This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ
Pages: 1 ... 211212213 214215 ... 256
6361
« on: November 11, 2014, 06:49:42 PM »
gib personal info pls
6362
« on: November 11, 2014, 03:27:24 PM »
I should've specified a little more when I said that. I don't believe that guns should be outright banned for everyone. A role for gun ownership in society does exist. However, allowing the public carrying of firearms by anyone who isn't in a situation that explicitly prohibits them from doing so, is not it. Because of its extremely lethal nature, a gun comes with a great responsibility. A responsibility that I would not entrust most people with.
And exactly how is that responsibility to be confirmed or recognized?
That's a major problem that can unfortunately never be fully solved. There is no way to know how a person would react under stress, angered or provoked. Determining who the "good guys" are is never going to be foolproof.
It is why I advocate the complete opposite of the American system, despite knowing that it, in a way, indirectly punishes some for the (potential) actions of others. Instead of the general rule being that everyone can always simply get a gun or a carrying permit, unless they've been convicted for a fellony or suffer from a mental illness that could make them a danger to society, I believe that the opposite is preferable. The base rule being that no one is entitled to a firearm and a permit to carry it in public, unless they meet certain requirements that don't necessarily guarantee that responsibility I mentioned earlier, but make it a lot more likely.
My biggest issue with this is that, really, what is there to make sure the people in charge of who gets to carry and who doesn't are good guys themselves? Things like a background check, psych evaluation, mandatory theoretical and practical classes on firearms, an exam that needs to be passed,
I have no problem with any of these things.
6363
« on: November 11, 2014, 02:56:59 PM »
I should've specified a little more when I said that. I don't believe that guns should be outright banned for everyone. A role for gun ownership in society does exist. However, allowing the public carrying of firearms by anyone who isn't in a situation that explicitly prohibits them from doing so, is not it. Because of its extremely lethal nature, a gun comes with a great responsibility. A responsibility that I would not entrust most people with.
And exactly how is that responsibility to be confirmed or recognized?
6364
« on: November 11, 2014, 02:15:07 PM »
So what you're telling me is that we need to get rid of all the poor people?
what if we turn the poor people into rich people
6365
« on: November 11, 2014, 02:03:07 PM »
For the record, I'd like to focus on the idea of an armed populace in general, not US-specific laws or the constitution, which we have gone over a million times.
6366
« on: November 11, 2014, 02:00:07 PM »
6367
« on: November 11, 2014, 01:56:59 PM »
To add the the end of the video, there were high capacity guns back then
I really can't stand that particular argument. Yes, these guns existed, but with the limits of communication and the Founders being in America, along with their roles as politicians and revolutionaries, not gunsmiths, I find it extremely unreasonable to assume they would be up to date on the latest advances in firearms.
6368
« on: November 11, 2014, 01:54:16 PM »
Occam's Razor. These arguments both commit a lot of assumptions. I don't even know what the latter post is even trying to convey.
If by assumptions you're referring to the right to keep and bear arms being a natural right, then yeah, the entire idea of natural, inalienable rights is all based on the assumption that these rights exist.
6369
« on: November 11, 2014, 01:42:57 PM »
And it's quite clear that isn't the case, as the government would've removed people's access to weaponry I long, long ago. I'll give you that one. It should also strike you as odd that the Republicans of all people are the ones who supposedly support this defence against tyranny.
Republicans, and American conservatives in general, are very much traditionalists. They believe in the status quo, the old ways. Because gun regulation here is a relatively new thing (mostly coming around in the last century), it is in line with their way of thinking that it is bad. This can also be seen in how conservatives in both parties wanted to keep African Americans down in the 60s. Also influenced by their Constitution-worship. American Conservatives oppose change. As do all conservatives, really. Now, why do Republicans today seem to so strongly oppose gun control? Frankly, most probably don't give a fuck. They talk about it a lot around election season, but outside of the South, this generally goes nowhere. They're trying to win over a group of voters who are quite often single-issue folks (same reason why the Democrats seem to love immigrants so much). Since Obama came into office, they've also tried to play off of the paranoia in stupid white trash prepper types, with whom they now share a common enemy. It also helps secure poor southern white voters, who often hunt, or have family members who do. This is one of the few groups of poor folks who actually tend to prefer Republicans. This is different from the Libertarian way of thinking about guns, which is based on the ability of individuals to stand up to the state or any other threat, as well as being a matter of personal freedom vs government regulation. Republicans will try to sell their stances from this angle sometimes, and may even believe it themselves, but it is inconsistent with their mindset about government power, especially regarding a monopoly on force. Obviously your Neocon-type Republicans aren't firm believers in a populace that can defend itself, and they try to hide it, but it does slip through at times. Ronald Reagan is a pretty good example, having supported quite a few anti-gun policies.
