extreme weather forecast

With data from Copernicus (not the original Heliocentrist, but the European earth observation part of its space program), using vast amounts of global data from satellites and ground-based, airborne, and seaborne measurements reporting.

•   February 2024 was the warmest February on record globally, with an average ERA5 surface air temperature of 13.54°C, 0.81°C above the 1991-2020 average for February and 0.12°C above the temperature of the previous warmest February, in 2016.
•   This is the ninth month in a row that was the warmest on record for the respective month of the year.
 
•   The month was 1.77°C warmer than an estimate of the February average for 1850-1900, the designated pre-industrial reference period. 
 
•   The global-average temperature for the past twelve months (March 2023–February 2024) is the highest on record, at 0.68°C above the 1991-2020 average and 1.56°C above the 1850-1900 pre-industrial average.
 
•   The daily global average temperature was exceptionally high during the first half of the month, reaching 2°C above the 1850-1900 levels on four consecutive days (8–11 February).
 
•   European temperatures in February 2024 were 3.30°C above the 1991-2020 average for February, with much-above average temperatures experienced in central and eastern Europe. 
 
•   Outside Europe, temperatures were above average over northern Siberia, central and northwest North America, the majority of South America, across Africa, and in western Australia.
 
•   El Niño continued to weaken in the equatorial Pacific, but marine air temperatures in general remained at an unusually high level.
 
•   The average global sea surface temperature (SST) for February 2024 over 60°S–60°N was 21.06°C, the highest for any month in the dataset, above the previous record of August 2023 (20.98°C). Sea surface temperature is defined over the global extrapolar ocean, from 60°S to 60°N. This is used as a standard diagnostic for climate monitoring.
 
•   The average daily SST reached a new absolute high of 21.09°C at the end of the month.

There was a large portion of schadenfreude in my reaction to the unprecedented flooding in the UAE, the scene of the whitewash COP28 where fossil fuel lobbyists outnumbered green delegates in one of the 10 top oil producing nations.

The gods of wind & rain obviously wanted to make a point, a shame that they were late to the party but that’s gods for you.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68844405
https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-february-2024-was-globally-warmest-record-global-sea-surface-temperatures-record-high

With data from Copernicus (not the original Heliocentrist, but the European earth observation part of its space program), using vast amounts of global data from satellites and ground-based, airborne, and seaborne measurements reporting.

See this is why they went out of their way to try to push the Moon Landing/Sputnik narrative. It doesn't matter if we or our "enemies" (all government is in league, against free people) did it, as long as the public trusts the science, they trust what comes next.

But I don't trust the science. Are you aware that when Seventh Day Adventists conscientiously objected to the draft, they were used instead as test subjects to various drugs to treat diseases and biological weapons? In other words, you won't fight? You're a guinea pig. But trust the science, right?

If you believe in outer space, what comes next is satellites being real (they aren't, it's all done by radio tower triangulation and other methods)
If you believe in satellites, you believe this climate change data.
If you believe that, you accept the climate consensus.
If you accept that, they can be convinced that the reason illegal immigrants enter the country is not that they are economic opportunists at best and criminals and terrorists at worst, but because it is too hot or dry or whatever where they're at.
And if you believe that, someone can convince you to give up your home, your safety, and even your life.

"The less you want, the happier you'll be."

Good luck with that! I personally know that is crap.

But I don't trust the science.

Yes, you have made it clear that you don't trust anything that doesn't match your fantasy.
That is why your kind of mentality is so dangerous and harms everyone.

If you believe in satellites, you believe this climate change data.

We don't need satellites for that.

Good luck with that! I personally know that is crap.

You mean you reject it as crap, because you are too pathetic to handle reality.

Science isn't a thing to trust or not trust, that would be people, and they can have an agenda, some want to bury the truth like Exxon did when they looked into global warming in the 80's, like the tobacco industry did about smoking, and they recruit the poorly educated with outrage and vast amounts of lobbying. 

Bumla in particylar.... well alll maga,  is a medical denier

Somehow the global greedy bug pharma are liars.


But big oil?
So innocent.

You don't get it.

Oil is a blanket term.

