Post: #76

The hoplophobia is strong in this thread.

If someone is a threat to society, laws will not magically make them safe by depriving them the means to cause harm.

All disarmament laws do is make ordinary, peaceful citizens rely completely on the government for defense. And governments have shown themselves repeatedly incapable of providing the security they are ethically bound to provide, having stripped the citizenry of arms.

These are not opinions. They are statements of reality, easily confirmed simply by paying attention to the world around us.

Gun control does nothing to prevent crime. If that was the real reason governments disarm their citizens, I'd call it an abject failure. However, the real reason governments disarm their citizens is so they can control them. A government monopoly on the use of deadly force is a statist's wet dream.

How many mass killings and genocides have been prefaced by strict gun control laws? The Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, untold millions dead in China, likewise in the Soviet Union, Khmer Rouge, Guatemala, Uganda, Rwanda... All in the last 100 years. Tell me again how it's a great idea to hand over my guns to the government?

Oh, no doubt I'll be considered a kook for imagining that such things could happen in the US or another Western country. Things are different here!

Only, the US government doesn't have such a great track record itself, does it? Ignoring all the fun stuff that happened before the 20th century, we interned over 100,000 people, mostly American citizens, simply for having the wrong ancestry. At least we didn't kill them; I guess that's a bit of silver lining on a rather dark cloud.

If I need to point out all the alarming things the US government has been doing domestically since 9/11, you must have been living under a rock down a mine shaft.

To address the original point about privately owned and carried guns being a net plus or minus in society, if the government is not capable of protecting the citizenry at the micro level, the most rational response--assuming the safety of individual citizens is a good thing--is allowing citizens the means to defend themselves everywhere they go. That increases the odds that there will be a "white hat" with a gun nearby when things go sideways, in a position to do something about it.

"Blood in the streets!" they cry, "Anarchy!"

"Shootouts over parking spaces!"

Yes, yes. I've heard it all before, several times. And yet those doomsday predictions have never manifested, even when states passed laws allowing all adults to carry weapons without so much as a training class or permit.

So, it would seem that reality disagrees with the gun controllers' notion that an armed citizenry is a bad thing. The best you can claim is it is a net neutral, and my research suggests rather that widespread ownership and carry of firearms results in lower violent crime than strict gun control laws.

But it's okay. I know that gun controllers are either uneducated on the matter or allowing their emotions to guide them, rather than relying on careful thought and research.

So don't think I'm trying to change your minds; that's not possible until you get your own swift, sharp shock someday: when you realize that holy shit, the dangerous situation you were just in would've been a lot less harrowing if you were armed. Hopefully you will be able to skate through life hating weapons and espousing gun control without ever having to face the limits of your beliefs for real, and I mean that sincerely, because I certainly don't wish you all to come to harm simply for believing something silly.

I'm simply writing this for the peanut gallery, so to speak, to provide some food for thought.

I assure you that the victims of mass shootings, and the people in the vicinity who are lucky enough to escaped unscathed, are not thinking 'boy I'm glad the government outlawed guns!' when they're in mortal peril, or bleeding out on the sidewalk.

Post: #77

The terrorist was part of an immigrant gang and had served one year in prison for a stabbing.

Post: #78

(02-16-2015 09:20 AM)weambulance Wrote:  The hoplophobia is strong in this thread.
I assure you that the victims of mass shootings, and the people in the vicinity who are lucky enough to escaped unscathed, are not thinking 'boy I'm glad the government outlawed guns!' when they're in mortal peril, or bleeding out on the sidewalk.

Hey, you win, we give up!

I truly think Americans want everyone here to be allowed to have guns, and the NRA is powerful enough to keep it so. You can buy 50 guns if you want--no, 100, no 500.

Why do you complain if some people don't like it? you have the law on your side and have what you want.

It's your country, the USA courts have interpreted the constitution to mean you have a right to guns.

Post: #79

(02-16-2015 11:08 AM)berserk Wrote:  The terrorist was part of an immigrant gang and had served one year in prison for a stabbing.

Probably had a Muslim father who radicalized him. He read the Koran as an adult and followed it to it's logical conclusion.

Post: #80

(02-16-2015 11:21 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(02-16-2015 09:20 AM)weambulance Wrote:  The hoplophobia is strong in this thread.
I assure you that the victims of mass shootings, and the people in the vicinity who are lucky enough to escaped unscathed, are not thinking 'boy I'm glad the government outlawed guns!' when they're in mortal peril, or bleeding out on the sidewalk.

Hey, you win, we give up!

I truly think Americans want everyone here to be allowed to have guns, and the NRA is powerful enough to keep it so. You can buy 50 guns if you want--no, 100, no 500.

