Their recent ToS update: “We bricked your TV until you ‘consent’ to waiving your right to sue us if we do something illegal. Also, we won’t tell you what you’re consenting to up front, instead we’ll make you spend hours reading through pages and pages of legal garbage to find where we buried this statement.”

They know that nobody would agree to this if they put it in big bold letters right above the “agree” button, so they bury it behind hours of tedious reading so that people cave in and just “consent.”

If you roofy someone’s drink and pester them until they “consent” to sex, you would get thrown and jail and probably shanked in the liver. If Roku bricks the TV that you purchased and won’t let it work again until you consent to something that you’re nearly guaranteed to miss or not understand by design, their profits go up because people can’t sue them.

This capitalism hellhole can’t burn down fast enough.

You can make fun of their ego all you want to make yourself feel better.

But they have guns and you don’t.

Who’s going to win when if they kick your door down?

I understand where you’re coming from. Obviously, non-violent means of enacting change like voting in reform should be the first choice to get things done.

What options exist when nonviolent means are exhausted though? Your argument is essentially:

“The government has the means to oppress the shit out of us. If it happens to us, there’s no point in fighting back so just roll with it and let it happen. I feel it’s better to have others force a way of life on me that I fundamentally disagree with, than it is to risk my life fighting for what I believe in so myself, my children, and foreseeable future generations can live their lives free of oppression.”

With that, I hope you understand why I and many other disagree with your view.

Do you see new, unique colors, or are you more sensitive to what’s already there?

Yep, we just gotta vote in people who will legislate it. Which means normal people who don’t take bribes donations from corporations will need to run for office and beat those who do.

So basically we’re doomed. We either need a modern day Teddy Roosevelt or we need to start building guillotines.

There’s gotta be a way to disable telemetry. My first thought is to cut whatever antenna is used to transmit your data to the corporation. It could be the same antenna used for radio, but I’d go without radio in a heartbeat if it meant Ford, Chevy, or whoever can’t spy on me in a car I paid $15,000+ for.

Of course, we shouldn’t have to do this. My first choice is to not give any of these car companies a dime of my money, but literally every single brand is doing it. This disgusting trend of spying on people should be illegal. It’s rapist behavior.

The ATF said that people at Waco and Ruby Ridge shot first too, turns out that was a lie.

We shouldn’t believe a word they say about this case yet, wait for an investigation to take place. For some ungodly reason, they have a track record of fabricating gun charges against people, surrounding their home with armed men, and claiming they were shot at first when stories like this hit the news.

I wouldn’t trust what the ATF has said yet. They fabricated evidence that people at Waco were selling machine guns and explosives to justify their standoff and raid there, turns out all of that was a lie.

They have all the incentive to take control of this story now so public opinion takes their side. Not unsurprisingly, they did the same thing after Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Even if everything the ATF said here is proven completely true, I agree - fuck the ATF, there was no reason to surround this person’s house and start shooting. We should all expect much more out of our government than this. Disband these thugs.

If you unnecessarily bring a gun somewhere and end up in a situation where you need to use it to kill people, you’re a murderer.

Even if he didn’t provoke anyone? As long as the gun isn’t pointed at anyone and threats aren’t made with it, there’s nothing provocative about it being there. I understand how others may feel different when their only exposure to firearms is what establishment news decides to show them, but reality is that the simple presence of a weapon like this is not alone a threat.

If Kyle instead brought a concealed handgun (ignoring how that’s illegal for a 17 y/o) and only drew it a moment before when he shot his first attacker, would your opinion change? How about if it was a knife, or a rock he found nearby? What if someone else jumped in and killed Kyle’s attacker instead?

He actively sought out the situation, and therefore bears some responsibility.

He did not actively seek out to kill people, you’re misinformed at best if you believe that, arrogant at worst.

I don’t feel that trying to stop property damage for a family friend’s establishment in the middle of a riot, where police refused to stop people, is a pattern of behavior I want to discourage people from doing. If a convicted sex offender tried to kill me for stopping them from destroying my friend’s livelihood, and I killed them in self defense, I wouldn’t feel remorse for my actions.

I’m happy the jury ruled on facts and not liberal propaganda. And I say that as a registered Democrat.

Thanks for the intelligent response.

Why do you feel that way though? I’m not being facetious or a troll, I genuinely want to know what facts about Kyle’s encounter that you (and probably others) base this opinion off of.

If someone chased you down unprovoked and tried to kill you, and you killed them in self defense, no one in their mind would call you a murderer. There are countless cases of self defense that are less cut and dry than this one, but no one bats an eye at them.

Tell me if you were told a different series of events than this:

The first guy chased Kyle while yelling threats about how he was going to kill him, cornered Kyle, then lunged at his gun before Kyle shot him. Kyle then ran towards police while a mob pursued him, throwing stuff at him including a heavy rock that hit him in the head knocking him down. The second guy ran up to Kyle while he was on the ground about was about to club him in the head with a skateboard before Kyle shot him, and the third guy ran up on Kyle and pointed a gun at his head before Kyle shot him.

Care to elaborate on why you think the trial was a sham? Do you disagree that this was self defense? Or are you simply upset that he had a gun?

The misinformation in this thread is real.

I’d bet money that most people here didn’t watch the trial or the videos of what happened. The media baselessly called him a murderer and that was enough for people to parrot it.

Anyone else have a stroke trying to make sense of the title?

Looks like Kermit’s cracked out cousin and some beat down teledruggies.

Paranoya.

Sure, but only if the purchase adheres to state laws where the resident lives in. You can’t leave your state and buy a gun that’s illegal at home. Here’s the ATF’s explanation.

That’s a myth - It’s a felony offense for gun stores to sell guns to non residents of the state they’re in.

Just to clarify, the FOID approval process is effectively performed in every state for any gun purchase. It’s not like the FOID background check carries more scrutiny or anything. If a Texan resident can buy guns in Texas, they could get a FOID card if they lived in Illinois.

And it’s federally illegal to sell guns to non-residents of the state the sale is made in, so Chicago residents can’t buy guns in neighboring states. Indiana and Wisconsin residents could bring guns into Chicago, but that alone is highly illegal too.

What exactly do you have in mind?