How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment-“A fraud on the American public"
Comments
-
@GaoLu said:
And you know, I kind of get a kick out of it. Hollywood celebrities are showing up in "great numbers, "vast crowds," etc. to protest gun use. Right. They just want to stand in front of cameras.
I'll believe celebrities care about their cause when they stop gun violence in their movies.
I will believe that posters here are serious about their cause when they state a clear promise on these forums to
1) boycott any movie showing violence using guns.
2) take up their cause with equal sincerity against gun violence in movies.
Otherwise, we all know the word:...hypocrite
Oh, please, GaoLu,
The NRA (all of its supporters) and the "Hollywood celebrities" are cut from the same cloth. Guns are the common denominator between the two groups. They feed off one another. If Hollywood were to do away with guns in its movies and Television programs, then the self-righteous NRA would fight them under the so-called rights of the Second Amendment.It's unfair and unrealistic to ask Hollywood to stop glorifying gun usage in their movies (they have a right under the law to make). Besides, the NRA wouldn't discontinue promoting guns, gun sales, ownership and arming teachers.
The NRA (all of its supporters) and the "Hollywood celebrities" are "strange-bedfellows." **They eat and drink from the same trough, just like the Democrats and the Republicans Parties. They seem to lie to each other and the public:
- NRA says-- we just collect guns and tell people about the rights. Oh, occasionally, they teach gun-safety when they're not hamstrung by real pro-lifers of boys and girls in schoolhouses.
- Hollywood says-- it's our right to do business in making movies. It's just entertainment.
The deaths are not real. We're just imitating life. We are just showing off high-tech skills of assimilation. We don't promote guns. It's all fun. Oh, you, otherwise-ones, guns kill!
The states support movies and the politicians support the NRA like a lapdog. It's unfortunate the NRA has become a religion to some people and many Christians. Yes, some would rather have guns than Christ. "He who lives by the gun dies by the gun!" He who lives for Christ and dies by a gun (schools, homes or churches) will rise again and be with Christ at the resurrection when He returns. God is the Christian's protector, not guns!
Christians keep the Commandments of God, not the Second Amendment. Salvation is in Christ, not a gun or the collection of them. I call upon all, well-meaning, Christians to leave the NRA in its promotion of sorrow-making instruments and Hollywood movies glorifying guns-- the shame and the sin industries.
If guns were so important for life and survival, God would have given Adam and Eve one, after their creation, in the Garden of Eden. Live, love and have fun. You don't need a gun! CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@GaoLu said:
And you know, I kind of get a kick out of it. Hollywood celebrities are showing up in "great numbers, "vast crowds," etc. to protest gun use. Right. They just want to stand in front of cameras.
I'll believe celebrities care about their cause when they stop gun violence in their movies.
I will believe that posters here are serious about their cause when they state a clear promise on these forums to
1) boycott any movie showing violence using guns.
2) take up their cause with equal sincerity against gun violence in movies.
Otherwise, we all know the word:...hypocrite
Oh, please, GaoLu,
The NRA (all of its supporters) and the "Hollywood celebrities" are cut from the same cloth. Guns are the common denominator between the two groups. They feed off one another. If Hollywood were to do away with guns in its movies and Television programs, then the self-righteous NRA would fight them under the so-called rights of the Second Amendment.That's one of the most ridiculous comments you have made, which is saying something.
It's unfair and unrealistic to ask Hollywood to stop glorifying gun usage in their movies (they have a right under the law to make). Besides, the NRA wouldn't discontinue promoting guns, gun sales, ownership and arming teachers.
>
Why is it unfair or unrealistic? And you are comparing apples and oranges. I guess you want to take guns from police as well?
The NRA (all of its supporters) and the "Hollywood celebrities" are "strange-bedfellows." **They eat and drink from the same trough, just like the Democrats and the Republicans Parties. They seem to lie to each other and the public:
Wow, you seem really jaded.
- NRA says-- we just collect guns and tell people about the rights. Oh, occasionally, they teach gun-safety when they're not hamstrung by real pro-lifers of boys and girls in schoolhouses.