Why do you complain if some people don't like it? you have the law on your side and have what you want.

It's your country, the USA courts have interpreted the constitution to mean you have a right to guns.

It's better to have a fighting chance than no chance, something most humans aside from first world Europeans and SWPLs fundamentally understand.

There's a defeatist mentality at work in the west that has convinced people it's pointless to even try fighting and immoral to fight effectively against members of an "oppressed" group.

Post: #81

(02-16-2015 11:30 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(02-16-2015 11:08 AM)berserk Wrote:  The terrorist was part of an immigrant gang and had served one year in prison for a stabbing.

Probably had a Muslim father who radicalized him. He read the Koran as an adult and followed it to it's logical conclusion.

The local Nørrebro immigrant gang "brothas" was interviewed claiming they knew the terrorist, but that he was a loner and that they had nothing to do with him. So he was probably not IN the gang.

His father was also interviewed saying he was in total shock. http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/terror/fa...ok/5445206

many people put flowers where he was killed, and one of his friends said that it was all right to do it because of the drawings of the profet. The flowers were later removed by young muslims saying that in islam you don't put flowers:
http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/terror/ve...dt/5445654

Post: #82

(02-16-2015 02:07 PM)makaveli Wrote:  

(02-16-2015 11:30 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(02-16-2015 11:08 AM)berserk Wrote:  The terrorist was part of an immigrant gang and had served one year in prison for a stabbing.

Probably had a Muslim father who radicalized him. He read the Koran as an adult and followed it to it's logical conclusion.

The local Nørrebro immigrant gang "brothas" was interviewed claiming they knew the terrorist, but that he was a loner and that they had nothing to do with him. So he was probably not IN the gang.

His father was also interviewed saying he was in total shock. http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/terror/fa...ok/5445206

many people put flowers where he was killed, and one of his friends said that it was all right to do it because of the drawings of the profet. The flowers were later removed by young muslims saying that in islam you don't put flowers:
http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/terror/ve...dt/5445654

The father is a liar. And I my guess about the father being a Muslim was correct.

I know the father is a liar about being in shock because the shooter had been arrested twice previously for religious related crimes. Where the fuck was the father during these prior arrests?

Smells like bullshit the whole way down.

Post: #83

Most of these older immigrant fathers are not the brightest. They are in no position to actually preach the Quran, many are barely literate. He has probably spent a lot of time lambasting the horrible infidel culture in between his frequent violent outbursts on his children, but any kind of Quran studies I doubt it. Another thing the left neglects is the systemic child abuse in these families.

Post: #84

(02-16-2015 03:00 PM)berserk Wrote:  Another thing the left neglects is the systemic child abuse in these families.

Is this meant to imply that the right even acknowledges child abuse?

Post: #85

(02-16-2015 02:25 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I know the father is a liar about being in shock because the shooter had been arrested twice previously for religious related crimes. Where the fuck was the father during these prior arrests?

Smells like bullshit the whole way down.

I saw he was arrested for two crimes but I found nothing to say they were religious.
At least nothing that would convince someone who didn't already know about Islamic gangs.

Post: #86

Why do people keep saying sarcastically "Religion of Peace?"
Is there any Muslims anywhere who says that Islam is a "Religion of Peace?"
It isn't any more or less peaceful than any other religion

Post: #87

It's not more or less peaceful than any other religion? Really? That comment is beyond stupid.

Post: #88

(02-16-2015 05:25 PM)Muk Wrote:  Why do people keep saying sarcastically "Religion of Peace?"
Is there any Muslims anywhere who says that Islam is a "Religion of Peace?"
It isn't any more or less peaceful than any other religion

Definitely. I live in Taiwan and let me tell you, I am absolutely terrified of all of these Buddhists. They are some scary motherfuckers, as proven by the dozens of terrorist attacks we've seen committed by them around the world over the past few years.

iknowexactly: I get what you're saying. I have seen these little darlings a few years before you have, through the joy of working in the education system in underclass areas. I eventually had to get out also because I was sick of all of the liberal excuse making.

However, introducing a full-on police state is not the solution. Why should responsible people be treated as (potential) criminals just because the system won't deal with the real threats? I am old enough to remember when airports didn't go through the pretense of patting down little old ladies named Mavis. Deport, lock up and throw away the key, or execute anyone who is a certified menace to everyone else. That's the real solution.

Post: #89

The problem with that fiesbook is that someone will call up abstract principles akin to some egalitarian or idealism code to combat physical reaction to a physical threat, and we're right back at square one with our hands tied behind our back.

