Why would there be a conspiracy to take all guns away?

Well I don't know anything about Sandy Hook, but the Democratic party wants to disarm the population because an armed population has the ability to resist totalitarianism, and the Democratic party progressive agenda can only be forced onto a disarmed population.

It's not some big secret that Democrats are against the second amendment, they are pretty open about it.

I believe guns provide a false sense of hope. I don't deny there is a totalitarian movement, however I don't believe a violent resistance is realistic. The amount of man power, technology, and surveillance the US military already controls is unbeatable. IMHO, the only solution is to fight through politics, or hope other (less corrupt) countries step in if it ever comes to that.

The days of 1812 are over. The battlefield was a little more even back then. There's no way (mostly) untrained civilians can combat drones and other high-tech military.

So don't own a gun then, problem solved.

That doesn't solve any problem, nor does owning a gun. You seem salty.

He has an agenda.

He's certainly biased. I feel like a lot of people who are into conspiracies are a little too right leaning, which is ironic because they're the same ones who want guns to protect themselves from the government. At the end of the day, left or right, it's all the same government. The labels are only there to divide us. Especially now.

I'm missing the irony. Of course the people that firmly believe in a government conspiracy are the ones that feel strongly about their need to protect themselves.

It's about control though, not all out war. An unarmed population is much easier to control, no? You imagine if there's a revolution there just gonna drone every american citizen?? There's a reason why its the 2nd Amendment, and it has nothing to do with hunting. It's not outdated at all. Not a personal fan at all but I'd much rather prefer a lot of Americans having them.

What problem? You're the one with a problem, not gun owners. You asked a question about the "conspiracy" to ban guns - it was answered. Not a hidden conspiracy, it's all out in the open.

There is no problem. Stop making a problem.

The amount of man power, technology, and surveillance the US military already controls is unbeatable.

hahaha ok..

I believe GMOs are a positive for the world. Over a billion people are starving.

Wait - so you have an overpopulation problem and people can't feed themselves through the normal channels ... so you want to make it worse by increasing the hungry population?

Wouldn't free birth control be far better than using possibly dangerous technology to make the situation even worse?

There's a curvature to population growth. We're in a period (or, at the end of a period) of explosive growth. We're about to level out.

I'm all for birth control and pro choice. However it's a cultural and economical situation. Good luck getting people in India and other developing nations with different world views to adopt birth control right away. All in all, kids are being born, and I think feeding those kids is more important than fear of technology.

Good luck getting people in India and other developing nations with different world views to adopt birth control right away.

So instead of dealing with the population problem you want to make it worse by encouraging even more overpopulation among people that can't even feed themselves?

That's horrific. How could anyone support such an awful thing.

I'm unsure if you are a troll or not. We've already stated there is no growing population problem. If you take an economics in sustainable development course you will understand.

How could anyone support such an awful thing

How could you support starvation?

We've already stated there is no growing population problem.

Who is this "we?" There is obviously a population problem, if not, there would be no "billion starving people" who can't feed themselves.

Maybe you're the troll. You want there to be even more starving people apparently.

you sound like a healthy skeptic. Vaccines from a trusted source are good. Also it's not GMOs that are bad, just the patents that monopolize the food source. There's a political solution there that is wholly unacceptable to American corporate masters.
I think we have to stake our claim on skepticism, not belief.

By asking ourselves "is this what we see, or only want to see?"

Like... a lot of us have been on the Monarch bus for years. Well... when pizza gate dropped... we were the ones with the iron stomachs to not only look into it, but know where to look. I don't know about you guys, but in the beginning I was predicting what would be found based on correlating it with MK Ultra research and victim testimonies from way back in the day.

Vaccines... sterility... abortions... bill and melinda... eugenics... eh, makes sense.

Which creates more GHGs:

an acre of jungle,

that same acre converted to cow pasture?

These nuts want to cut down every tree and spray chemicals all over the earth to grow GMO crops to make the overpopulation problem even worse.

That isn't compassion for starving people - it's an insane urge to destroy the environment.

It's total resource management.

A select group of people are determining what are the problems and solutions and then gaining full control of the resources in the process.

You really don't understand how the world works. For sake of argument I will assume you are not a vegetarian. If that assumption is correct then you are part of the problem (in fact you are a massive part of the problem). I'm not preaching people should be vegetarians, I don't care, but since you brought up destroying the environment...

