RandyPA2

Before I continue, I must admit I haven't followed a lot on superhero TV shows and films based on the comic books they came from for a long while now as well as being away from comic book-related materials. I stumbled by accident on this TV version of the DC Comics Supergirl character Reign.

Moving on, I feel that Reign killing Ruby (and, as a bonus, Patricia Arias, Sam's adoptive mother [estranged] and Ruby's adoptive grandmother) in a horrifically painful way accomplishes the following if Reign is to be a really "scary, powerful and heartbreaking" character:

01.) Reign killing Ruby in particular is Reign's answer to correcting the delays caused by the unfortunate error (Ruby) who

A--delayed the full manifestation of her powers when she came of age.

B--delayed the realization of her destiny.

02.) The deaths of Ruby and Patricia would eventually help Reign forget about them and all other mortal trappings (permanently preferably).

03.) Ruby's death eliminates a potential half-human/half-Kryptonian, super powered being as a threat to Reign herself, her powers, and her destiny as a worldkiller.

I ask because, though I admit I haven't followed a lot on superhero TV shows and films based on the comic books they came from for a long while now, Reign already took a huge step in that direction by beating Supergirl to near-death in my opinion.

SOURCE (where Darth Vader got the top spot as the greatest pop culture villain of all time across the entire evil spectrum–from video games, movies, television, cartoons, and literature):

https://nerdist.com/march-badness-pop-culture-vill...

I ask because it is my understanding that with every incoming U.S. of A. Presidential administration, after winning an election, someone is assigned to make contact with the leaders of their nations, Russia included. And such a procedure is legal. So why all the fuss with Michael Flynn and not anyone else from past Presidential administrations?

The complete question is:

Why are "Republicans", Conservatives, the Religious, and right-leaning people in the U.S. of A. despised so much while "Democrats", (Fake, Phony) Liberals, Secularists, and left-leaning people (also in the U.S. of A.) get more love and respect?

I ask because from what I've been observing in the U.S. of A. (in its climate and culture particularly), the message seems to be this:

"Right-leaning people deserve to be extinct along with their way of life while we love left-leaning people, their philosophy, and will make such way of life the standard of this country and the world!"

Feel free to explain how and why what I've said here are right or wrong when answering this question.

Eugene Williams, a former local N.A.A.C.P. leader, recalled the days when he was not allowed to dine at local restaurants. Williams said that he favors keeping the Lee statue because he wants people to remember the Jim Crow era. Do you agree with him or not? Please explain your answer.

Source:

"White Nationalists march on University of Virginia"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/us/white-nation...

Please note: I'm aware that O.J. Simpson protected his assets and wealth long before the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

I just want your feedback and opinion on whether O.J. Simpson choosing to place his assets and wealth in structures that make it near-impossible for anyone suing O.J. to collect from him (even if this was done so that his beneficiaries get his money after his death--if this is part of O.J's plan that is) is an immoral (and even illegal I might add) act or not.

I ask because it is my understanding that by withdrawing the U.S. of A. from the Paris Climate Accords, President Trump maintained, saved, and kept intact the U.S. of A.'s status as a sovereign nation.

In other words, the U.S. of A's. national sovereignty was maintained, saved, and kept intact.

Please explain if what I've said here is right, wrong, or both right and wrong (even partially).

I ask because it is my understanding that collectivism (no matter which direction is comes from: top-down, bottom-up, from the sides, etc.) is the root of coercive philosophies such as Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Leninism, Stalin-ism, Nazism, Maoism, Totalitarianism, Fascism, Statism, Authoritarianism, Regressivism (fake Progressivism) and is also the root coercive philosophy of both the Democratic and Republican wings of the U.S. of A's Big Government Party; fake, phony U.S. of A. liberals; leftists and left-leaning people also in the U.S. of A..

Also, there is no such thing as "voluntary collectivism". There is individualism-based volunteerism (individuals supporting church causes voluntarily is an example).

Please correct me and my understanding if what I've said here is wrong as well as your defense and justification of collectivism.

One example includes an article originally from huffingtonpost.com titled “Trump is Absolutely Right About Sweden,” posted by René Zografos. infowars.com writer Adan Salazar was able to include Zografos' article before it got deleted. Here's the Infowars article with Zografos' deleted one:

"Huffington Post DELETES Article Admitting Trump Right About Sweden"

https://www.infowars.com/huffington-post-deletes-a...

Lastly, there's a reason the words fake news are in quotes.

It is my understanding that the philosophy of Liberalism as originally defined (late 17th to 19th centuries) has remained the same to this day since it's creation outside the U.S. of A.. The original definition of Liberalism would come to be known inside the U.S. of A. as Classical Liberalism of course. Whether this is true or false, please explain in your answer.

