is dangerous for police to not know if the person is a nut case or law abiding citizen.

Look at when they march around armed in cities, or crash the Michigan legislature.

One of these days, there is a going to be a big shootout between armed militia and police and people will die.

They have reached the point where some gun owners now threaten and intimidate the police.

I say allow guns in Canada, but be really restrictive on who is allowed to have one.


----------



## MK7GTI (Mar 4, 2019)

I don't see the point in having the conversation anymore. The US will never changes it's thought process on guns therefore it will never change their laws. Just wasted breathe.


----------



## depassp (Mar 22, 2020)

1st amendment: Freedom of speech
2nd amendment: Right to bear arms

I also lived in the states for a while and think I understand. Almost all problems in the world can be solved by ensuring the incentive structures are set up properly. This is why money works in a free market economy.

I think the American constitution founders' intent with the 2nd amendment is to allow citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. A government that is fearful of its citizens provides incentive for it to serve the citizens well.

Gaining that right does allow citizens to harm each other easier and yes that's a problem. IMO that problem is smaller when compared to making sure the government doesn't overstep. The clause "well regulated militia" is tricky and should probably be interpreted as exercising more caution and provide training for firearm owners.

The 2nd amendment is there in case the 1st amendment doesn't work.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Unfortunately, the founders of the Constitution had no concept for what the world would look like more than 200 years into the future.

They didn't envision social media.....or the kind of weapons available today.....as examples.

We see in the impeachment trial of Trump that the Constitution is also flawed in that area, as both sides debate the meaning of two words........"the President".

The US Constitution is outdated and flawed and the US needs to revise it to accommodate today's realities.

Even the notion that an armed population could prevent a military takeover of the government is nonsensical.

The military could kill people with an array of powerful weapons from hundreds of miles away.

Let's also remember that some of the founders of the US owned slaves and gave women no rights. 

It was a less than perfect document created by less than perfect people, and it is in need of revision.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

sags said:


> Unfortunately, the founders of the Constitution had no concept for what the world would look like more than 200 years into the future.
> 
> They didn't envision social media.....or the kind of weapons available today.....as examples.
> 
> ...


The constitution won’t be changed. The real issue, and the real opportunity for change, is in the interpretation of the document. Originalist Supreme Court justices like Scalia, Kavanagh and Barrett believe that the text be given the original public meaning that it would have had at the time that it became law. It gives no consideration for “modern” times.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

depassp said:


> ...
> 
> I think the American constitution founders' intent with the 2nd amendment is to allow citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. A government that is fearful of its citizens provides incentive for it to serve the citizens well.
> ...


I wouldn't doubt that there can be a debate about what constitutes a tyrannical government as that's what armed citizens were claiming they were doing when they stormed the Michigan State Legislature in April over Covid-19 lockdown.

There are already debates about what "well regulated" really means.

And even in this forum, there was a debate what kind of damage was really significant as the damage to the Capitol Building on January 6th was deemed by some people as minor.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

depassp said:


> I think the American constitution founders' intent with the 2nd amendment is to allow citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. A government that is fearful of its citizens provides incentive for it to serve the citizens well.


Original intent, yes. But today this is outdated and ineffective. The government has tremendous weaponry and the largest military in the world. There is no way that a few citizens with their toy guns can stop the US military.

This idea may have worked 200 years ago but it's not going to work today.


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

I would contest that....

bad govt that wrecks an Economy .... such as the USSR, is a society that needs to be armed or able to be, if the USA keeps printing cash like they are it’s just a matter of time until Americans may need that hunting rifle or AR.....

societies in chaos are scary, I for one would want my rifle not far.....

look at Weimar Germany.... collapse of USSR, ect over time it has happened and over time it will happen again. When govt collapses or an economy collapses, it’s bad & I’m not gonna be standing there empty handed in an old pair of underwear....

👍


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Unfortunately, the founders of the Constitution had no concept for what the world would look like more than 200 years into the future.
> 
> They didn't envision social media.....or the kind of weapons available today.....as examples.
> 
> ...


Well that's why it's illegal for the military to act domestically.
Sure it needs a revision, it even has rules to revise it.

The problem is that the changes some people want to make are BAD, do you want a flawed constitution, or a more flawed constitituion.
I haven't heard of any proposals to actually improve it.