- Hollywood says-- it's our right to do business in making movies. It's just entertainment.
Actually Hollywood used to not show violence or sex. Something to consider. However, guns have always been protected by the Constitution.
The deaths are not real. We're just imitating life. We are just showing off high-tech skills of assimilation. We don't promote guns. It's all fun. Oh, you, otherwise-ones, guns kill!
What in the world are you talking about?
The states support movies and the politicians support the NRA like a lapdog. It's unfortunate the NRA has become a religion to some people and many Christians. Yes, some would rather have guns than Christ. "He who lives by the gun dies by the gun!" He who lives for Christ and dies by a gun (schools, homes or churches) will rise again and be with Christ at the resurrection when He returns. God is the Christian's protector, not guns!
This is an unfair characterization and you know it.
Christians keep the Commandments of God, not the Second Amendment. Salvation is in Christ, not a gun or the collection of them. I call upon all, well-meaning, Christians to leave the NRA in its promotion of sorrow-making instruments and Hollywood movies glorifying guns-- the shame and the sin industries.
Why do you make out Christians who support the NRA in any way, or the 2nd Amendment to be living in some kind of twisted sinful relationship with them?
If guns were so important for life and survival, God would have given Adam and Eve one, after their creation, in the Garden of Eden. Live, love and have fun. You don't need a gun! CM
I take my previous statement back, this is the most ridiculous comment you have ever made. I guess you should get rid of electricity as well. God didn't give that to Adam and Eve.
-
@Dave_L said:
What we have for a "militia" is Unregulated, if it means military grade weapons can fall into the wrong hands. And the NRA does not want it to change.I think this is an insightful point, Dave. How "well regulated" can a "militia" be when its members shoot each other?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
What we have for a "militia" is Unregulated, if it means military grade weapons can fall into the wrong hands. And the NRA does not want it to change.I think this is an insightful point, Dave. How "well regulated" can a "militia" be when its members shoot each other?
That's an unfair characterization of what is actually happening.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
What we have for a "militia" is Unregulated, if it means military grade weapons can fall into the wrong hands. And the NRA does not want it to change.I think this is an insightful point, Dave. How "well regulated" can a "militia" be when its members shoot each other?
That's an unfair characterization of what is actually happening.
It seems to me, David, you have previously posted that the Second Amendment refers the nation's preparedness for war, that the amendment intended to make weapons of war available to American citizens. Doesn't that make armed citizens part of the "well regulated militia" which the Amendment says is "necessary to the security of a free State," and unarmed citizens potential members of said militia? If both of those statements are true, doesn't that mean gun violence reflects militia members shooting each other?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
I take my previous statement back, this is the most ridiculous comment you have ever made. I guess you should get rid of electricity as well. God didn't give that to Adam and Eve.
Let's keep it real. The sole purpose of a gun's creation and development is to kill. Electricity is for power and lights. Yes, some states used it for executions, even now, it's outlawed. Even in usage, the invention of electricity was not to kill.
David, this discussion is not a game. Let keep it serious. I am not against a few light moments, but keep it real. CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
What we have for a "militia" is Unregulated, if it means military grade weapons can fall into the wrong hands. And the NRA does not want it to change.I think this is an insightful point, Dave. How "well regulated" can a "militia" be when its members shoot each other?
That's an unfair characterization of what is actually happening.
It seems to me, David, you have previously posted that the Second Amendment refers the nation's preparedness for war, that the amendment intended to make weapons of war available to American citizens. Doesn't that make armed citizens part of the "well regulated militia" which the Amendment says is "necessary to the security of a free State," and unarmed citizens potential members of said militia? If both of those statements are true, doesn't that mean gun violence reflects militia members shooting each other?
No. It's criminals killing innocents. They should be locked up and/or executed.
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
I take my previous statement back, this is the most ridiculous comment you have ever made. I guess you should get rid of electricity as well. God didn't give that to Adam and Eve.