You could defund big oil by creating fish hatcheries all along the country. Not only would this make more fatty fish for the public to eat (Americans are unhealthy because their don't get enough fish oil), but you would supply power that is sustainable, contains no lead, and doesn't involve mining the earth. Even better, the fish bones are great fertilizer.

You have a failure of imagination. Instead of thinking what could be, you accept others' bad solution.

You know what actually happens when we switch to solar and wind? We won't even talk about bird deaths, graphene shards, or cadmium runoff.
It's power outages, followed by having covert power plants built to make up the difference. In other words, not only is there an ugly eyesore for me (I find solar plants ruin rural landscapes) but there's an ugly eyesore for you (as somewhere behind those green-looking plants there's a coal or gas plan making up the difference). Oh wait, you are so deluded you think somehow this hurts big oil. Nope, you help big oil, full stop, by doing this. It even allows them to charge more for oil. When Biden backed EVs, the price of oil nearly doubled.

Big pharma are liars. So are big oil. But you know what? If you read history, you'd discover they are one in the same. Most modern drugs are made from oil byproducts and some artificial synthesis of what natural herbs can do. If we committed to keeping these herbs in population, we would be much greener in fact, as we'd have a lush ecosystem, and not a bunch of refineries trying to use excess oil (the price rises, because of artificial scarcity).

If we did trash-to-fuel practice of burning all plastic found in the ocean, we would not only clean the Pacific junkyard, but this combined with alternative oils would end the big oil strangehold. I've told you this before, and you just accuse me of being pro-big oil. To which I say... no you.

No you. You support a plan that means more cars on "solar" power, which switches to oil used for more and more power plants.

Youre so full of shit.


Eaeiler
You complained about electric mowers becaue you like gas mowers.

Eariler but not as eaely
Then you spouted big oil talking points as if yourl were either in the payroll or just really liked their commercials.


Your attempt to be the rational argument is nullified.

You don't get it.

I do, you don't think about anything and instead just cling to the same old BS.

Oil is a blanket term.

Yes, and oil used for fuel is different to other oils, like vegetable oil and fish oil.

You could defund big oil by creating fish hatcheries all along the country.

No, you can't.
This just demonstrates that you do not understand the scale of the problem and the scale of what you are talking about.
The US alone went through 822.7 million tons of oil in 2022. That equates to roughly 2.25 million tons per day.

Sardines are perhaps the best fish for fish oil, having roughly 2 g per 85 g serving.
That means just for the US alone, you would need to produce almost 100 million tonnes of sardines each, just to extract the fish oil.

And to put that into perspective, the global production of sardines is roughly 4 million tonnes per year.
So you need roughly 25 years worth of sardines per day.

And that oil doesn't actually come from the fish, but its diet.
And fish are known for accumulation of toxic heavy metals, like lead and mercury.

You would be better off growing flaxseed. But even then you still need several million ton per day.

You have a failure of imagination. Instead of thinking what could be, you accept others' bad solution.

Quite the opposite.
I have a realistic imagination, which also includes thinking about the options rather than just pretending everything will work.
You instead come up with a crap idea, and don't think about it at all.

You know what actually happens when we switch to solar and wind?

We start talking about all the deaths caused by fossil fuels?

Also, how come you seem to care about bird deaths, but want to farm fish for oil?

It's power outages

Only if done poorly.
For example, notice how you just say solar and wind, as if they are the only options.
What about hydroelectric? Including pumped hydroelectric for energy stoage?

not only is there an ugly eyesore for me

I don't care if you don't like the look.
Do you think people would like the look of your fish farms all over the place?
Do you think people like the look of fossil fuel based power plants?

When Biden backed EVs, the price of oil nearly doubled.

Sure, it had nothing at all to do with Russia.

Big pharma are liars. So are big oil. But you know what? If you read history, you'd discover they are one in the same.

You mean capitalists that you love to support?

not a bunch of refineries trying to use excess oil (the price rises, because of artificial scarcity).

And this just shows more ignorance on your part.
The pharmaceuticals produced by oil are the big money makers, with fuel oil being much cheaper.

If we did trash-to-fuel practice of burning all plastic found in the ocean

You would relatively quickly go through the plastic and still need oil.
Remember, those plastics come from oil.

I've told you this before, and you just accuse me of being pro-big oil.

And I explained the issues with it.
You are literally telling to us burn oil, in the form of plastic.
If you keep that up, you keep burning oil.