----------



## vonMarburg (Jul 15, 2017)

I find that there is a huge cultural variance between Canadians and Americans- and cultural variances in America State to State. I am fine with adults owning guns if they are licensed carriers and have undergone some training for the weapon of choice. I am against anyone with a criminal record owning a gun (except for a few non-violent offenders). That being said, I suspect that most of the gun deaths that occur in the States are with illegal guns, or guns obtained on the black market with typical serial numbers shaved off. These guns exist here, too, and shootings happen here, too. However, even without a gun, a nutcase is still able to take lives if he/she wants to. Look at the Ryder van moron in Toronto. In conclusion, if the US were to ban guns now and seize them from registered licensed owners, the only guns around will be in the hands of criminal elements who far outnumber the police. This would be a disaster. The US is quite a different place than Canada, so we should practice some reticence and restraint before urging a foreign government to confiscate the legal guns of private citizens.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

”Greatest country on Earth”


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> Well that's why it's illegal for the military to act domestically.


Except the country does have military-style police, at the federal level. The DHS for example has police which are not typical police. Many of them are veterans from overseas wars, with significant urban combat training. The DHS has military people, snipers, urban commandos, and in fact have brought that kind of (military) power to the streets of America. They have very significant firepower.

Trump started transforming DHS into a police force for his own dictatorial ambitions. This is exactly the kind of thing pro-gun Americans should fight against -- but they didn't raise a PEEP.

In fact American gun nuts *loved it* when the federal government started bullying and suppressing the population using military power. @MrMatt loved it too!

I posted 7 months ago, when Trump (early in his push for dictatorial power before trying to overturn the election) used his military-trained federal agents to attack the city of Portland. Just a horrendous act of domestic assault by the government's para-military, on the general population.

This is a huge danger now in America. The far right extremists, whether it's Trump or a copycat, can use federal police to oppress the population. We now have a template for how right-wing fascists can install a dictator and transform America into a third world s*** hole, banana republic.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Except the country does have military-style police, at the federal level. The DHS for example has police which are not typical police. Many of them are veterans from overseas wars, with significant urban combat training. The DHS has military people, snipers, urban commandos, and in fact have brought that kind of (military) power to the streets of America. They have very significant firepower.
> 
> Trump started transforming DHS into a police force for his own dictatorial ambitions. This is exactly the kind of thing pro-gun Americans should fight against -- but they didn't raise a PEEP.
> 
> ...


I supported the deployment of federal police and/or national Guard to protect federal government buildings from rioters and domestic terrorists.
I supported it Portland, and in the US capital in early January.

I think it's interesting that after what you called an attempted insurrection, you don't support the deployment of adequate levels of law enforcement.

You're right, there is a huge danger in the US. I don't like it, but when you have active domestic terrorists operating on US soil, you need to ensure you have the resources to address it.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> I supported the deployment of federal police and/or national Guard to protect federal government buildings from rioters and domestic terrorists.
> I supported it Portland, and in the US capital in early January.


I do agree that federal police and military resources are needed to protect the government, of course.

But your comparison talks about two completely different events. Protesters in Portland posed nothing more than a minor nuisance. They never were a serious threat to government, and the protests were winding down on their own. The rioters only became aggressive after Trump sent federal agents to deliberately antagonize them (fascist tactics). A great example is how federal officers shot a peaceful protester in the head... this is the kind of extreme federal police response that _ignited_ the riots.

This was, in fact, a fascist stunt orchestrated by Trump and the far right to build support for his "law & order" brand. This was a way to manipulate fearful and gullible conservatives into voting for him. It was an illegitimate use of federal powers.

So no, that was not an appropriate police response. It was an abuse by the federal government and a misuse of federal police power. This was Trump's fascist crackdown on dissent (link to article), coming just a few months before he tried to illegally seize power and install himself as dictator.



depassp said:


> 1st amendment: Freedom of speech
> 2nd amendment: Right to bear arms
> . . .
> The 2nd amendment is there in case the 1st amendment doesn't work.


The Portland events are supposedly what the 2nd amendment is there for: tyrannical rulers over-stepping legal boundaries and oppressing citizens. Even shooting innocent civilians in the head! But as you can see, the 2nd amendment did not protect the population. It's just not practical; this is not a viable way, or a smart way, for citizens to keep government in check.