6370
« on: November 11, 2014, 01:25:20 PM »
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
As little as the constitution matters to me, I do think it should be noted that, in US law, this is really the most powerful argument against extreme regulation. There are lots of things that could infringe without totally banning. That is, if the constitution matters to you.
6371
« on: November 11, 2014, 01:22:54 PM »
What's so awful about an unarmed populace?
In an ideal world? Absolutely nothing, and I'd prefer it. The world we live in is not ideal, however, and the people should be able to defend their lives and property from threats. Not only that, a population that can defend itself is the greatest deterrent to oppression through policy or violence, state-sponsored or otherwise. In my honest opinion, it is the duty of the people to stand up for themselves. This, obviously, can't be carried out with pointy sticks.
6372
« on: November 11, 2014, 01:19:35 PM »
There is however, something wrong with a completely unregulated, unmonitored accessibility to firearms.
I don't think anyone is willing or able to dispute this, although the degree of regulation and monitoring should not be excessive.
6373
« on: November 11, 2014, 01:15:18 PM »
The gun ownership, which is already undesirable to begin with,
Aside from, of course, Muh Feels? Figured I'd take this to a new thread so as not to derail the original. What exactly is so awful about an armed populace?
6374
« on: November 10, 2014, 10:47:56 PM »
 they have cool fuckin hats
6375
« on: November 10, 2014, 09:54:35 PM »
"I created a weapon to defend the borders of my motherland. It's not my fault that it's being used where it shouldn't be. The politicians are more to blame for this."
6376
« on: November 10, 2014, 09:53:49 PM »
A banquet took place in Moscow honoring General Kalashnikov on the occasion of his 85th birthday. President Putin got up to toast the general. And when he finished the toast, General Kalashnikov got up, looked him in the eye and said, “Mr. President, my dream is of a country like the United States governed by men and women not afraid of an armed citizenry."
6377
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:48:00 PM »
Reminder that the ultimate goal of these groups is large-scale censorship
6378
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:31:41 PM »
Dem titties, tho...
I'd fuck her.
meta, no
6379
« on: November 10, 2014, 04:49:46 AM »
6380
« on: November 10, 2014, 04:46:36 AM »
And tell me where where is the taste
Where is the sacrifice
And tell me where where is the faith
Someday there'll be a cure for pain
That's the day I throw my drugs away
When they find a cure for pain
Where is the cave
Where the wise woman went
And tell me where
Where's all that money that I spent
I propose a toast to my self control
You see it crawling helpless on the floor
Someday there'll be a cure for pain
That's the day I throw my drugs away
When they find a cure for pain
When they find a cure for pain
When they find a cure find a cure for pain
6381
« on: November 10, 2014, 04:40:41 AM »
Don't leave me alone
I can't live without you
Take me with you, take me with you when you go
6382
« on: November 10, 2014, 04:27:31 AM »
6383
« on: November 10, 2014, 04:14:58 AM »
Do you actually think these things through before you say them?
Look who you're asking.
6384
« on: November 10, 2014, 04:12:45 AM »
oh boo fucking hoo
6385
« on: November 09, 2014, 10:31:16 AM »
>ausfalia
6386
« on: November 09, 2014, 10:00:31 AM »
Save republicans?
Didn't we just mop up all the elections doe?
They're going to need saving in 20-30 years when their voters have died of old age.
6387
« on: November 09, 2014, 08:28:27 AM »
1. So legalize murder? lolk It could be argued that Stand Your Ground laws do this, too. Are you in favor of them, too? 3. So reward people who break federal crimes? lolk 1. Learn to English. 2. They're not breaking the law if the law is changed, dingus. 4. >mfw western, capitalist nations are far cleaner than places like china >mfw you can compare shit to nastier shit, but it is still shit 5. ObamaCare is shit that needs to be repealed Irrelevant. It won't be, and the Republicans are wasting their energy. 6. Tell Obama to stop thrwoing a hissy fit and using executive orders when he doesn't get his way >dodging the issue and trying to blame someone else The Republican way 7. omg, opposition to one idea totally means they're against science. Guess what? budget for NASA increased about 20% under Bush and decreased about 25% under Clinton This is because Republicans love the military and technological advances NASA brings in. Doesn't excuse the party's blatantly anti-science attitude regarding stem cells and education. 8. Democrats support is also so...... I don't like the Dems and that isn't an excuse 9. They already do
Not enough
6388
« on: November 09, 2014, 05:59:09 AM »
6389
« on: November 08, 2014, 09:54:58 PM »
His huge Russian cell mate tells him "I'm not going to lie, I'm going to fuck you, only question is, you want it with Vaseline, or without Vaseline?" The English guy says "if you're going to fuck me, I think I'd prefer with Vaseline" Spoiler The Russian leans out of the cell and and shouts "VASELINE, COME ON HE WANTS TO FUCK YOU TOO!"