Again, posting a crappy picture of your love of big oil meaning you want to keep fossil fuel based power plants running to pretend EVs need to use them and just push the problem just shows your dishonesty.

skip to end

"big oil knew for decades"



amazing

And what is intelligence?

You seem to think it's the ability to learn. But dogs can go to obedience school and learn to sit and stay and behave.

Without discernment of whether these are good lessons, this is a dumb animal.

Cats on the other hand, can learn tricks, but they generally don't. No amount of food or praise can sway them. They learn because they want to.

Crows and octopi are also hella intelligent. Do they learn tricks? Nope, they solve puzzles.

You think because people aren't obediently learning, like trained puppies, that they are somehow lacking in intelligence.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2006/8/17/scientist-dolphins-are-stupid

“Dolphins can actually chain up to 16 stimulus response events, but this is indicative of good trainers and not intelligent animals. Stimulus-response conditioning is thought to be a low level of intelligent behaviour,” Manger said.

Manger also points to the tuna industry, which under consumer pressure has gone to great lengths to prevent dolphins from being caught and killed by accident in nets.
 
“If they were really intelligent, they would just jump over the net because it doesn’t come out of the water,” he said.

Trained animals are stupid. Intelligent animals are able to think for themselves.

Octopi, cats, crows & ravens, and (some) humans are among the most intelligent animals on the Earth (you'll notice I didn't say planet).

Dogs, dolphins, and round Earther heliocentrist climate change believers are not. This is because they are thoroughly conditioned by their education system and do not have the ability to reject what they have been trained to do.

Eaeiler
You complained about electric mowers becaue you like gas mowers.

Eariler but not as eaely
Then you spouted big oil talking points as if yourl were either in the payroll or just really liked their commercials.

Your attempt to be the rational argument is nullified.

"The mark of a first rate mind is the ability to hold two (seemingly) contradictory ideas and not go insane."
"The mark of a diseased mind is the inability to spell the word 'early'."

I have never seen any commercials of big oil. I have however seen both EV and ICE car commercials. Both are dumb as bricks.

1. I loathe EV mowers because the older ones were an exercise in dragging around a sizable plug, and hoping the mower. The charge time in most electric devices, even with a big battery is also rather absurd.
2. I'm no fan of ICE cars, not under the current system. All this ethanol crap means the person wanting to run a lawnmower finds the whole process screwed up. I'm also no fan of all the plastic in the sea. This is Big Oil introducing artificial scarcity by turning burnable liquids into less cleanly burnable solids.
3. I'm not a big fan of Big Oil, but I'm not a big fan of EV tech either. These are the two (seemingly) contradictory ideas. But the thing is, I understand that there is such a thing as Small Oil. That is, you can retrofit cars to be off the oil grid. What switching to EV actually does is introduce artificial scarcity. What artificial scarcity does is line the pockets of Big Oil. The way to not line the pockets of Big Oil is to introduce alternatives to the gas station. Run cars on veg oil, fish oil, gasification of wood. I honestly don't care. What I do care about is poser "anti-Big Oil" people doing everything they can to help out Big Oil's profit margin while shilling for EV cars.

skip to end

"big oil knew for decades"



amazing

Knew what?  That AGW is real?  What is amazing about that?

Trained animals are stupid. Intelligent animals are able to think for themselves.

And you clearly fit in the "trained animal" category. Look at how you are so fixed at insulting people who accept the overwhelming evidence for reality like Earth being round and anthropogenic climate change.

We aren't the ones that need to continually ignore inconvenient facts and blatantly lie about models. That is you.

1. I loathe EV mowers because the older ones were an exercise in dragging around a sizable plug, and hoping the mower. The charge time in most electric devices, even with a big battery is also rather absurd.

So you cling to the past to reject the future?
Most people don't need to use their mowers that soon after using them.

2. I'm no fan of ICE cars, not under the current system. All this ethanol crap

So you hate ICE, because it uses ethanol, and not oil?

3. I'm not a big fan of Big Oil, but I'm not a big fan of EV tech either. These are the two (seemingly) contradictory ideas.

The real contradictions are where you complain about damage to the environment and think it should be stopped, even appealing to regulations which attempt to stop it to show it is a good thing; while objecting to regulation.
Like in the other thread, where you objected to very idea of gun control, and then appealed to describing it as great.