Let's keep it real. The sole purpose of a gun's creation and development is to kill. Electricity is for power and lights. Yes, some states used it for executions, even now, it's outlawed. Even in usage, the invention of electricity was not to kill.
David, this discussion is not a game. Let keep it serious. I am not against a few light moments, but keep it real. CM
I'm not playing games. Your argument was ridiculous and I pointed out how it was absurd and illogical.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
It seems to me, David, you have previously posted that the Second Amendment refers the nation's preparedness for war, that the amendment intended to make weapons of war available to American citizens. Doesn't that make armed citizens part of the "well regulated militia" which the Amendment says is "necessary to the security of a free State," and unarmed citizens potential members of said militia? If both of those statements are true, doesn't that mean gun violence reflects militia members shooting each other?
No. It's criminals killing innocents. They should be locked up and/or executed.
But prior to their becoming either "criminals" who killed or victims of said killing, weren't those Americans eligible for the right protected by the Second Amendment? In the language of the amendment, weren't they parts of the "well regulated militia" it calls "necessary to the security of a free State"?
-
Here is the REAL answer to stopping gun violence.
-
Thanks, GaoLu, for sharing what is true that "Jesus Is the Only Hope for America", by thousands whose "March for 'Eternal Life' in Palm Sunday Rally." However, sad to say, all Christians don't believe this, as Senior Pastor Robert Jeffress believes. I believe the theme is a truly eternal reality. Given this substantive theme, why are Christians buying, collecting, guns and supporting the NRA? These same Christians are willing to use their guns to take a life and at the same time. They are willing to support laws and equip teachers to carry a gun in the classroom and encouraging the teachers to take a life before the children. Yet, they are claiming to be pro-life. They value more of what's in the womb than in the classroom (e.g. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/23/high-school-students-plan-pro-life-walkout-after-gun-debate.html). They justify it because of the ratio. Shame or hypocritical? I would leave it to those with clear eyes and conscious. Truly, "Jesus Is the Only Hope for America". CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
It seems to me, David, you have previously posted that the Second Amendment refers the nation's preparedness for war, that the amendment intended to make weapons of war available to American citizens. Doesn't that make armed citizens part of the "well regulated militia" which the Amendment says is "necessary to the security of a free State," and unarmed citizens potential members of said militia? If both of those statements are true, doesn't that mean gun violence reflects militia members shooting each other?
No. It's criminals killing innocents. They should be locked up and/or executed.
But prior to their becoming either "criminals" who killed or victims of said killing, weren't those Americans eligible for the right protected by the Second Amendment? In the language of the amendment, weren't they parts of the "well regulated militia" it calls "necessary to the security of a free State"?
This assumes that everyone is part of the militia. Are kids part of the militia? You know 2-year-olds? No. The whole premise of your statement is absurd.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
It seems to me, David, you have previously posted that the Second Amendment refers the nation's preparedness for war, that the amendment intended to make weapons of war available to American citizens. Doesn't that make armed citizens part of the "well regulated militia" which the Amendment says is "necessary to the security of a free State," and unarmed citizens potential members of said militia? If both of those statements are true, doesn't that mean gun violence reflects militia members shooting each other?
No. It's criminals killing innocents. They should be locked up and/or executed.
But prior to their becoming either "criminals" who killed or victims of said killing, weren't those Americans eligible for the right protected by the Second Amendment? In the language of the amendment, weren't they parts of the "well regulated militia" it calls "necessary to the security of a free State"?
This assumes that everyone is part of the militia. Are kids part of the militia? You know 2-year-olds? No. The whole premise of your statement is absurd.
As the quoted previous posts above report, the subject of my statement was the distinction between "armed citizens" and "unarmed citizens," a distinction which assumed that both groups of people complied with firearm ownership age requirements - in the way that discussions of voter turnout - the "voting" and the "non-voting" - usually assume the people referenced meet voter eligibility requirements. Hence, I did not intend for my statement to refer to "2-year-olds" or anyone else who does not meet firearm ownership requirements.