So what good does the 2nd amendment do, then? I think it's pointless, and America needs much more strict gun prohibition.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Some good news out of the new US administration: Biden has asked Congress for gun law reforms. He wants to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

This would be great, though I'm doubtful the US can do it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I do agree that federal police and military resources are needed to protect the government, of course.
> 
> But your comparison talks about two completely different events. Protesters in Portland posed nothing more than a minor nuisance. They never were a serious threat to government, and the protests were winding down on their own. The rioters only became aggressive after Trump sent federal agents to deliberately antagonize them (fascist tactics). A great example is how federal officers shot a peaceful protester in the head... this is the kind of extreme federal police response that _ignited_ the riots.
> 
> ...


IIRC Portland protestors did successfully take over some government buildings, specifically police stations.
I would suggest, when armed mobs take over government buildings you should consider that a threat to government.

It's funny, you think one group of domestic terrorists are bad, but the other group of terrorists is good, and they were just being antagonized.
Most terrorists think they're fighting for something good.

The guys who stormed the police station and the guys who stormed the Capital were doing the same damn thing.
Don't you see the problem?


As far as the second amendment, I think it still has a need.
If someone wants to harm you, you should be allowed to defend yourself.

Since US courts have ruled the police have no duty to respond, it is unconscionable that you would be denied the tools to protect your own life.


Secondly I think the US needs more protection from their overreaching government, and they need the people to behave more civil.
There was no reason to have a summer of riots this last year. People need to stop being so destructive and work on actually making things better.

But it's easier to torch a neighbourhood than build it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Some good news out of the new US administration: Biden has asked Congress for gun law reforms. He wants to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
> 
> This would be great, though I'm doubtful the US can do it.


Of course some of these jokers think a squirt gun is an "assault weapon", and a high capacity magazine is one that holds 2 bullets.


----------



## Ponderling (Mar 1, 2013)

I lived in Australia 99-03 on a work assignment. 

That was just 3 years after a massacre where one guy went on a spree and shot and killed 35 and wounded a bunch more. Government had prior been formulating firearm restriction policy and this event prompted action to buy out subsequently banned types of guns. You at the time already had to register ownership of handguns, but not long guns.

Over 600,000 were purchased and destroyed. That is quite a number in a population of 20 million. There were still weapons permitted for live stock predation control, and sport shooting at controlled facilities in cities. But a whole whack of guns that shot a lot of bullets quickly went away. And by and large the world there did not fall apart. 

It made a nice counterpoint for this Canadian who is used to living next door to US gun culture, and the toll in violence it allows in their population. Then there is the local hue and cry when someone not directly linked to the internecine gun battles of drug trafficers and organized crime gets killed, yet we in Canada have not yet got the point to really crack down on illegal gun use.


----------



## vonMarburg (Jul 15, 2017)

MrMatt said:


> IIRC Portland protestors did successfully take over some government buildings, specifically police stations.
> I would suggest, when armed mobs take over government buildings you should consider that a threat to government.
> 
> It's funny, you think one group of domestic terrorists are bad, but the other group of terrorists is good, and they were just being antagonized.
> ...


I agree. The actions of Antifa and other far-left terrorist organizations are far more worrying than "fascist" boogeymen. I'd wager that most Trump supporters (and many of his opponents) don't even understand what the term means. The term is now essentially useless. Same goes with the term "racist". To those on the far left everything is racist, and even if you aren't a racist, and you tell them that, they will vociferously correct you by saying things like "unconscious bias", "institutional racism", "descended from white colonialist imperialists", or "white supremacy denier". And they say these things not only to whites, but to other minorities who disagree with their far-left nonsense. And if they can't convince you with their poisonous words they have no problem implementing the use of violence to beat you into submission.These people control most of the media, Hollywood, and the Academy. And these institutions spread these (and other) dangerous ideas. This is utter madness.

I hope Trump runs in 2024 and I hope he wins.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

Uh, oh. Looks like the people who blamed the Iraq War on the Democrats are out in force again.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I don't like American gun laws but they deserve to do what ever they like. Biden owns a shotgun, something our "ballerina in charge" wants to outlaw.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

Eder said:


> I don't like American gun laws but they deserve to do what ever they like. Biden owns a shotgun, something our "ballerina in charge" wants to outlaw.


For a person who has defeated Trump four times and at home, the Conservatives twice from behind, the ballerina-in-charge must have read Sun Tzu.


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

J4B,

Salon and The Nation are both Left/Liberal reporting agencies..... I would take their reporting with a grain of salt.... their agenda is not hidden at all....