You know why you cant put diesel in a petrol car?

Or why a bmw likes high octane gas vs regular?

The same reason why having veg oil, wood burning, EV, 2stroke, disel would require all to have different motors.
Thats a lot of choice and instead of consumer choice, you get end oroduct assemblers then need to source OEM and cost increases because the volume, consistency, regulation on testing, and inventory all go up.

Those options dont exist, not because they arent practical on a funxtipnal level, but on an economic level.

But we have, though you dont beleive, an environmental level disruption that is going to affect huge on people, so through a govtmandate, one of those barriers to entry is removed (volume) and the rest - sourcing, standarization, - all fall in line.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 29, 2024, 10:50:06 PM

skip to end

"big oil knew for decades"



amazing

Knew what?  That AGW is real?  What is amazing about that?

Sarcastically amazing.

Because bulma loves big oil and says big oil would never lie to him and says therss no such hing as agw

"The mark of a first rate mind is the ability to hold two (seemingly) contradictory ideas and not go insane."
"The mark of a diseased mind is the inability to spell the word 'early'."

Buddy weara cognitive dissonance as a badge



You confuse myually inclusive with  mutually exclusive.

"Hamas is wrong and israel is wrong is "an example of what you think youre doing.

And

"libertarian captialism and authoritiarian religioun-politics" is what youre actually doing.

Youre a pos.

Making a bunch of false equivalence there.

"Hamas is wrong and israel is wrong is "an example of what you think youre doing.

Hamas is wrong. Yes, Israel may have made some actions that some people (not me) think are war crimes. But as they say, "All is fair in love and war." The only war crimes I care abut are things that are crimes period, like going into countries and raping or enslaving people after conquering them.

Oh wait, that happens to be the playbook of the Quran.



The Muslim world is like that man who has plenty of lamb... erm, land yet wants to steal the tiny yet dear area owned by Israel. Yes, they very much do have the right to exist.

"libertarian captialism and authoritiarian religioun-politics" is what youre actually doing.

Libertarian religious capitalism is what I actually want. Read 1st Samuel 8 please. It is God's command that we not have government at all. Not to tell us which businesses should be in charge, not to tax us, not for anything.

Youre a pos.

And you're a poser. What's your point? You act like you are green-friendly when actually you are 100% willing to destroy entire forests if it would support globalist leftism. If I'm a POS, at least I accept it and am honest about it. You can't even do that.

Making a bunch of false equivalence there.

You most certainly are.

Libertarian religious capitalism is what I actually want.

Is a contradiction in terms.
If it is libertarian, it must necessarily be non-religious.
If you are forcing religion in, with various religious rules, it is no longer libertarian, instead it is authoritarian, with that "authority" being "your god".

You act like you are green-friendly when actually you are 100% willing to destroy entire forests if it would support globalist leftism.

This is a strawman of your own creation.

If I'm a POS, at least I accept it and am honest about it. You can't even do that.

No, you are not honest about it at all.
You do whatever you can to pretend you are better than everyone else.

1 Sam chp8:
dafuq you talking about?
the original system was a Republic under God.
they lived under governance of the levi priest clan and operated with a district judge system.
Many people being "in charge".
Many people in charge is exactly what the government is.
And the Levites and Judges collected tax.
So...taxtaxtaxtaxtax you stupid MF.

And instead these monkeys decided they wanted to have one guy in chrage.
But ultimately, New-T God, being the ultimate authority, no one shall to the Father but through Me ultimate ruling means under the ultra conservative christian wackos, there's only one way, kill all the infidels, burn all the witches and books.

So either way, be it a physical Man King or an unseen Deity King, it's still means that you want Authoritarian Rule.

So you're wrong twice -
   1 God DID command to have a government, not a Man King -> therefore voting for Trump is voting against the wish of God.
   2 the original point which avoided your brain -> Authoritarian Rule vs Libertarian Capitalism = rules for the poor, none for the rich.


you're so magnificently wrong in so many ways
it's astounding.
do you wear pants on your head?



you are definitely not honest as pointed out numerous times.
you have a false notion that trees being cut solely for the purpose of panels, that is wrong, have been told it's wrong, and continue.
you knowingly continue to state falsehoods to the model of a ball earth.
those are...lies.
i'm sure there's a list of general Laws or Commands, somewhere.
somehwere...

