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 - Flee
Pages: 1 ... 191192193 194195 ... 520
5761
« on: January 02, 2016, 07:51:18 AM »
Any gun control is a violation of 2nd amendment rights.
Your Supreme Court and legislators seem to disagree, though.
5762
« on: January 02, 2016, 07:48:51 AM »
The comments on these articles are brilliant, though. And by brilliant I mean so painfully stupid that it worries me that these people can actually vote. Drinking game: down a shot every time someone mentions "muslim brotherhood", "gun grab", "Hussein Obummer/Oboso", "9/11", "communist", and "cold dead hands". Alcohol induced coma by the time you're half a page into the top rated comments.
5763
« on: January 02, 2016, 06:09:40 AM »
Two things: I don't see any reasons to suggest that these are no-knock raids. People requesting a gun restraining order who do so out of spite, with knowingly false information or for the purposes of harassing someone will be guilty of a crime. No doubt that such requests will still be made, but I reckon that a lot of those mad ex-girlfriends will think twice when it's made clear to them that they're likely going to have to issue an actual testimony for the court and that they'll be charged with a misdemeanor if it turns out they're lying or abusing the system.
5764
« on: January 02, 2016, 04:50:14 AM »
President Obama has said he will take unilateral action to tackle the problem of gun violence in the US. Obama yes. But Mr Obama told Americans that he had received too many letters from parents, and teachers, and children, to sit around and do nothing. Obama no. I know that US politics are all populism, but this should be happening on the basis of proper research and facts, not appeals to emotion and "someone please think of the children".
5765
« on: January 02, 2016, 04:34:37 AM »
A few things about your post:
- Belgian weapons regulations are anything but relaxed at this point. They weren't always like that, but we've had strict gun control on par with the rest of Europe for over a decade now. It's mainly our geographical location and remnants of the old ways that's a bother now.
- The Dutroux* incident lead to a complete overhaul of the country's law enforcement system almost 20 years ago, unifying and standardizing police services on a federal level. Not gonna say it was always like this, but I think our police force is rather competent at this point.
- There's an additional half a billion euros being added to the anti-terrorism budget, which is quite substantial for a country that's about as large as the tinier American states and only has a few million residents, along with legislative and executive changes being made to combat terrorism and threats more effectively.
- There is a national identity even though it's arguably still too undeveloped. Research shows that it's been on the rise over the past 15 years though, with larger majorities of people primarily identifying as Belgian rather than Flemish/Walloon.
But yeah, there's a lot of issues too. Turns out that essentially cramming dissidents from 2 (3, after WW2) different countries with different languages and cultures together in a country isn't always the best idea. Like Psy said, we're kind of a divided country where bureaucracy and inertia are the result of numerous semi-autonomous communities working together. It's a shame, really. I like my country, but I'm far from blind to the many issues it has.
5766
« on: January 01, 2016, 06:21:43 PM »
Nah, this was pretty much all I was hoping to see. "If you're only into the games, there's not really much to complain about." Even if you're only into the games there's a lot to complain about
I never completed Spartan Ops and don't even remember most of what happened in Halo 4, so I don't have many complaints.
5767
« on: January 01, 2016, 06:18:39 PM »
So why is the story so bad? It's pretty disappointing with the whole manhunt thing and the predictable ending, but I can't say I thought it was downright awful. I have to admit that I know little about Halo's lore, so I can't comment on how accurate it is or anything like that. Story isn't great, but I was expecting much worse after how much criticism it's gotten. No Blue team background besides like a sentence from Locke.
Killed off Jul 'Mdama in the first level, making pretty much all of Spartan Ops and Escalation completely pointless.
The entirety of Halo 4's story has no impact because it's brushed off like nothing happened.
The Next 72 Hours arc from Escalation means nothing.
Didact was mentioned once.
Cortana's revival utterly destroyed all significance and impact of Halo 4's ending
What manhunt?
The Halo 2-tier ending.
So pretty much all expanded lore and continuity complaints. Good to know. Cortana has control of a Ring. Pretty clear.
Well yeah. I was just wondering about the planet in the background, which Halo or AI this might be, the possible significance of her humming Guilty Spark's tune (I think?) and so on.
5768
« on: January 01, 2016, 06:01:53 PM »
I could go more in depth if you want.
Nah, this was pretty much all I was hoping to see. "If you're only into the games, there's not really much to complain about." I read Ghosts of Onyx when it came out almost a decade ago, but other than that my knowledge of Halo's expanded lore is pretty limited.
5769
« on: January 01, 2016, 04:37:42 PM »
So why is the story so bad? It's pretty disappointing with the whole manhunt thing and the predictable ending, but I can't say I thought it was downright awful. I have to admit that I know little about Halo's lore, so I can't comment on how accurate it is or anything like that. Story isn't great, but I was expecting much worse after how much criticism it's gotten.