Post: #90

deleted

Post: #91

(02-15-2015 09:08 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 09:37 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  +1 for the person who can find the mainstream news article/report that is quickest to blame Danes for this.

What do you think, twelve hours from attack to blaming Danes? Or maybe 24 hours?

This is a paper claimed to be blaming the free speech cartoonist, Lars Vilk, the very next morning of the attack. I can't verify because I don't speak Dutch, but I had to provide this for the sake of exposing the constant insanity.

(02-15-2015 09:15 PM)Lion of Judah Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 09:08 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 09:37 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  +1 for the person who can find the mainstream news article/report that is quickest to blame Danes for this.

What do you think, twelve hours from attack to blaming Danes? Or maybe 24 hours?

This is a paper claimed to be blaming the free speech cartoonist, Lars Vilk, the very next morning of the attack. I can't verify because I don't speak Dutch, but I had to provide this for the sake of exposing the constant insanity.

I think that's Swedish.

Confirmed. Translation: The Swede's drawings of the face of the prophet Muhammed have now claimed one life in Denmark.

Implied: Vilks is the one to blame.

From liberal marxist newspaper Expressen. I'd be hard pressed to find a newspaper I dislike more. I'm quite a bit drunk but I think that's a pretty accurate translation.

Didn't read the whole thread but as a Swede I always view any attack against a Nordic country as more or less attack on Sweden. Just fucking decapitate all these islamist and terrorist clowns if you ask me.

Post: #92

(02-16-2015 09:18 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  The problem with that fiesbook is that someone will call up abstract principles akin to some egalitarian or idealism code to combat physical reaction to a physical threat, and we're right back at square one with our hands tied behind our back.

My solution is the following:

1. Put a complete moratorium upon third world (particularly Islamic) immigration;
2a. (Soft version) end any and all policies of multiculturalism and push a hard line of integration within a certain time frame, with penalties of deportation, mosque closures, etc. for additional incidents, or 2b. (Hard version) deport Muslims;
3. Accept that the majority of normal people are going to be able to behave themselves without requiring a complete nanny state, and severely punish the tiny minority who step out of line.

We don't ban alcohol across the board. Some people can enjoy a drink in a completely responsible manner. What we do instead is limit or prevent the acquisition and consumption of alcohol for those who can't act responsibly (e.g. minors), and heavily punish those who should be able to act responsibly but who don't. In the meantime, everyone else can go out and enjoy the benefits of living in a civilised society. Generally speaking, that's worked pretty well as a Western legal principle for several hundred years now. If something needs to be thrown out, it's not what has worked for a long time now, it's something/someone else.

Denmark and most other European nations didn't have a problem of twits running around doing these things before. Now Europe does. What's changed? The Danes and other Europeans haven't. Despite their idiotic liberalism, they're still a civil and civilised populace. Deal with the elephant in the room, not the Danes or other Europeans themselves. In the words of Michael Bolton in Office Space, "Why should I change? He's the one who sucks!"

Post: #93

(02-16-2015 11:21 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  It's your country, the USA courts have interpreted the constitution to mean you have a right to guns.

How would the courts 'interpret' the second amendment any other way?

G

Post: #94

(02-17-2015 12:11 AM)Geomann180 Wrote:  

(02-16-2015 11:21 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  It's your country, the USA courts have interpreted the constitution to mean you have a right to guns.

How would the courts 'interpret' the second amendment any other way?

G

No other way at all. You win. Stop badgering the witness lol.

Post: #95

The soft implementation is preferable and I'd personally hate to see all Muslims deported because of the bad apples. In fact, I believe unyielding good is inherent in some people, like my old, Iraqi interpreter I correspond with from time to time. He started working for the NATO coalition when he was 16 years old until recently. I'm not sure if he still works for the US consulate in Baghdad, but he and his family still live in Mosul during all this fighting. He was very depressed last time I spoke to him and I haven't been in contact with him for some months. I always think of him when the Iraqi news comes on and it makes me angry.

The problem with enforcing a soft moratorium on radicals is that we are already doing that in the US under our national legal system, but subversive "rights" and "focus" groups that secretly support terrorism march and protest for these radicals. They are disguised as fellow peaceful citizens and camouflage themselves among actual concerned or scared protesters. Their presence is made to suggest that what appears to be reasonable people are demonstrating for a particular cause, therefore those they're demonstrating for, or the cause itself, can't be that bad, right? We're left with either exploiting a loophole that only a seasoned legal expert would find or having the FBI, DHS and CIA increase on 'wet work'. This doesn't seem possible since the Obama administration has appointed radical apologists as heads of most of these posts.