"alls fair in love and war and what are actual crimes?"

who wants to make a bet that murder is in that short list too, eh?

to say such a dispicable thing "alls fair" and not call murder a crime.
what a POS you are holy crapballs.
you're ignorant.
but this is disgustingly low.
WSHTOLAGUH/ alt Lackless level POS.

to say such a dispicable thing "alls fair" and not call murder a crime.

Murder is a crime. But killing combatants in war is not murder. Murder would be killing defenseless civilians.

If you cannot understand the difference between fighting someone who will kill you if you given the chance and murder, then if you are even on the battlefield, you are fully responsible for what happens to you when "kill or be killed" means "be killed." As surely as not understanding that you have a right to defend yourself when any person seeks your life, liberty, or property.  These three rights are inalienable. You have been conned. "Pursuit of of happiness," indeed. You can pursue happiness all you want, but nobody (including God himself) can give it to you. Happiness is a decision, not a right.

You are a POS if you think that other people do not have the right to keep themselves from being put down like some wild beast.

I find you truly repulsive.

Murder is a crime. But killing combatants in war is not murder. Murder would be killing defenseless civilians.

It is when you are the one instigating that war, as God's chosen people did several times.

You are a POS if you think that other people do not have the right to keep themselves from being put down like some wild beast.

i.e. those combatants that the evil POS you worship wanted put down like some wild beast?

I find you truly repulsive.

Why?

You think it's repulsive that I think you ought to be able to defend your own life against someone who wants to take it? I don't personally go around toting guns. But I damn well know that the right to self defense is implicit in the second amendment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense

If you're repulsed by that fact... You ought to examine whether you have a death wish.

---

The reason our American ancestors enacted the Second Amendment was to ensure that the federal government could never impair the right of the American people to resist the tyranny of their own government. The idea was that if the federal government became a tyrannical regime, Americans could, if they chose, resist the tyranny with force.

In other words, the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with shooting deer. It has everything to do with defending one’s self and others from people who are initiating force against innocent people, such as robbers, murderers, rapists, torturers, and tyrants (and their agents).

Proponents of gun control argue that it is inconceivable that the federal government would ever become tyrannical. After all, it’s a democracy, they say. How could a democracy ever become tyrannical? We are the government, they often remind us.

There is at least one big problem with that inconceivable argument however — the fact that the federal government, led by the Pentagon and the CIA, believe in tyranny in foreign regimes. Given such, that should be cause for concern among Americans. When a regime has a policy of installing into power tyrannical regimes because it believes in tyrannical regimes, and then trains such regimes in the dark arts of tyranny, then why would it be inconceivable that such a regime would apply here at home the pro-tyranny principles it embraces abroad, especially if it felt that “national security” required it?

There are historical examples of the strong belief in tyranny that is held by the U.S. national-security establishment.

Cuba. 1950s. The U.S. government supports and partners with the brutal dictatorship of Cuban tyrant Fulgencio Batista, knowing full well that Batista has partnered with the Mafia, which is running drugs into the United States. Among the worst aspects of the Batista’s tyranny is a deal he has with the Mafia to kidnap young Cuban girls and forcibly bring them to the Mafia’s casinos so that the young girls can provide sexual services to high rollers in the casinos. U.S. officials love Batista and help him suppress any effort to oust him from power.

iran 1953. The CIA initiates a coup that destroys Iran’s experiment with democracy by ousting the democratically elected prime minister from office and replacing him with the Shah, who is unelected. The CIA then helps the Shah maintain his dictatorship by training his secret police-intelligence agency, the Savak, which is a combination FBI, CIA, and NSA, in the dark arts of torture, indefinite detention, and domestic surveillance in order to put down dissent against the Shah’s tyranny. Meanwhile, U.S. foreign aid pours into the Shah’s coffers to ensure he maintains his tyrannical hold on power. The Shah’s U.S.-supported brutal tyranny lasts until 1979, when the Iranian people finally succeed in bringing it to an end.