That "absurd" premise clarified, I ask my question again: Prior to their becoming either "criminals" who killed, or victims of said killings, weren't those (firearm ownership-eligible) Americans eligible for the right protected by the Second Amendment? In the language of the amendment, weren't (those firearm ownership-eligible Americans) parts of the "well regulated militia" it calls "necessary to the security of a free State"?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
It seems to me, David, you have previously posted that the Second Amendment refers the nation's preparedness for war, that the amendment intended to make weapons of war available to American citizens. Doesn't that make armed citizens part of the "well regulated militia" which the Amendment says is "necessary to the security of a free State," and unarmed citizens potential members of said militia? If both of those statements are true, doesn't that mean gun violence reflects militia members shooting each other?
No. It's criminals killing innocents. They should be locked up and/or executed.
But prior to their becoming either "criminals" who killed or victims of said killing, weren't those Americans eligible for the right protected by the Second Amendment? In the language of the amendment, weren't they parts of the "well regulated militia" it calls "necessary to the security of a free State"?
This assumes that everyone is part of the militia. Are kids part of the militia? You know 2-year-olds? No. The whole premise of your statement is absurd.
As the quoted previous posts above report, the subject of my statement was the distinction between "armed citizens" and "unarmed citizens," a distinction which assumed that both groups of people complied with firearm ownership age requirements - in the way that discussions of voter turnout - the "voting" and the "non-voting" - usually assume the people referenced meet voter eligibility requirements. Hence, I did not intend for my statement to refer to "2-year-olds" or anyone else who does not meet firearm ownership requirements.
That "absurd" premise clarified, I ask my question again: Prior to their becoming either "criminals" who killed, or victims of said killings, weren't those (firearm ownership-eligible) Americans eligible for the right protected by the Second Amendment? In the language of the amendment, weren't (those firearm ownership-eligible Americans) parts of the "well regulated militia" it calls "necessary to the security of a free State"?
Thank you for the clarification, though I disagree still with the premise, however, I guess technically you could say that yes. But a good majority of gun crimes do not come from legally obtained guns, or people who should have been allowed (under current laws) to obtain weapons. So it is not more laws that we need. We need to actually enforce current laws and find where things are falling through the cracks and why.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Thank you for the clarification, though I disagree still with the premise, however, I guess technically you could say that yes. But a good majority of gun crimes do not come from legally obtained guns, or people who should have been allowed (under current laws) to obtain weapons. So it is not more laws that we need. We need to actually enforce current laws and find where things are falling through the cracks and why.Who commits armed crimes, and whether the arms used in those crimes are "legal," were not at issue in my assertion 12 posts ago (!) with which you took issue, David. In said post, I asked,
"How "well regulated" can a "militia" be when its members shoot each other?"
The end result of the exchange my assertion prompted, it seems to me, is that you agree that when (firearm-eligible) Americans shoot each other, "technically" it's members of the Second Amendment's "militia" shooting each other. (I'll go through the posts of our exchange to demonstrate the logic of my conclusion, if you dispute it, but I hope you won't!
e: )SO, contrary to your initial response to it, my characterization WAS a fair "way of characterizing what's happening," at least "technically."
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Thank you for the clarification, though I disagree still with the premise, however, I guess technically you could say that yes. But a good majority of gun crimes do not come from legally obtained guns, or people who should have been allowed (under current laws) to obtain weapons. So it is not more laws that we need. We need to actually enforce current laws and find where things are falling through the cracks and why.Who commits armed crimes, and whether the arms used in those crimes are "legal," were not at issue in my assertion 12 posts ago (!) with which you took issue, David. In said post, I asked,
"How "well regulated" can a "militia" be when its members shoot each other?"
The end result of the exchange my assertion prompted, it seems to me, is that you agree that when (firearm-eligible) Americans shoot each other, "technically" it's members of the Second Amendment's "militia" shooting each other. (I'll go through the posts of our exchange to demonstrate the logic of my conclusion, if you dispute it, but I hope you won't!
e: )SO, contrary to your initial response to it, my characterization WAS a fair "way of characterizing what's happening," at least "technically."