6390
« on: November 08, 2014, 09:49:07 PM »
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-33993-Ex-US-official-belies-claim-Osama-was-killed-in-AbbottabadPaul Roberts had also been a former editor for The Wall Street Journal after retirement and has authored almost a dozen books including “How America was Lost: From 9/11 to the Police/Warfare State”, which was published in 2014.
Reacting to the much publicized coverage of some recent claims by members of the US Navy SEALs team that reportedly killed bin Laden in Pakistan, Paul Roberts has claimed on the website of Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy (http://www.paulcraigroberts.org) in a detailed article titled “Another Fake Bin Laden Story” that Osama’s alleged death at the hands of a SEALs team was a propaganda orchestration to give Obama a hero’s laurels and subvert any Democratic talk of challenging his nomination for a second term.
Paul Roberts writes: “This fake story together with the fake movie and the fake book by an alleged SEALs team member is the way the fake story of Osama bin Laden’s murder is perpetrated. Osama bin Laden had died in December 2001 of renal failure and other health problems, having denied in his last recorded video any responsibility for 9/11, instead directing Americans to look inside their own government.
“The FBI itself has stated that there is no evidence that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. Bin Laden’s obituary appeared in numerous foreign and Arabic media and also on Fox News. No one can survive renal failure for a decade, and no dialysis machine was found in the alleged Abbottabad compound of bin Laden, who allegedly was murdered by SEALs a decade after his obituary notices”.
The ex-US Assistant Secretary of US Treasury Department further writes in his article: “No one among the crew of the ship from which the White House reported bin Laden was buried at sea saw any such burial, and the sailors sent messages home to that effect. Somehow a burial was held onboard a ship on which there are constant watches and crew on alert at all hours, and no one witnessed it. Additionally, the White House story of the alleged murder of bin Laden changed twice within the first 24 hours.
“The claim that Obama and his government watched the action transmitted live from cameras on the SEALs’ helmets was quickly abandoned, despite the release of a photo of the Obama regime intently focused on a TV set and alleged to be watching the live action. No video of the dead was ever released.
To date, there is no evidence whatsoever on behalf of the Obama regime’s claim. Not one tiny scrap. Just unsubstantiated self-serving claims”.
Paul Roberts further states that he has made available on his official website witnesses interviewed by [some] Pakistan TV [channels] saying that only one helicopter landed in Abbottabad and that when the occupants of the helicopter returned from the alleged bin Laden compound, the helicopter exploded on takeoff and there were no survivors.
“In other words, there was no bin Laden corpse to deliver to the ship that did not witness a burial and no SEALs hero to return who allegedly murdered an unarmed bin Laden. Moreover, the BBC interviewed residents in Abbottabad, including those next door to the alleged “bin Laden compound,” and all say that they knew the person who lived there and it was not bin Laden”.
Paul Roberts then makes a startling claim: “The reason the SEALs team was prevented from talking is that no member of the team was on the alleged mission. Just as the ship from which bin Laden was allegedly buried has no witnesses to the deed, the SEALs unit, whose members formed the team that allegedly dispatched an unarmed terrorist mastermind rather than to take him into custody for questioning, mysteriously died in a helicopter crash when they were loaded in violation of procedures in an unprotected 1960s vintage helicopter and sent into a combat zone in Afghanistan shortly after the alleged raid on bin Laden’s compound.”
It may be recalled that 30 US military personnel were killed in the eastern Afghanistan on August 6, 2011 when insurgents shot down an American military helicopter. The media reported at that time that the dead included 25 Navy SEALs from the same unit that carried out the May 2, 2011 raid in Pakistan that killed bin Laden. They were being flown by a crew of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment.
Going by the contents of Paul Craig Roberts’s article, there were news reports that the families of these dead SEALS do not believe one word of the government’s account. “Moreover, the families had reported receiving messages from the SEALs that suddenly they felt threatened and did not know why.
The SEALs had been asking one another: “Were you on the bin Laden mission?” Apparently, none were. To keep this a secret, the SEALs were sent to their deaths. Anyone who believes anything the US government says is gullible beyond the meaning of the word”.
Paul Roberts had earlier claimed in an article on the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks that the “corrupt” Bush and Obama regimes used 9/11 to kill, maim, dispossess and displace millions of Muslims in seven countries, none of whom had anything whatsoever to do with 9/11.
“The tragedy of September 11, 2001, goes far beyond the deaths of those who had died in the towers. For thirteen years a new generation of Americans has been born into the 9/11 myth that has been used to create the American warfare/police state.
- See more at: http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-33993-Ex-US-official-belies-claim-Osama-was-killed-in-Abbottabad#sthash.JxTqxxvW.dpuf
Pages: 1 ... 211212213 214215 ... 256
|
Show Posts