Guatemala 1954. The CIA destroys Guatemala’s democratic system by ousting from power the democratically elected president of the country and installing a series of military generals to rule the country.  Guatemala reflects the propensity of U.S. national-security state officials to favor military tyrants to rule over their countries. The generals (and their troops) proceed to brutalize the Guatemalan citizenry, especially those who are resisting their tyranny. The civil war lasts 30 years and ends up killing, torturing, raping, or incarcerating millions of people.

Chile 1973. The CIA and Pentagon destroy Chile’s democratic system by inciting a coup that ousts the democratically elected president from power and replacing him with one of the most tyrannical military generals in history. Gen. Pinochet’s forces immediately begin rounding up their political enemies, torturing them, raping them, and committing other unspeakable sexual acts against women prisoners, all with the silent support of the Pentagon and the CIA. U.S. foreign aid floods into the country because the regime is establishing “law and order,” a favorite military theme.

Afghanistan and Iraq 2002 and 2003. While the Pentagon and the CIA remain convinced that they have brought freedom and democracy to those two countries, nothing could be further from the truth. Both countries are headed by extremely tyrannical regimes that engage in torture, indefinite detention, secret surveillance, and other dark arts of tyranny that both the Pentagon and the CIA have long favored.

Egypt 2018. The U.S. government continues to provide money and guns to the tyrannical military dictatorship that governs Egypt. The dictatorship destroyed the county’s limited experiment with democracy and will not permit elections to be held. Critics are jailed, tortured, or executed. The Pentagon and the CIA love it and continue working closely with their military counterparts to suppress any attempt to oust Egypt’s tyrannical regime.

Bahrain 2018. The U.S. government continues to partner with and support the brutal tyranny in Bahrain, where a tyrannical regime continues to jail anyone who criticizes its tyranny.

Of course, I could go on. The point is this: Given that the federal government, led by the Pentagon and the CIA, believe in tyranny abroad, how can proponents of gun control say that it is inconceivable that the Pentagon and the CIA would apply their beliefs here in the United States, especially if a “national security” emergency required it?

One thing is for sure: If Americans ever give up their guns, they will have to passively accept the types of tyrannical acts that U.S.-supported tyrants abroad have employed, including rape and other perverse sexual acts that U.S.-supported tyrants have committed against people’s wives, daughters, and mothers. If Americans retain their guns, at least they retain the ability to resist.

---

1
Hamas are palestians.
But not all palestians are hamas.
So if you think bomibg the shit out a civilian apartment is selfsefense and not murder you sir are a
piece
Of
Shit



2.
To address your very first paragraph despite your nonsense side track thinking american law somehow overrides UN war crimes laws - FEDERAL.
FEDERAL.
FEDERAL.
Say it with me.
FEDERAL.

give States the Rifhts to dictate their own soverienty and arm themsevles against the Fed.
So show me "selfe defense" in any of the 2ndA.
Becaise buddys 2nd paragph seems to think its in there.

Because Heller ruling (not a right, a ruling) has the FEDERAL overstepping its jurisdiction amd enacting rulw over STATE.

Just because a judge was bought and paid for, doesnt mean word meanings change.

You at least 14yrs old?
Thats how old your "interpretation" of the 2ndA is.




3rdly
Fuuuuuuuuuck
Youuuuuuuu.

The reason our American ancestors enacted the Second Amendment was to ensure that the federal government could never impair the right of the American people to resist the tyranny of their own government. The idea was that if the federal government became a tyrannical regime, the [STATE] could, if they chose, resist the tyranny with force.   [The STATE is not individual soverieng citizens deciding they dont want to pay taxes]

In other words, the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with shooting deer. It has everything to do with defending one’s self and others from people who are initiating force against innocent people, such as robbers, murderers, rapists, torturers, and tyrants (and their agents).

Where
Where does it say self?
STATE is spelled S T A T E.
Not S E L F.

Quote

The reason our American ancestors enacted the Second Amendment was to ensure that the federal government could never impair the right of the American people to resist the tyranny of their own government. The idea was that if the federal government became a tyrannical regime, the STATE could, if they chose, resist the tyranny with force. 

Where
Where does it say self?
STATE is spelled S T A T E.
Not S E L F.

Statists think that the state is something outside the self, that the self has no rights.

I am a member of the most free state of all. I have authority over my own life, as I understand that government has no legitimate authority over me.