No, my point was many gun crimes are committed by Americans who are NOT firearm eligible and either obtained the weapon illegally, or fell through the cracks of the system. So no, your assertion is not fair or proper.
-
Preachers, Parents and Pro-lifers are poor defenders of the NRA and gun-carrying teachers in the classroom. CM
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
No, my point was many gun crimes are committed by Americans who are NOT firearm eligible and either obtained the weapon illegally, or fell through the cracks of the system. So no, your assertion is not fair or proper.So in your view, when people who ARE firearm eligible, obtain their firearms LEGALLY, and are NOT among those who fall through "the cracks of the system" shoot people, it IS members of the "militia" shooting each other, as long as their targets don't deserve to be shot?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
No, my point was many gun crimes are committed by Americans who are NOT firearm eligible and either obtained the weapon illegally, or fell through the cracks of the system. So no, your assertion is not fair or proper.So in your view, when people who ARE firearm eligible, obtain their firearms LEGALLY, and are NOT among those who fall through "the cracks of the system" shoot people, it IS members of the "militia" shooting each other, as long as their targets don't deserve to be shot?
Bill, I'm not going to continue this stupid game for your political rhetoric based in nonsense.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
No, my point was many gun crimes are committed by Americans who are NOT firearm eligible and either obtained the weapon illegally, or fell through the cracks of the system. So no, your assertion is not fair or proper.So in your view, when people who ARE firearm eligible, obtain their firearms LEGALLY, and are NOT among those who fall through "the cracks of the system" shoot people, it IS members of the "militia" shooting each other, as long as their targets don't deserve to be shot?
Bill, I'm not going to continue this stupid game for your political rhetoric based in nonsense.
Glory be! Following a lengthy and unexplained absence, "stupid" returns to your posting vocabulary, David, and does so via a surprise partnership with "nonsense." THAT'S what's called a discussion-stopper.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
No, my point was many gun crimes are committed by Americans who are NOT firearm eligible and either obtained the weapon illegally, or fell through the cracks of the system. So no, your assertion is not fair or proper.So in your view, when people who ARE firearm eligible, obtain their firearms LEGALLY, and are NOT among those who fall through "the cracks of the system" shoot people, it IS members of the "militia" shooting each other, as long as their targets don't deserve to be shot?
Bill, I'm not going to continue this stupid game for your political rhetoric based in nonsense.
Glory be! Following a lengthy and unexplained absence, "stupid" returns to your posting vocabulary, David, and does so via a surprise partnership with "nonsense." THAT'S what's called a discussion-stopper.
Except you aren't having a discussion, you are bringing up a point of nonsense to try and score points, but it has no bearing or merit on anything.
-
Some people just seem to like a little bit of troll, a little bit of bait and a lot of de-bate. Such people put unimaginable amounts of time and effort into fluff and vapor.
Here is a good test: Let your wife approve every post you make before hitting Enter and see if anything changes.
Note: My wife did not approve this post, but I think she would.
-
No trolling, baiting, debating no fluffing or vapor, here is the truth and a necessity. Away with the NRA, what can I say? Don't take my words along, listen to a former supreme court justice, in a call to repeal the second amendment.
"Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is calling for a repeal of the Second Amendment, decrying the right to bear arms as outdated and misunderstood.
In an op-ed published by The New York Times, Stevens, a Republican, said that students and anti-gun violence advocates should press lawmakers to take on the amendment.
While protests have so far focused on implementing new restrictions on semi-automatic weapons and strengthening background checks for gun purchases, he wrote, repealing the Second Amendment would result in more lasting change.
"That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms," Stevens wrote.
"But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform," he continued. "They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment."
What good sense! I agree with the "Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens."
Revolution calls for change and change is sometimes, uncomfortable, but necessary. We have seen future and the future are today's children. CM -
How well do Americans know the NRA? An Admission
The NRA takes dues for membership and claims to lobby for guns right, ownership, uphold the Second Amendment and occasional gun safety workshops. Would someone please tell me, why the NRA collects foreign monies ("dark money")? I wonder why foreign countries would funnel monies to the NRA? Are they interested in the upholding the American Second Amendment to the US Constitution? This behavior is getting "curiouser and curiouser." This is not a troll attack, it's a reality.