Cows (meat consumption) are the leading cause of environmental damage... Since you seem dense, I will break it down for you.

• It takes over 2,400 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of beef. Whereas it only takes 25 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of wheat.

• Cows release more toxic emissions than all cars combined at any given moment. They are causing way more damage.

• A massive reason we clear cut forests is to make room for pasture land.

• All of the waste produced from cows, plus all of the manure and chemicals we add to sustain the cows, are literally poisoning your local creeks and rivers (hence fish decline), which leads into the ocean...

I could go on, but either you are a troll or severely uneducated. If YOU feel so strongly about the environment then stop eating meat. You are part of the problem.

PS: GMO reduces the amount of land you need... More crops surviving means you don't need to plant as many.

Welcome to the list.

Nobody here is saying pasture land is good. Pastures are one of the most harmful things on this planet. I responded below to /u/jacks1000 (I explained it like a dick but fuck him, he's trolling the entire thread).

Pastures are one of the most harmful things on this planet.

You are insane.

Environmentally speaking they are ONE of the most harmful things on our planet. Please enlighten me if you think I am incorrect.

I asked a question that I'd hoped you'd try to answer.

I figured you'd either take the simple route and say: pasture land, I saw Cowspiracy

or

You'd think about it a bit and realize how complex the question is. For starters, you'd probably want to consider transevaporation differences, termites (which alone accounts for 4% of the world's methane vs 5% for all animals combined) and all other sources of emissions you will find in a forest, age of forest, style of pasturing, natural vs artificial pastures.

You may have considered that without pastures, humans may not exist.

But instead, you've seen Conspiracy so...

The same goes with many of the examples you have provided here.

When did you ask a question? You said:

You are insane.

And that's what I responded to. However, I will admit I'm no expert on the environment. Yes, I watched Cowspiracy, and I feel like many others should as well. Of course there are many other issues in the world, nothing is ever so simple and one sided.

I do feel like you are downplaying the massive impact farming meat has on the planet though. It's not all about methane // CO2 emissions, you have to consider the amount of fresh water we use... It's absurd... 2,400 gallons of fresh water for a steak... That's roughly 60 bathtubs full! We really need to wake up... And the water we don't waste gets polluted anyway from all of the waste.

Again, there are obviously a lot of environmental issues, there is no one problem or one solution, but we must admit... The amount of meat we eat is not sustainable.

Also... I think we would be fine without pastures. Meat served us well throughout evolution, but nowadays we would all be much better off without all of the beef... We could nearly "cure" starvation, we would be healthier, the environment would be healthier...

EDIT: I come off sounding like some vegan preacher, I'm not even a vegetarian I'm just stating facts... I do rarely eat meat, and when I do it's almost always chicken, but that's personal preference... I don't blame anyone for eating meat, it's practically our culture, but we do need to step back a little.

My question (initial comment)

Your answer:

Pastures are one of the most harmful things on this planet.

You immediately took it to the negative extreme.

That's what you've done with most of the topics in this thread.

This is fake; that is real: Cowspiracy.

I do feel like you are downplaying the massive impact farming meat has on the planet though.

I haven't downplayed anything. I asked a question; I received an extreme answer. I added context.

You are jumping to conclusions. I think you need to take a step back and gain some perspective.

I don't understand what's extreme though... And I don't understand what's negative about being so called "extreme"?

If you're asking me if we should have more jungles or more pastures... Obviously more jungles? Who would debate this? I don't think I am jumping to any conclusions, our entire conversation has been about pastures and that is what I've been talking about.

You need to do some research.

I specialize in agricultural waste management.

Have you seen this study?

Abstract

Livestock production impacts air and water quality, ocean health, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on regional to global scales and it is the largest use of land globally. Quantifying the environmental impacts of the various livestock categories, mostly arising from feed production, is thus a grand challenge of sustainability science. Here, we quantify land, irrigation water, and reactive nitrogen (Nr) impacts due to feed production, and recast published full life cycle GHG emission estimates, for each of the major animal-based categories in the US diet. Our calculations reveal that the environmental costs per consumed calorie of dairy, poultry, pork, and eggs are mutually comparable (to within a factor of 2), but strikingly lower than the impacts of beef. Beef production requires 28, 11, 5, and 6 times more land, irrigation water, GHG, and Nr, respectively, than the average of the other livestock categories. Preliminary analysis of three staple plant foods shows two- to sixfold lower land, GHG, and Nr requirements than those of the nonbeef animal-derived calories, whereas irrigation requirements are comparable. Our analysis is based on the best data currently available, but follow-up studies are necessary to improve parameter estimates and fill remaining knowledge gaps. Data imperfections notwithstanding, the key conclusion—that beef production demands about 1 order of magnitude more resources than alternative livestock categories—is robust under existing uncertainties. The study thus elucidates the multiple environmental benefits of potential, easy-to-implement dietary changes, and highlights the uniquely high resource demands of beef.