Also, the legendary ending. What does it mean?
5770
« on: December 31, 2015, 07:36:05 PM »
This could be interesting. The benefits and merits of similar police gun removal laws in cases of domestic violence are rarely disputed and have been shown to save lives, as the presence of firearms in abusive households is related to more serious and more lethal domestic violence. If managed properly, I could see a bill like this doing some good. Should be interesting to see the analysis of its results a bit down the line.
This is the LAPD.
They're as bad if not worse than the thugs in the streets.
I wouldn't know about that, I'm just commenting on the bill itself.
But that's what I'm saying. This seems like it's easy to abuse.
By the police not respecting time limits?
Not so much that, but then taking guns on a whim. With any excuse used to take somebody's guns.
Temporary weapon seizures by police in relation to domestic abuse already exist in 18 states (and have done so for decades) and this law is almost entirely based on that system. As far as I'm aware, there's not much significant abuse going on with the current laws. This new bill requires the restraining order to be: approved by a court, supported by a judicial officer and asserted by a law enforcement officer, reasonable and demonstrable cause to assume that the person in question poses an immediate and present danger of injury and lacking existence of other alternative less restrictive measures that are adequate, proportionate and effective. People submitting random claims that they know aren't correct or are done so for the purpose of harassing another person will be charged with a misdemeanor penalty.
Not saying abuse can't happen, but there do seem to be reasonable safeguards in place.
I know what a warrant is, thank you.
This is a slippery slope. Because the democrats DO want to take guns from people. They've been very clear on that.
A warrant and a gun restraining order like this are two very different things, though. Figured I'd just summarize what the actual bill said about safeguards and procedural guarantees as the article neglects doing so. And if it is a slippery slope, it's not a very steep one. A very similar system (as in the temporary seizure of firearms by police) has existed for cases of potential domestic abuse and violence in over one third of all US states for decades now. Expanding these laws to possibly include not just potential domestic violence but also serious threats against other persons is still far from organized and large scale confiscation.
5771
« on: December 31, 2015, 03:29:17 PM »
I found that my 2DS worked just fine for Pokemon. Not sure how good it would be for playing more intensive games like Smash, though. All depends on what games you'd want to play, I suppose.
5772
« on: December 31, 2015, 09:52:29 AM »
Nope.
5773
« on: December 31, 2015, 09:50:05 AM »
5774
« on: December 31, 2015, 09:49:10 AM »
BRITISH JERBS FOR BRITISH WERKERS
5775
« on: December 30, 2015, 11:38:18 AM »
This could be interesting. The benefits and merits of similar police gun removal laws in cases of domestic violence are rarely disputed and have been shown to save lives, as the presence of firearms in abusive households is related to more serious and more lethal domestic violence. If managed properly, I could see a bill like this doing some good. Should be interesting to see the analysis of its results a bit down the line.
This is the LAPD.
They're as bad if not worse than the thugs in the streets.
I wouldn't know about that, I'm just commenting on the bill itself.
But that's what I'm saying. This seems like it's easy to abuse.
By the police not respecting time limits?
Not so much that, but then taking guns on a whim. With any excuse used to take somebody's guns.
Temporary weapon seizures by police in relation to domestic abuse already exist in 18 states (and have done so for decades) and this law is almost entirely based on that system. As far as I'm aware, there's not much significant abuse going on with the current laws. This new bill requires the restraining order to be: approved by a court, supported by a judicial officer and asserted by a law enforcement officer, reasonable and demonstrable cause to assume that the person in question poses an immediate and present danger of injury and lacking existence of other alternative less restrictive measures that are adequate, proportionate and effective. People submitting random claims that they know aren't correct or are done so for the purpose of harassing another person will be charged with a misdemeanor penalty. Not saying abuse can't happen, but there do seem to be reasonable safeguards in place.
5776
« on: December 30, 2015, 09:58:35 AM »
This could be interesting. The benefits and merits of similar police gun removal laws in cases of domestic violence are rarely disputed and have been shown to save lives, as the presence of firearms in abusive households is related to more serious and more lethal domestic violence. If managed properly, I could see a bill like this doing some good. Should be interesting to see the analysis of its results a bit down the line.
This is the LAPD.
They're as bad if not worse than the thugs in the streets.
I wouldn't know about that, I'm just commenting on the bill itself.
But that's what I'm saying. This seems like it's easy to abuse.
By the police not respecting time limits?
5777
« on: December 30, 2015, 07:46:37 AM »
This could be interesting. The benefits and merits of similar police gun removal laws in cases of domestic violence are rarely disputed and have been shown to save lives, as the presence of firearms in abusive households is related to more serious and more lethal domestic violence. If managed properly, I could see a bill like this doing some good. Should be interesting to see the analysis of its results a bit down the line.