Given that money is the "mother's milk of American's politics", could this explain why the NRA has such sway on politicians and congress? One wonders since Mr. Trump and the NRA are so close, could some of that "dark money" be from Russia? Trump, Russia, and the NRA; is there, "any there, there?" Time will tell and we will know, for sure. Until then, may the investigators "follow the dollar." Don't look at me, I didn't create Mr. Trump or the NRA. I am sure, many Americans will be glad if both would go away.
General reminder: There are other forums in CD. Don't become discouraged, enjoy them all. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
The NRA takes dues for membership and claims to lobby for guns right, ownership, uphold the Second Amendment and occasional gun safety workshops. Would someone please tell me, why the NRA collects foreign monies ("dark money")?could you please detail what foreign money the NRA receives regularly or occasionally?
Is the bad point that it is FOREIGN money or is the bad point that they are RECEIVING (foreign) money?
Did not Hillary Clinton receive rather large financial donations from foreign sources? Since those were election campaign moneys, would it be plausible and possible that the moneys were "donated" in hopes of a "return for the investment" after the candidate is elected?
-
Gun sales are up. NRA donations are way up. Like it or not, bluster as some will, we know what Americans want.
-
@C_M_ said:
How well do Americans know the NRA? An AdmissionThe NRA takes dues for membership and claims to lobby for guns right, ownership, uphold the Second Amendment and occasional gun safety workshops. Would someone please tell me, why the NRA collects foreign monies ("dark money")? I wonder why foreign countries would funnel monies to the NRA? Are they interested in the upholding the American Second Amendment to the US Constitution? This behavior is getting "curiouser and curiouser." This is not a troll attack, it's a reality.
Given that money is the "mother's milk of American's politics", could this explain why the NRA has such sway on politicians and congress? One wonders since Mr. Trump and the NRA are so close, could some of that "dark money" be from Russia? Trump, Russia, and the NRA; is there, "any there, there?" Time will tell and we will know, for sure. Until then, may the investigators "follow the dollar." Don't look at me, I didn't create Mr. Trump or the NRA. I am sure, many Americans will be glad if both would go away.
Wild imagination you have there.
General reminder: There are other forums in CD. Don't become discouraged, enjoy them all. CM
And the reason for this reminder??
-
@Wolfgang said:
@C_M_ said:
The NRA takes dues for membership and claims to lobby for guns right, ownership, uphold the Second Amendment and occasional gun safety workshops. Would someone please tell me, why the NRA collects foreign monies ("dark money")?could you please detail what foreign money the NRA receives regularly or occasionally?
Is the bad point that it is FOREIGN money or is the bad point that they are RECEIVING (foreign) money?
Did not Hillary Clinton receive rather large financial donations from foreign sources? Since those were election campaign moneys, would it be plausible and possible that the moneys were "donated" in hopes of a "return for the investment" after the candidate is elected?
We don't have to split hairs here. Money from non-US Countries. The appearance of money laundering, possibly into a campaign to influence elections. It would all come out.
As for Hillary, ask her about "moneys" received. I am not her keeper. Besides, she is not the President, Trump is (with less than forty percent). Mueller is empowered to investigate him. Time would time... CM
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Wild imagination you have there.
David, be original. Check the news accounts (NPR, BBC, etc.)
General reminder: There are other forums in CD. Don't become discouraged, enjoy them all. CM
And the reason for this reminder??
Freedom! Why else??? CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Wild imagination you have there.
David, be original. Check the news accounts (NPR, BBC, etc.)
General reminder: There are other forums in CD. Don't become discouraged, enjoy them all. CM
And the reason for this reminder??
Freedom! Why else??? CM
Check news accounts about speculation about dark money from Russia with the NRA....good grief.... Wild Imagination.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)