But to answer your question, you changed the actual quote.

The reason our American ancestors enacted the Second Amendment was to ensure that the federal government could never impair the right of the American people to resist the tyranny of their own government. The idea was that if the federal government became a tyrannical regime, Americans could, if they chose, resist the tyranny with force.

And who are Americans? Are they the country itself? Don't be absurd, a country has no hands, it can't hold weapons. Are they the leaders of the country? No, why would the leaders need to bear arms against the leaders? So who are Americans? They are the citizens who live in America. The numerous selves who work, and for the most part obey laws (so long as they are just), and call America their home despite everything. Not the state.

I serve God, and thus I know that I am stronger than the state. I am a self.
He Who Kneels Before God Can Stand Before Anything.

1
Hamas are palestians.
But not all palestians are hamas.
So if you think bomibg the shit out a civilian apartment is selfsefense and not murder you sir are a
piece
Of
Shit

So you motive for calling me a POS, then, is that I dare tell you the actual truth about matters. Here is the truth: "Palestine" is a legal fiction. There were Philistines (a people known for being profoundly anti-intellectual and violent). Could the Palestines be related to them? After all, these are etymologically similar words. No, not a chance. The Assyrians defeated them. Then they assimilated into other cultures and ceased to be a separate people. There hasn't been a Philistine people in a long long time. Moreover, the Philistines only occupied land that was abandoned. Twice (first when Israelites moved to Egypt, and then if we're going with the story that Palestines = Philistines, when Rome scattered the Jews from their land). So who are these people, really? They are Muslim Arabs using an old story to claim a land that isn't theirs to take. Israel has legal right to the land as a result of the Balfour Declaration (among other things).

2.
To address your very first paragraph despite your nonsense side track thinking american law somehow overrides UN war crimes laws - FEDERAL.
FEDERAL.
FEDERAL.
Say it with me.
FEDERAL.

I don't have to say anything that I don't want to.

3rdly
Fuuuuuuuuuck
Youuuuuuuu.

I see I have touched a nerve somewhere.

I didnt change the quote.
I corrected the quote.
"Security of a free State" against the Fed -> as per his 1st paragraph.

Because the Fed are also americans.
So stating generic Americans is stupid.
Are you stupid?
You sound stupid.
Time for stupid to fuck off.




Yes
Lets list the truth of the current death count and compare it to biblical records....because for some reason thats valid?
Go for it then.
List the truths.
Children living in an area are somehow fictional because they arent a country listed in the bible?
Is thwt what youre saying?
By that stupidass logic the Americans mentioned above are fictional as well.
So stupid.



Nerve?
Called righteous anger.
And im slightly curious to think why you think im upset.
Because i doubt you know given your level of unawareness and stupidity as displayed here - what unawareness?

The fact you think a Peoples are soverieng in their own pursuitoflifelovehappiness yet when an authoritarian federal govt (ISRAEL) imposes harsh cruel unusual pubishment in a minority (gaza/ jan06ers magahats) you simulatenously say the smaller David does and doesnt have a right to defend himself againt Gomiath.

You
Are
Fucked
In
The
Head

You changed the quote.

The quote was correct as written.

Why would the state need to defend against tyranny by force?

The state itself, particularly if it becomes overgrown, is the source of tyranny. So the quote as 'corrected' actually reads...

The reason our American ancestors enacted the Second Amendment was to ensure that the state could never impair the right of the state to resist the tyranny of their own state. The idea was that if the state became a tyrannical regime, the state could, if they chose, resist the tyranny with force.

Yes, because that makes perfect sense. Federal government, is in fact, a state.

Go sell crazy some place else. I'm already stocked up. Or as you said, what was it... Oh right.

crazy people don't know they're crazy

Because the Fed are also americans.

No. The Fed is like a corporation. It's not Americans, which are individual people. While we're talking about corporations, many companies such as Nike, Pepsi, etc have sold out the American people. As has the Fed, which is a company of corrupt bureaucrats.

Americans generally oppose anti-Semitism. The Fed (including Joe Biden and several government workers) has managed to get college students to say "Infantada from the river to the sea" (they don't even know what they are saying, the correct word is 'Intifada'). This is how far away the Fed is from what Americans are. A group of faceless mooks are not Americans.