Better validation would be referencing a more centrist news/reporting agency....


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

Tostig said:


> For a person who has defeated Trump four times and at home, the Conservatives twice from behind, the ballerina-in-charge must have read Sun Tzu.


Our "ballerina in charge" is the epitome of giving Ontario & Quebec what they ask for... which in turn means cash.... we all know those 2 provinces control our parliament. Its not an art... its extortion. The ballerina is not shy of scandal... sorry for digressing, back to US guns....


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

vonMarburg said:


> I agree. The actions of Antifa and other far-left terrorist organizations are far more worrying than "fascist" boogeymen.


I'm not sure of that.

However the fact that antifa and the far left seem to be able to operate with impunity is more concerning to me.

I have concerns about violence from domestic groups.
The groups that are actively being monitored and acted against are less scary than those who seem to operate with near impunity.

Which is scarier?
The group that the government encourages, or the one they denounce?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> The guys who stormed the police station and the guys who stormed the Capital were doing the same damn thing.


No, they weren't doing the same thing. You're being ridiculous, and this is the false narrative of the right wing extremists.

Only the far right tried to overthrow the US Government and install a dictator. Only the far right tried to kill countless politicians, even the Vice President.

Only the far right sent a sitting parliament full of lawmakers running for the lives, to hide under desks in fear.

Only the far right tried (repeatedly) to stop American democracy and silence the voice of people.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

*
Only the far right tried (repeatedly) to stop American democracy and silence the voice of people. *











Oh and...


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eder said:


> Biden owns a shotgun, something our "ballerina in charge" wants to outlaw.


Eder, you sure post a lot of gender-bending material. You frequently comment on the hair and socks of men and have used feminine lingo repeatedly for Trudeau.

I'm not sure where this ballerina idea came from, but you certainly have a very pretty imagination. Good for you!

I know that repressed conservative men often struggle with gender topics. I understand how a discussion about guns might have "triggered" you... that's actually quite common and is nothing to be ashamed about.

To explore your interest in men's hair styling and gender bending, maybe you would enjoy studying hairstyling at a community college? Many retired people pursue new hobbies and even new careers.

I do realize these are personal things, so you don't have to explain anything about yourself, but I want to assure you we are an open and accepting community. In fact, I really enjoy your pretty imagination and these adorable, gender-bending comments you make.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Me & you Amigo...or should I say "Ducky"?

Maybe I should get the moderator to clue in on these personal attacks of yours toward me lately...oh I guess that would be you lol. Good job!


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eder said:


> Maybe I should get the moderator to clue in on these personal attacks of yours toward me lately...oh I guess that would be you lol. Good job!


There's no personal attack here. I encouraged your floral language, praised you for being imaginative, and actually *encouraged* self discovery.

If you think there is something wrong with femininity, or if you think "ballerina" is a slur, that's on you, buddy - not me.

Remember, you're the one injecting feminine language into these conversations. I don't know how ballerinas fit into a conversation on guns and citizen rights, but YOU brought it up. I responded, _very positively_.


----------



## vonMarburg (Jul 15, 2017)

james4beach said:


> No, they weren't doing the same thing. You're being ridiculous, and this is the false narrative of the right wing extremists.
> 
> Only the far right tried to overthrow the US Government and install a dictator. Only the far right tried to kill countless politicians, even the Vice President.
> 
> ...


The far right (which I suspect is anyone who supports Trump) did no such thing. A few morons stormed the Capitol and that was a disgrace in and of itself. However, you can't overthrow a democracy and install a dictator by taking one building. A successful coup would require taking over multiple branches of government while having significant military backing.

Leftists are all crying over the Capitol. How quickly they forget how often cities erupt into chaos every time a black person is shot (either legally or illegally). How many people are killed in the ensuing madness, how many innocent business owners and bystanders are beaten up or killed? How many businesses and cars are lit on fire in these riots? If BLM and Antifa are rioting in protest then why do so many of them engage in looting?

4 rioters were killed at the Capitol. That's what happens when you start a riot and start committing violence. You put yourself and others in danger. They died fighting for what they believed in. They paid their price.

The only person to mourn for is that police officer who died on the job defending the Capitol.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

james4beach said:


> There's no personal attack here. I encouraged your floral language, praised you for being imaginative, and actually *encouraged* self discovery.
> 
> If you think there is something wrong with femininity, or if you think "ballerina" is a slur, that's on you, buddy - not me.
> 
> Remember, you're the one injecting feminine language into these conversations. I don't know how ballerinas fit into a conversation on guns and citizen rights, but YOU brought it up. I responded, _very positively_.