This is the LAPD.
They're as bad if not worse than the thugs in the streets.
I wouldn't know about that, I'm just commenting on the bill itself.
5778
« on: December 30, 2015, 06:58:22 AM »
This could be interesting. The benefits and merits of similar police gun removal laws in cases of domestic violence are rarely disputed and have been shown to save lives, as the presence of firearms in abusive households is related to more serious and more lethal domestic violence. If managed properly, I could see a bill like this doing some good. Should be interesting to see the analysis of its results a bit down the line.
5779
« on: December 29, 2015, 04:40:31 PM »
Genuine question: are higher level XP/RP boosts cursed? I have only been put into an ongoing game of Warzone once before today. Now, I decided to use some of the higher level (uncommon, rare...) boosts that I had double. 4 games in a row I use thoses boosts. 4 games in a row I get put in the middle of a losing game with attricious team mates, hundreds of points behind and with 3-4 man less than the opposing team.
5780
« on: December 27, 2015, 11:56:50 AM »
I've had each and every one of those. I don't believe you. Face it, we have world class beer now. The new world is taking its seat at the table for making great beer. That stings, I know. We got you on colonialism and beer now. I never denied that the US doesn't have great beer. Some of my favorites are American. No need to get upset just because I don't think it's better than some of the Belgian ones or because I share your taste in strong bitters. To each their own.
5781
« on: December 27, 2015, 05:36:39 AM »
>47% votes for the US
You people will drive me to suicide one day. Come visit and we'll share some Chimay, Chouffe, Gueuze, Westvleteren, Cantillon, Rochefort, Bernardus, Westmalle and Rodenbach.
5782
« on: December 27, 2015, 05:30:11 AM »
If we're counting cider, then the U.K. obviously. But, I presume you aren't. Strictly in terms of beer, we have Old Speckled Hen but other than that the U.K. is pretty shit.
However, the correct answer is the Netherlands. Which you were too stupid to include in the poll.
Heineken is literally the Bud Light of Europe.
Amstel is nothing special either.
Literally this. The Netherlands make pleb beers. I'd even put the US above them.
5783
« on: December 26, 2015, 05:50:21 AM »
Damn. Best of luck to you.
5784
« on: December 26, 2015, 03:57:11 AM »
Also, is playing the devil's advocate a popular thing around here, or am I just getting this treatment?
I'm only doing it because you asked a neutral question. You wondered why voting restrictions can apply to prisoners so I gave you the reasons for it. It doesn't happen very often, as people are usually pretty straightforward about what they believe in.
5785
« on: December 26, 2015, 03:49:10 AM »
Flee's just mad tgat the world's best IPA's come from SoCal
Don't get me wrong, the US has some good smaller and local brews. But are they better than the beers made by ancient, closed and secluded societies of Belgian monks who have dedicated their entire lives to perfecting their beers in abbeys going back years before your country was even founded? Naw man.
5786
« on: December 26, 2015, 02:58:45 AM »
>40% votes for America 
5787
« on: December 25, 2015, 04:57:15 PM »
Just playing the devil's advocate here. I personally don't think any of those reasons stand up against scrutiny and definitely don't support (blanket) restrictions on the right of prisoners to vote. I'm just explaining to you why this is a thing and why some people support it.
5788
« on: December 25, 2015, 03:16:22 PM »
Question 27 doesn't make sense. Why should convicts not be allowed to vote?
The main idea behind felony disenfranchisement is that elections relate exclusively to what goes on in society. People in prison are effectively outside of the workings of a normal society and giving them a say in its governance would therefore not make sense or could skew results as politicians may directly target these groups with promises to change the system for their benefit. Additionally, some see it as an extra punishment or, from a practical perspective, find that people imprisoned for long periods of time have lost touch with society and are ignorant of current events or incapable to properly voice an opinion on them. There's plenty of countries that prevent a lot of its prisoners from voting, most notably the US and the UK. The UK's about to get rid of its blanket ban thanks to the ECJ and ECtHR, though, so that's great news.
5789
« on: December 25, 2015, 09:05:21 AM »
Not liking is not the same as disliking. I'm pretty much completely indifferent. I'm not a fan of his music and from the things I picked up over the years, he doesn't sound like a very good or nice person either. But actively disliking him would imply me actually caring about him, which I really don't.
5790
« on: December 24, 2015, 06:21:35 AM »
:^)
I put the same. It's our patriotic duty as Europeans to look down on gun-toting fanatics.
Preach it, brother. In the modern era, armed societies and militias have overwhelmingly fostered tyranny rather than protect liberty.
Pages: 1 ... 191192193 194195 ... 520
|
Show Posts