Data imperfections notwithstanding, the key conclusion—that beef production demands about 1 order of magnitude more resources than alternative livestock categories—is robust under existing uncertainties.

They are comparing types of human use; not natural use.

No one has said raising cattle is the best use of all land. But acting like no land is suited to cattle is ridiculous. I'm not arguing I'm in favour of all methods of raising cattle either. It appears that more sustainable permaculture based methods are gaining popularity despite certain mega-industries.

What is being argued is that OP is dismissive without depth and they should develop their positions with more research and understanding.

What?

You claimed /u/oootime was "insane" for their statement

Pastures are one of the most harmful things on this planet.

So then I showed you a study about the harmfulness of livestock production as an example of their claim (which didn't include anything about "no land is suited to cattle"), so I'm not really sure what you're talking about.

Pastures are one of the most harmful things on this planet.

You have not supported this claim.

You have linked a study which compares various forms of livestock and their impact.

That does not show:

Pastures are one of the most harmful things on this planet.'

At all.

What is being argued is that OP is dismissive without depth and they should develop their positions with more research and understanding.

Can you tell me what I'm dismissive about? I literally said there are many environmental issues, I said nothing is one sided. I'm simply stating that pasture land is currently one of the most devastating environmental issues, but that doesn't mean there aren't other issues. I've said all of this.

Look, you presented some beliefs as a thread.

Beliefs, not facts.

These beliefs are founded on very flimsy support, and hence why they are beliefs rather than theories.

New info was provided, and you ignored the info and proceeded with espousing your beliefs.

The info had no impact on your beliefs at all.

As such, you as an OP will have no impact on this sub at all.

Because you are not providing or supporting theories which change with new info, but merely promulgating beliefs.

Had you taken a step back and considered the new info, then it would inform the reader that you are not operating on beliefs but on the best available info.

And hence, worthy of greater consideration.

Your beliefs don't help me.

Except everything I've said (regarding our specific topic at hand) is actually factual. You keep trying to bring my other topics into this, we are talking about farming. That's it. What I'm saying is fact. The amount of water used, the amount of waste, all facts.

It's not like I'm saying anything absurd whatsoever, I didn't even mention this in one of the conspiracies I believe in because it's not a conspiracy. It's just science.

You are arguing for the sake of arguing, therefore I am done with the conversation. Take care, and hope you open your mind a little.

I don't tell people I believe anything to be true unless I think I can make a rational argument for it supported by evidence. Do the people involved have the means and motive to accomplish what the conspiracy says? If the means and motive are there and I can show that it is reasonable to come to a certain conclusion I will stand behind it. Otherwise its just theories and ideas that I file away until something corroborating comes along.

This is how conspiracy theorizing should be done, OP.

I may not agree with all your bullet points (I think the war on guns is as real as the war on cash, and both serve the same purpose), but the important thing is to keep using your instincts and objective research, an open mind and a critical eye.

Anyone who does even half these things is bound to have more luck understanding our world than someone who just blidnly trusts what CNN is telling them on TV.

I almost feel like it's not even being a conspiracy theorist, it's simply being a rational thinker. Hah, maybe the term conspiracy is a conspiracy itself... If we started identifying ourselves as "forward thinkers" the outsiders might start taking us seriously!

I definitely respect the right to own a gun, however I never thought of it as some Democrat conspiracy to remove all guns. For a couple reasons... a) Why would the Rebuplicans want you to have guns? Why do they have your best interest in favour? I feel like they know gun ownership means nothing, therefore they don't care. I think it's all a matter of getting votes... On the left people want to hear no guns, on the right people want to hear more guns, in the end both parties know guns don't matter, so the politicians say what their specific voters want to hear... Because votes matter.

And, to quote what I said earlier in this thread:

I believe guns provide a false sense of hope. I don't deny there is a totalitarian movement, however I don't believe a violent resistance is realistic. The amount of man power, technology, and surveillance the US military already controls is unbeatable. IMHO, the only solution is to fight through politics, or hope other (less corrupt) countries step in if it ever comes to that.