That is, and with the protests going on at major airports in the U.S. of A. as of this posting (late January 2017), how would you go about keeping terrorist suspects out of the U.S. of A. from the seven countries listed and fix the vetting process in need be? By the way, Obama and his administration came up with that list of seven nations that President Trump and his administration are keeping watch on.

To elaborate further, once 2016 Democratic/Democrat front runner for the 2016 U.S. of A. Presidential race Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic/Democrat nomination, would you Bernie Sanders supporters shift your support to U.S. of A. 2016 Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson in order to stop Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?

I ask because, in addition not giving up U.S. of A. national sovereignty, Trump believes in fixing the U.S. of A's mess and problems first nationwide.

Longer question is: Does the small, total number of police of all types and all levels (local, city, county, state, and federal/national) in the U.S. of A. justify us citizens (of the U.S. of A.) to purchase loaded firearms and ammunition for self-preservation/defense purposes (protecting ourselves and those in our company) against gun-wielding criminals bent on ultimately murdering us?

I say yes because out of 322,300,000+ people living the U.S. of A., 970,588+ make up the entire police of all types and at all levels (675,734+ sworn officers and 294,854+ civilians working for law enforcement).

With that small number, if gun-wielding criminals were invading my home and I was lucky enough to call 911 for help, the police will not get to my home on time and all I can do is hide and shoot back at the criminals after they successfully break in before the police even arrive.

Please explain your answer if there is or there is no reason to purchase loaded firearms and ammunition for protection despite the small number of police in the whole country.

SOURCES:

http://www.census.gov/popclock/

https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/law_enforcement_p...

"Jerry Falwell Jr.: ‘If more good people had concealed-carry permits, then we could end those’ Islamist terrorists"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/...

Comments and replies were pouring in rather fast until a user named "RandyPAA" was the last one (as of this posting) to post a very long comment. Make sure to select "Newest First" to see the long comment in question. It starts with:

"This is going to be a long comment. So please bear with me.

Regarding the quote “Put your sword back in its place..."

This is a long explanation, please bear with me.

I'm talking about Mr. John Green, the father of Christina Green (the youngest victim killed in the assassination attempt of then-Congresswoman Gabrielle "Gabby" Giffords in January of 2011).

Mr. Green said the following to Megyn Kelly on Fox News:

01.) "We don’t need any more restrictions on our society."

02.) "I think there is always is going to be random acts."

03.) "If we...if we live in a country like the United States, where we are...more free than...than anywhere else, we are subject (to) things like this happening. And I...think that's the price we have to pay."

Mr. Green said the above here:

"Megyn Kelly Interviews John Green, Father of 9-Year-Old Girl Killed in AZ Shooting"--LONG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPCdgD4ygvI&fmt=18

"Father Of 9 Year Old Murder Victim In Tucson Does Not Want Restrictions Of Freedoms!"--SHORT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj47lB1a-0Y&fmt=18

And finally Mr. Green said the following on the Today Show:

04.) "...this shouldn't happen in this country or anywhere else, but...but in a free society, we're gonna be subject(ed) to...to people like this so...I...I prefer this to the alternative."

Here's where Mr. Green said the above:

"Slain girl's father says attack the price of "a free society""

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXZOGNhw6p8&fmt=18

If yes or no, please explain your answer.

Does Jessica Lenahan's victory over the United States of America provide a strong, viable case on police being responsible for our individual safety as well as gun control, even though Lenahan argued her case as a domestic violence type and human rights violation?

I ask because after the U.S. of A. Supreme Court ruled against then-Jessica Gonzales against her on June 27, 2005, Lenahan took her case to the the international human rights body known as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). On August of 2011, the IACHR sided with Jessica Lenahan and so far I have not found any discussions of this ruling in pro-Second Amendment sites and discussion forums.

SOURCES:

"Landmark Human Rights Case Finds that Failure to Enforce a Restraining Order and Indifference to Domestic Violence Led to Daughters’ Deaths"

https://www.aclu.org/news/international-commission...

"Jessica Gonzales v. U.S.A."

https://www.aclu.org/cases/jessica-gonzales-v-usa

Here's Donald Trump's complete statement:

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Again, here's the qualifier:

"And some, I assume, are good people.”

So, is Donald Trump still wrong?

I ask because of Van Wyk's story here:

"Saint James Church massacre"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_James_Church_m...

Because of the tragedy Van Wyk was in, he wrote the following book:

http://www.amazon.com/Shooting-Back-Right-Duty-Sel...

http://www.amazon.com/Shooting-Back-Right-Duty-Sel...

...to protect their business--located in Ferguson, Missouri--from rioters and looters?

Here's an article about the above business:

"FERGUSON, MO – SHOP OWNER SAYS, ‘OH NO YOU WON’T!’"

http://misguidedchildren.com/justice/2014/08/fergu...