If you don't want to be forced upon you an idea, please stop supporting the state, who does force their ideas of freedom on you, and me, and other countries, if it can.  It's either or.  You can't be against force used against you, and in favor of force used against others.  That's called plenty of things, but, hypocrisy (probably not using it right) would be the simplest way to explain it.

Your points boils down to this: "People will help me, or I will make them help me."

If you don't see the problem with this, see here.

 

That's a huge audience.

Urgghh I can't figure out how this gun works!!  I'm just gonna kill myself!

Terrible.  Freedom of speech; wait, no, except the stuff we don't like.  But besides everything you can't say, you can say anything. 

People are looting, pillaging and killing because the guns went away.  Not because their God was dying, not because their state was collapsing or their worlds were crumbling apart--meh, same things.  Couldn't be because something pissed an entire society off.  Couldn't be that the riot would've happened with or without the guns, and that controlling the riot with guns is an artificial way to quell any argument and is just a bandaid when nobody can or is willing to solve the reason why the riot happened to begin with.  No, that couldn't be right...

So quick question:  If the police went away, would you, not talking about anyone but yourself, revert into an animal and kill the next guy you saw?  Usually the answer is, "No, I wouldn't, but what's to stop someone else?"  Which implies everyone's stupid and barbaric and untrustworthy with any form of weapon (except the person being asked, of course, which is how statism was invented to begin with.)

One thing I can say that's good about Zeitgeist; it's highly effective in breaking that spell religion and the state has over the populace.

For the systems it advocates, I'm not entirely sure.

Random nitpick, and I'm sure there's an answer to it somewhere: I still don't get why corporations have their skyscrapers in the government's meat pie.  Aren't businesses supposed to do business stuff, like providing goods and services?  What does the faceless, abstract entity that is Amazon have to do with human affairs?  Is it the owner who is in favor of Internet sales tax?  Is it the employees?  I don't get it.  Is Amazon supposed to have an official political standing point, and who decides it?

A private education which must contort to the state's definition of what an education is, is not a private education.  Granted, colleges generally give a much better experience over high school, but, I'm still stuck on rails for 2 years before I can have an art teacher tell me to go paint so I can learn how to paint exactly as well as I have been without an art teacher

Give me a completely private college whose intention is not to "prepare you for the work force" (god fucking damn it), but to provide a haven for people to go to learn and become educated for the sake of education, so they may better their lives and be happier as individuals (in other words, the whole point of philosophy), and I'll be the happiest man alive.


Psssst.  The super-duper-secret information resulting in this apocalypse, which will finally end the biblical time period we've been suffering through, is that a philosophical approach to life will make you happy, and thus make others happy.  Now all we gotta do is disclose this information to the rest of the world and we'll all be dandy.

I once knew a girl in high school who "attempted" suicide fourteen times.  I don't know how you goof up suicide that many times, but she managed.  AFAIC, it's just a cry for attention.  We can call them attempts but if you really wanted to die, there are an infinite amount of successful ways.  My own sister's attempted suicide before, by swallowing a whole bottle of sleeping pills.  Well, she threw them up and had her stomach pumped, but probably had a good chance of having some serious damage.  Anyway, she ain't dead, so there's that.

...but aside from that, what do guns have to do with suicide?    I'm not seeing any obvious connection, outside of people successfully killing themselves with guns, in which case, if a woman used a gun to attempt suicide, she would likely be successful.  Doesn't change the fact that she wants to die, which is a completely different issue.

Very cool lyrics   I suspect the argument is, "But if anyone can own a gun, what if someone goes on a rampage?!"

Splitting services between buying and selling would help out.  Separate categories for people looking for work, and people looking for work to be done.

Smoothie if I had a straw, I would drink you

Gun control just means shifting the individual control of weaponry to state control.  The state has no intention of controlling themselves of guns.  Sociopathic proxy killers don't use guns; they equip someone else with them to use against whomever, and it's a lot easier to detain a gunless citizen than a well-armed one.  You're essentially allowing the few to dictate who has the weaponry, and America's military is already as bloated as it gets.  Will the military take away a soldier's weapons because they're so dangerous?

No.  Hell no.  Hell no.

Naturally, a politician, who is disconnected with the real world, will advocate gun control; he's the one getting the control of guns.  I wouldn't mind being the only badass in the nation legally owning the world's deadliest weaponry, myself.  Who would fuck with me?    Whomever owns the weapons makes the rules.  All who disagree get shot/stabbed/stoned.  If anyone can produce evidence of the opposite occurring, I'll be a monkey's uncle.

---

Anyway back to OP.  I suppose the logic makes sense, if we're assuming all men, who are of many shapes and sizes, will generally be stronger than women.  I've never met a girl who can beat me in arm wrestling myself, but I reckon they're out there.  Ever see those muscle mags?  Where women are super beefy and no longer have tits?  I suppose there's always an exception   Even the average girl can overpower a man with no arms and legs.  I hope.

But it applies to more than just women.  Grannies, provided they can still be trusted with a gun, won't have to worry about a thing--except where they put the darn thing. 

On the matter of public education: I'm going to assume you're from the west and/or live in a capitalistic society.

I believe we can both agree that monopolies are bad, yes?  Fall in quality, rise in price.  Assuming the state is an entity, like any other individual or company, why would it be appealing for the government to own almost every school?  Wouldn't different schools competing for the same prospective students aim to improve their quality of education at a reasonable price, as opposed to everyone paying for the same schools (whether or not you attend them, go to private schools, or home school,) owned by the same entity, providing a similar service without worry of losing customers (students.)

We can compare the quality of state-owned schools to privately-owned colleges to draw a conclusion.  I don't have data at hand, but, in my personal experience, my local high school was a death trap of bullies, avoiding the ghetto, and studying for the TAKS test (a state test) more than studying stuff that actually mattered.  If you can't afford private education or a parent who can stay at home to teach you, you are coerced into going to the state school; it's involuntary, and students, on average, suffer.  OTOH, my local college provides a phenomenal service and the professors are all marvelous; compared to high school, even my worst professors would've made good HS teachers.  It's a safe environment with a lot of nice folk (excluding this weird trend of shooting up schools we're having lately.)

Thus, I believe the question becomes, "How could the average person afford private schools?"  But then we must go into another topic; the quality of an individual's career.  Assuming people are continuing to work for near minimum wages, state schools appear to be a must.  Everything's interlinked and related, and it's a tricky subject, that of taxes.  It pretty much boils down to a dependency on government due to the removal of certain liberties (for whatever reason, but I'll assume they're all a form of, "It's for your safety/own good.")

Corruption?  In my government?

The decision between vanilla or chocolate icecream is anarchy. 

Seems to be the theme here.

The Pandora's box has been opened.  It's never going away

Thanks, you too.