Americans are the self. They are not the collective. The collective is an un-American thing.

Nerve?
Called righteous anger.
And im slightly curious to think why you think im upset.

It could have to do with what you said in response to #3.

3rdly
Fuuuuuuuuuck
Youuuuuuuu.

Yeah, that.

So much stupid...


What a wau to change the quote and further bastardizing it.









Heres some more stupid.
Your president trump and champion green both very fine familyvalues and upstanding examples of christians values amd "real" americans:



Donald Trump dined with white nationalist, Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/25/trump-white-nationalist-nick-fuentes-kanye-00070825


McConnell says no space in GOP for ‘white supremacists or anti-Semitism’ after two House Republicans participate in white nationalist’s conference

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/02/28/marjorie-taylor-greene-white-nationalist-conference/




Spectacular show of hipocrisy.
You are so full of shit.
Meanwhile biden is actually losing support for his supprt of isreal.









And your ref to #3 is not the reason i swore at you.
#3 was the act.
The question posed to you was "why".
You misiunderstanding basic things is mind blowing.

But I damn well know that the right to self defense is implicit in the second amendment.

No, it isn't.
The second amendment is about stopping an oppressive government, not another citizen.

Just look at what you put in your signature:
"the Second Amendment was to ensure that the federal government could never impair the right of the American people to resist the tyranny of their own government. The idea was that if the federal government became a tyrannical regime, Americans could, if they chose, resist the tyranny with force."

That is the purpose of the second amendment, not to shoot someone coming into your house, and definitely not to shoot someone in the street.
It then proceeds to completely discard that and go down a path of fantasy.

Your link to Wikipedia on the right to self defence says nothing about the second amendment.

I understand that government has no legitimate authority over me.

The state has legitimate authority over you. Not absolute authority but it can most certainly limit what you can do, and take actions against you if you don't comply.
e.g. if you drive while intoxicated or without a license.

You not liking that doesn't change it.

But to answer your question, you changed the actual quote.

And how about you skip those BS quotes and go straight to the second amendment itself?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Notice "necessary to the security of a free State".
Not "necessary to defend yourself against anyone who wrongs you".

A well regulated militia is not about stopping robbers.

I serve God, and thus I know that I am stronger than the state. I am a self.

You mean and thus you foolishly believe all sorts of delusional BS.

Israel has legal right to the land as a result of the Balfour Declaration (among other things).

So do the existing occupants.
A key part of that declaration:
"it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"

i.e. it isn't just Israel's land.

Why would the state need to defend against tyranny by force?

Again, TYRANNY!
Not robbers, murderers, rapists, etc.

Meanwhile biden is actually losing support for his supprt of isreal.

Among who? Democrats?

Biden is losing support because he routinely lies.

From a charity group that often talks about Israel.
https://aclj.org/israel/biden-blocks-military-aid-for-israel
https://aclj.org/battling-antisemitism/biden-politicly-forced-to-speak-out-on-protests
(They say he was too little too late, and that he blamed the wrong groups)
https://aclj.org/battling-antisemitism/demanding-bidens-department-of-education-and-doj-stop-the-pro-hamas-violent-protests-on-college-campuses-and-enforce-the-law-to-protect-jewish-and-christian-students-who-support-israel

Biden also told Israel to "take the win" after being bombed out by Iran.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/irans-strikes-biden-pitches-take-win-line-israel-rcna147863
What does this mean? Well...

The Biden administration’s main message for Israel following Iran’s aerial assault comes down to this: Stop and think. U.S. officials expect Israel to respond in some fashion to Saturday’s strikes, but in both public and private ways they are taking steps they hope will convince Israel to choose a limited response as opposed to an all-out armed counter-attack.

Basically, Biden is saying that "you got lucky" so you don't have the right to counterattack, because really you weren't hurt or anything.

This is the real Biden response to Israel.

I, an American, didn't vote in support of any of this. So yes, the Fed isn't American.

I, an American, didn't vote in support of any of this. So yes, the Fed isn't American.

You are not the only American. Other people can disagree with you.
The federal government is meant to represent the will of the totality of the American people, not necessarily match the will of each individual American.
So you disagreeing with them doesn't mean they aren't American.

But it seems more like you don't even see yourself as American. Instead you act more like a sovereign citizen.