The days of 1812 are over. The battlefield was a little more even back then. There's no way (mostly) untrained civilians can combat drones and other high-tech military.

I'm genuinely interested in hearing any counter argument. This is just my own made up opinion, and I like counter arguments so I can maybe learn something!

Well, I don't believe in violent revolutions either, but I would make the case that any and all "powers that be" would consider twice before trying to throw an obvious coup at an armed populace.

It's like Joe Rogan said though, America doesn't have a guns problem, but a mental-health problem disguised as a guns problem.

That said, a conspiracy I would suggest looking into is actually the environmental lead levels in poorer districts/neighborhoods and its link to violent crime.

Look at hard, objective facts. Once you have a solid grounding in there, most bullshit narratives fall apart immediately. Seek the facts, not the narrative.

Damn, I agree with like all of your points you made basically.

I really have no opinion on chemtrails, because I haven't really researched them at all yet.

I agree with GMO's and the companies. I like GMO's, I don't like Monsanto.

I think we've been to the moon. I believe 9/11 was a false flag. And I believe that Sandy Hook, the Charleston shooting, and many others were just the result of sick individuals who wanted to kill people. I think some others may have been false flags/planned, but not all of them.

What are your thoughts on leakers/whistleblowers like Snowden and Manning?

I agree with your overall premise. It's mostly just people being people who want money and power, and will do whatever it takes to get them. I think most politicians are corrupt, but I think most people in ultra-powerful positions like that are. They don't care about their neighbors or constituents or employees, they just care about making themselves more powerful and rich.

By asking myself again and again, does this make logical sense?

I certainly do no believe elites are shapeshifting reptiles.

What about that moon base, though?

Don't know about that because nobody else has confirmed/refuted.

So, yes on 911 and all else, not so much.

Your views on vaccines seem very "virtuous." (Must fear what really kills, epidemics: paraphrase). Yet, there have been credible ppl (md's) from the health field that have questions regarding vaccine processes (FDA approval, CDC guidelines, CDC/ industry conflicts of interests, immunity to law suits). Recent reports of whistleblowers are not reassuring.

I am certainly for vaccines, they are an amazing breakthrough for humanity. I have relied with utmost faith in the CDC's reporting of studies that underly the risk:benefit basis for approval, with its list of guidelines. And yet, we see, the predatory and inhumane Pharma industry making unethical decisions and marketing to profit at any cost, example-- Epi pens. Is it so unthinkable they would not similarly abuse their position as researcher AND profiteer from recommendations? This process is tainted by industry insiders that conveniently get appointed to regulate the industry they just served. Really? Foxes in the henhouse? FDA, CDC, Dr's Organizations... just tooo easy.

Then, the instant tinfoil treatment and ridicule of anyone who questions any of it is quite reliable. Jill Stein, Ben Carson, to name a couple. Both say they are NOT anti vaxxers, one is GOP, the other Green Party. Both medical doctors who served in their field in high positions. Maybe we should just make sure. Maybe those recommendations are a little too cavalier. Maybe they are taking more chances than necessary to "first, do no harm" NOT, to make a buck. I mean, they do want the masses dumbed down, "compliant and unaware".

When did you ask a question? You said:

You are insane.

And that's what I responded to. However, I will admit I'm no expert on the environment. Yes, I watched Cowspiracy, and I feel like many others should as well. Of course there are many other issues in the world, nothing is ever so simple and one sided.

I do feel like you are downplaying the massive impact farming meat has on the planet though. It's not all about methane // CO2 emissions, you have to consider the amount of fresh water we use... It's absurd... 2,400 gallons of fresh water for a steak... That's roughly 60 bathtubs full! We really need to wake up... And the water we don't waste gets polluted anyway from all of the waste.

Again, there are obviously a lot of environmental issues, there is no one problem or one solution, but we must admit... The amount of meat we eat is not sustainable.

Also... I think we would be fine without pastures. Meat served us well throughout evolution, but nowadays we would all be much better off without all of the beef... We could nearly "cure" starvation, we would be healthier, the environment would be healthier...

EDIT: I come off sounding like some vegan preacher, I'm not even a vegetarian I'm just stating facts... I do rarely eat meat, and when I do it's almost always chicken, but that's personal preference... I don't blame anyone for eating meat, it's practically our culture, but we do need to step back a little.