🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@bonifartius

Some people exploit it anywhere. You need to be selective and make sure you give those services to the people that are worth your time (sometimes taking some risk early on that are deadends too, but knowing enough to not keep going down it).

But overall I dont find it is very exploited in the EU compared to the USA. In fact it is appreciated because int he EU work ethic is quite low and it is unheard of someone would work for free to get ahead, hell they wont even work overtime.

In the middle east there is higher exploitation of my services, but its still worth it.

@bonifartius I work around the world, middle-east, US, and europe are all very common for me. Its one reason i travel so much.

@bonifartius I do a LOT of work for free, and it is a large part of why ive been relatively successful. When you take all the risk most people will give you a chance. It gives you the ability to get your foot in the door almost anywhere if you do it right. If you are good it will often lead to paid work in some form.

People have asked me a few times this month how I know so many "rich" people (after they learned I am sometimes talk to a billionaire whom I wont name).

Basically, I am well known in a lot of diverse fields so I have a reputation of doing due diligence for them on their investments. They basically call me up to technical review companies and verify their claims before they decide to invest in a company.

I actually offer this service for free as a friend, so it has caused me to make quite a few rich friends over the years through recommendations and i usually offer them the same free help.

You may wonder why I do it for free. Well the business connections pay for themselves. A lot of people would rather complain about how a rich person could afford to pay them (and they do offer to pay). But a good business man takes risks and doing it for free has always earned me much much more.

@alper

> plus no matter how righteous your cause may be the state has the monopoly on violence, at least legitimacy of it. Hence all oppressive govs want violent uprisings. They are weak against peaceful protests but the moment violence is in play the whole world lines up to support the "legitimate" violence. See recent history of Israel, Turkey, Russia, SA, UK, Spain, China etc.

You keep talking about govt tyranny I keep talking about not being shot in your home. I pointed out in no uncertain terms that govt tyranny is not the most significant part of the equation for me or most americans who have guns. So not sure why you keep focusing on that.

Regardless i really dont care who sides with who in such a scenario. I care about being able to survive when people try to kill me

As for palestine, I garuntee you if they didnt have any guns and were limited to just home made rockets and bombs they would have been eliminated much much sooner.

> And Rittenhouses will always walk free.

Good, people defending their life from a mob trying to kill them **should** walk free. I dont like Ritenhouse as a person, but legally it was the right decision.

@alper

> does this suggest you are not at all concerned with the level of gun violence in the US?

I am concerned with the level of **violence** in the US, my concern has little to do with guns as guns largely play a role in reducing overall violence. The issue is the violence is very high and that should be addressed, but it has little to do with guns as part of that solution (other than just ensuring citizens are armed and responsible).

> Because the laws change when there is a problem and many believe that there is.

Yes, laws do change, and people think there is a problem. I certainly wouldnt be surprised if laws change for the worse. When you have an uneducated populace like we do unfortunately they are easily manipulated to beleive this sort of stuff.

> I cannot accept that Sandy hook is the price to pay.

Its not. We live in an age where anyone can 3d print or make a fully automatic gun in a few minutes. You literally cant take away access anymore. One guy with a 100$ welding kit showed on youtube how to make a fully automatic gun out of a throw away metal bed frame. Guns are simple, any fool could make one with nearly no resources

More over, sandy hook is an illusion of a problem that is the result of large numbers, not a gun problem.

I did the math on a post sometime back. You have two times greater chance of being struck by lightning in your lifetime than being killed in a school shooting. We are talking about things that are effectively non-existant when you consider the numbers. Moreover they wouldnt be prevented by taking away guns, as we have seen with people with pipebombs (which again are very trivial to make).

> I'm able, some are and some aren't. They cannot fight. The whole point of civilization is that we protect our weakest.

Protect them how? This makes no sense. If someone decides to kill you there is **nothing** a society can do to prevent that. There wont be a cop standing next to you when they come into your home to murder you and you will be long dead before a cop arrives... how exactly do you want to be protected? There is no actual way you can be.

> Half of America is armed to the teeth and specifically for a civil war.

Well no, i know a lot of gun folks and not a single one of them are doing it because of a civil war... People arm themselves because its the responsible safe thing to do, full stop.

> Outcomes are only getting worse.

Yes, all around the world people are getting more violent, even when they dont have guns... that is the problem, and why its respionsible to be armed.

@alper

Your arguments against armed populace to deter tyranny are in fact arguments for it.

1) In a world where weapons arent infringed then any weapon the govt is allowed on american soil and used against the populace then the populace is also allowed to buy. Ergo by default there is no asymetry.

Moreover even if we accepted the current state of affairs where the govt is allowed more power, the fact that the other side is better armed is **not** an argument for your side to dearm itself.. If anything its an argument to ensure you keep as much armament as you legally can muster as disarming only serves to make the asymetry worse, not better.

2) Using an armed populace as a fear tactic only works when people are used to be around armed people and thus associated it with fear. By arming the populace and encouraging people to carry their guns it exposes people to it and makes the fear angle less likely to be exploited.

@alper

> hunting or defense in wildlife (or even dangerous jobs) in many countries are valid reasons to apply and get a permit.

Requiring permits would be an infringement on the right to bear arms. So assuming the amendment is faithfully interpreted (it usually isnt) by current law that would require a new constitutional amendment.

That aside the issue with permits are many fold, but most importantly is they can put gun owners at legal risk since they allow police to search for everyone with a gun and then target people **simply** for owning a gun.. This is something we already see constantly (people being stopped for having a gun on them) so that would not be something I would support.

> Do you have safety concerns and need your gun in Netherlands?

The guns I own are all at my american house due to limitations to my freedoms int he Netherlands sadly. But yes, yes I do have safety concerns personally. And frankly anyone can get mugged, knifed or killed so again, would be responsible for everyone to carry one if it were legal.

@alper

There are two discussions:

1) What **is** the law (which doesnt care much about original intent anyway)
2) What the law **should** be.

As for #1 the law is quite clear "Shall not be infringed", and any talk of militia has long since debunked a it is an exemplary clause not a conditional clause (we can verify that not just with early court documents and statements from the authors, but also its obvious from the wording if you replace it with similar sentence structure to eliminate your bias, we can discuss that separately if need be).

As for #2 that matters even less about original intent and has everything to do with what is the right choice... The logic is quite simple IMO If someone is about to kill you almost 100% of the time you will be killed and the murderer gone long long before police arive. ITs the nature of it. In fact in almost all cases you wont even be able to call the police until after the crime (in other words once your dead or dying).

Your only possibility for survival in such a situation rests solely on you, I for one find it irresponsible of anyone who is not armed for this very reason.

Keep in mind we arent just talking about humans here, the logic applies equally to wild animals (for example I always take my gun hiking and camping).

Thats the biggest logical reason, I have many others, and yes as a check against tyranny and invasion is a very valid one too. But overall they are much less relevant arguments.

@alper And likewise I doubt id every understand people wanting to infringe on that right, happy to discuss but to each their own.

@SteelFolk Cant imagine why you would need both. Welfare should support anyone with financial need. Therefore no need for ubi.

@thor All I care about is the toxicity. But thats a global issue mostly.

@arteteco Oh shit, I just saw this. Not sure how I missed it. So good to see you again and thanks for the B-day wishes!

@thor To be specific, cannabis

@thor With other stuff mixed in :)

@thor Olive oil :) haha