Over the years, followers of Trump, Harper, Harris and Ford often spew out the personal attacks and vitriol. But when it comes flying back at them, they're the first to yell unfair.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

vonMarburg said:


> Leftists are all crying over the Capitol.


Actually, all people who value western democracy are crying over the Capitol. Symbolically this was a direct attack on western democracy.

This is how countries lose democracy and become dictatorships. Trump tried to steal the election at several stages. He tried to sabotage the mail system, then after he lost, refused to concede and started pressuring states like Georgia (even threatening officials) to fake the results in his favour. Finally, he led a mob to directly stop the election certification and storm the government buildings.

How anyone can support Trump or even want him back, after that, is mind boggling to me. Some people truly do not like democracy, and prefer dictatorship or authoritarianism.



vonMarburg said:


> The only person to mourn for is that police officer who died on the job defending the Capitol.


How about the cop that MAGA almost beat to death with an American flag? How about another cop who lost three fingers at the hands of mob?

How about the TWO cops who killed themselves after the horrors of that day?

And why don't you show any sympathy for the politicians who had to flee for their lives, hiding from Trump's mob? These are elected politicians serving their country, and they were attacked -- almost killed.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Tostig said:


> Over the years, followers of Trump, Harper, Harris and Ford often spew out the personal attacks and vitriol. But when it comes flying back at them, they're the first to yell unfair.


No not unfair...I think calling Trudeau a ballerina is a fairly accurate metaphor, James calling me gay because I slighted his hero is fair as well.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eder said:


> No not unfair...I think calling Trudeau a ballerina is a fairly accurate metaphor, James calling me gay because I slighted his hero is fair as well.


Nobody called you gay


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

vonMarburg said:


> The budget will balance itself. LOL


Looking at the title of this video, it's interesting how conservatives are obsessed with the term "cuckold". For those unfamiliar, this is a term for a man whose wife is cheating on him. Someone who is ineffective, unmanly, a fool.

There is obviously a connection here to another right winger in this thread and his chosen words. This is not coincidental... it's an insight into the right-wing mind. These are the kinds of things MAGA types hurl: ballerina, cuck, etc

Thanks for posting the video vonMarburg because I had forgotten how much time conservatives spend writing vile, usually racist and sexist comments on Youtube and social media... truly a favourite pastime of the right wing, and MAGA deplorables.

In fact, if you go around Youtube and look for videos on liberal or centrist political topics, you will often find the comments completely full of angry and vile comments from MAGA right wingers.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

vonMarburg said:


> youtube


VonMarburg, can you please explain why your video has several segments of someone screaming "allah akbar", along with headlines about Syrian refugees?

This video appears to be right wing extremist content; it's islamophobic and xenophobic.


----------



## vonMarburg (Jul 15, 2017)

james4beach said:


> Looking at the title of this video, it's interesting how conservatives are obsessed with the term "cuckold". For those unfamiliar, this is a term for a man whose wife is cheating on him. Someone who is ineffective, unmanly, a fool.
> 
> There is obviously a connection here to another right winger in this thread and his chosen words. This is not coincidental... it's an insight into the right-wing mind. These are the kinds of things MAGA types hurl: ballerina, cuck, etc
> 
> ...


Well I suppose we have the time to write "vile" things on the internet because, unlike the left, we aren't out rioting and burning down cities.


----------



## vonMarburg (Jul 15, 2017)

james4beach said:


> VonMarburg, can you please explain why your video has several segments of someone screaming "allah akbar", along with headlines about Syrian refugees?
> 
> This video appears to be right wing extremist content; it's islamophobic and xenophobic.


It's making a mockery of Trudeau. It was made by Lauren Southern. Yet here we go again, seeing racism everywhere.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

vonMarburg said:


> It's making a mockery of Trudeau. It was made by Lauren Southern. Yet here we go again, seeing racism everywhere.


Your content isn't appropriate. She creates racist propaganda, and the stuff you linked to is generally vile, alt-right stuff.


----------



## moderator2 (Sep 20, 2017)

I removed the video and have banned vonMarburg. This kind of content is not acceptable here and I believe this person is a troll, as they went awfully quickly from being inactive, to posting alt right extremist content.


----------

