eclipse

Yes, I'm logging three units. 3,891 total pulled units. Roy (+Spd/-Atk): Wait, wrong banner! Deirdre (+Res/-Atk): Well, uh, hi genderbent Canas with a different weapon? But she's new, so I'll take her! Midori (+Atk/-Def): Someone explain to me how the hell her bow works, because I'm VERY tempted to give her a funny Brave Bow set. 45 base Atk is amazing.

Get their extra conversation, and you'll see why I voted them. 😛

Restraining order? Quite the opposite! Two characters down, the rest of the FE cast to go. I believe in you~!

Okay Byleth, now return all those lost accessories to their rightful owners!

You just gave me an idea. Dew and Lachesis, GO!

Note that another thing I will warn you on in this topic is attempting to make this political. This virus is a worldwide issue now. Take the politics to their respective threads.

That's a good point! Chances are, if there was some sort of armed rebellion, the laws would get strict to the point where the Constitution would be an afterthought.

You're not helping. Much as I'd like to answer the question, I don't have the DLC, so I'm not sure how much it'll impact the overall story. My gut says to do another route Just Because.

And that's the wrong subforum.

Thanks. I think. . .the entire debate on gun control is an utter waste of time, because both sides are simultaneously right and wrong. One side has it right in the form of "the Constitution was made so that the people can overthrow the government, and they specifically named guns as the tool, so outright banning it is out. There's also other situations where guns are necessary, whether it be for sustenance or survival. Plus, some people think it's a cool hobby or something." The other side is right because "gun violence in America is disproportionately high compared to the rest of the first-world, and having people die to such things in this day and age is a tragedy. Especially the school shootings, our kids shouldn't be exposed to such danger." But if you take into the account the Constitution side (for a militia), it's clear that your average handgun isn't going to do squat against modern military technology. Which means that people would need to stock up on much more heavy-duty guns, but then we have the side that seriously doesn't want their kids to be turned into practice dummies by some nutcase, which is also a valid concern. Yet America hasn't conquered the known world, because those that don't die, adapt. Instead of having a direct shoot-out, any sort of successful revolution would need to rely on guerilla tactics, homemade weapons (I hear fertilizer's good for explosives), and fighting extraordinarily dirty (using children as shields and such). But by that time, a whole lot of other laws would've been broken, so the word of gun control would be useless. 'sides, I'm sure Russia/China would love to supply weapons to a potentially destabilizing force in the US. Then there's the issue of those that actually need a gun, and lumping them in with someone who's paranoid of the government does them no favors. And for those that want guns out? That's an argument against an amendment, and it's pretty clear that the writers intended for the citizens to have some form of defense against the government. So those that truly wanted to ban guns would be pushing for a convention, instead of throwing out arguments that aren't going to help until the giant elephant in the form of the Second Amendment is addressed. I think the best remedy would be to push for better social conditions for the pro side (that means universal healthcare, stronger worker's rights, better working conditions, and much better support for the poor at absolute minimum), and a constitutional amendment for the con side. Each of these addresses something closer to the root of the issue (crazy/desperate people for the pro, the Constitution for the con). Plus some controls, since I don't think someone who spent time in prison for first-degree murder should be allowed to own a gun. Gun control is great for emotional discussion that ultimately distracts from the bigger issues.

Is this what you're talking about? If so, then it's a little interesting that Nintendo wasn't mentioned among those names.

Crests do two things: 1. They confer some sort of power, something that makes the bearer different from others 2. They're visible IIRC It's a convenient excuse to separate people, except that it's justified because of the first reason. In other words, it's just human nature at work, but with something that doesn't exist in the real world (we have race and religion for that nonsense).

I'm unfortunately unable to confirm or deny it. But if you take a look at what I said to Jotari a bit above you, it should shed some light into my actual stance on guns. . .since I don't think I've truly stated it. And I'm not sure if I should be disappointed or amused that I've managed to stay in such a discussion without anyone figuring it out. Thing is, I also need to figure out why people are here. Part of maintaining a healthy discourse is pruning those elements that can't contribute to it. Discussions will get heated (I mean, just look at the story discussions in 3H, and that's a video game plot), but when it gets to the point where emotions completely take over for logic, that's when I have to come down, hard. And when we start getting people completely unrelated to this fandom that join/come back JUST to talk about a hot-button topic, that's super-suspicious. As in, I need to dust off my mafia skills to figure out what the hell is going on, and I'd rather deal with my sewing machine at this point.

I mean. . .that's a really good title change. But wouldn't it be more suited to a blog?

I'm honestly not impressed. Might be able to build around Ursula using a dagger with Smoke as her buddy. Gunther's more supporting than anything (I just pulled Olwen, so RIP), Gaius' base weapon is okay but what the hell is that refine effect, and Eirika's a worse case of Gaius.