Pissy because I'm not responding to your callouts any more? Such language.
Have a look at the bold part of what you wrote. That is why I replied with what I did.
Not at all pissy. I am not sure whether you are aware of how diversely the word "Fuck" or the phrase "Fuck off" can be used in Australia. This is probably a bit closer to how I was putting it out there.
You think "Fuck off" is "such language"? Really? Do you know where you are? You are on I2 where:
We stand for freedom of expression, combative debate, and the generation of ideas. There are no boundaries here over what may be said, save for one rule - be prepared to back up your words. Or face the wrath of the community.
Oh that is right, you don't back your shit up and your callout IS a testament of that. Does it bother me? No, why should it? It does not reflect on me that you will not back you. That would be moronic to even imply such a thing, wouldn't it be?
Though having said that. It seemed to be quite important to this guy. (A guy that "I" am not accountable to but YOU are):
....There is accountability, however. There is the fact that you had better back up your words when asked, or join some other, moderated, board instead.
The disclaimer says it all. If you are the sensitive type, there are plenty of other boards out there.
....I have no problem understanding why something like the PM spam happens. I just don't like it. It's sneaky and it's dishonest because it's not in the open. It feels very much like an attempt to avoid the accountability that is or at least should be central to how this place works. Remember that shit? Say whatever you like but be prepared to back up your words...
You're not making much sense. but yeah, I'm asking you to back up your shit because it's how we do things here.
Take your time.
....I think you should either prove me wrong, linking to any relevant posts, or shut up. In other words, back up your shit.
Notice, folks, how he never specifies his innuendos? Back up your shit, Cal, or just shut up. Homework, remember?
...Back up your shit. Or apologise.
C'mon, big boy, show me that you are more than an irresponsible internet tough guy.
....But always be prepared to back up your actions.
...I suggest you to back up your accusations or shut up.
I completely agree with the spirit and values as to what this quoted guy is saying. I concur. Imagine how much of a hypocrite he would be if he, after asserting others had to, didn't himself? I mean re-read those quotes. He was pretty expressive and there was no ambiguity.
Do you imagine that I have to answer to that? Nope, YOU do.
Its precisely the same hypocrisy as this:
If I attack somebody, at least I have the honesty to read his or her posts while attacking. Hell, even Benji gets that treatment.
....And I'm sure you'll continue this. This is Intensity, where people can post largely uncensored. And, in your case, unread.
Its an interesting trend, not one that I should feel bad about or pissy about nor one that I ought to or responsible about.
Firstly: In America there is a different culture relating to gun ownership than Australia or Europe. In America it is a constitutional right and as sacred as any other constitutional right. SO you will NOT be able to prevent people from buying guns nor change attitudes in respect to that. Its part of what makes Americans, Americans.
Gun ownership is actually not a constitutional right in the US, but it's what NRA would like you to believe. The Second Amendment s about the right to a well-regulated militia, not about every idiot being allowed to buy a semi-automatic (hence the "well-regulated").
But we happen to have a lawyer in our midst. Why not ask him?
Well I could but I am not the one arguing against it being a constitutional right. If he wants to jump in, I am more than happy for him to do so. As far as I am aware. The meaning of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Seems to me and many to specifically indicate a want of people to keep and bear arms. From what? From the as yet non-materialised threat of a "Government Tyranny". Furthermore any Government wishing to place perceived excessive restrictions on such ability for citizens to bear arms may by virtue of the fact that it is a heavily armed government taking away collective citizen's rights to bear those arms, as a tyrannical government.
The Government buyback in Australia worked well here but it is a different culture and a different relationship to guns than in America.
Government represent the citizens and as long as citizens associate the right to bear arms in the way that they do the government will not be able to stop citizens bearing arms or considering it a right to do so.
Furthermore I would argue that a well- regulated militia is a concept. It is one that does not exist today BUT in the event of calamity, as long as citizens were remaining to be armed, and at the rates that they were, could become organised and regulated. Disarming citizens and removing access to guns would kill the very concept.
I am happy to look at what others more learned than I am on another country's constitutional rights and the effect that these rights do or don't have but this seems to support what I said
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendmentSecondly: The gun free zones and gun controlled states tend to have the most gun related violence. Why? Again, it may be an American thing but if a criminal or a madman or terrorist (who is probably both of these other categories) decides to use guns (obtained illegally or legally) on people they don't like, are they likely to be least confident (AND "successful") in areas where no one else has guns? Or where any random person can pull out a concealed gun and come out blasting? Imagine you were in a nightclub without a weapon and feeling safe because guns were banned and then some guy walks in with a gun? Doesn't matter at that stage whether they obtained it legally or not.
It's interesting how the statistics vary, then. The risk of ending up face to face with a nutter with a gun is higher in the US than in, say, the UK. I'd much rather take my chances there because yes, I would feel more safe and the statistics would back me up.
And sure, I'd go with 4Ace's comment about letting them and Darwinism and all that, but there are plenty of Americans I like and would rather not having them killed by the next idiot anytime soon.
Orlando is par for the course, unfortunately. Trump, NRA & Co can label it as terrorism because it will probably make them feel better about their mess, but the fact is that it's not surprising in the least. Paris was surprising, Brussels was surprising. Another nutcase with a legally bought firearm in the US, not surprising in the least. Sad, yes. Surprising, no.
Are you for a moment saying that it was not Terrorism? Okay the the Paris attacks were not Terrorism. It was simply a group of people who self-identified with radical Isamic terrorist groups and wanted to terrorise and murder people on the basis of Radical Islamic ideology.
Fine OK, if that is our measure, sure, why not?
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=robbers+killed+conceal+and+carry
Thirdly: Its a bit like the "Toxic masculinity" arguments that Feminists have. Something like "Well obviously he is a toxic male and full of toxic masculinity. Men glorify violence and are the more violent gender. Men have to stop being violent".
Your argument whilst a little better is not that much better. Guns kill people, so in gun controlled Orlando, Mateen killed a heap of people with a gun. If not for that he would not have used a pipe bomb or arson or anything else.
A legally obtained gun, bought the previous week. You don't think there is a problem with that?
I think any hateful nutjob killing is abhorrent and no reasonable person would say otherwise. I think any person using a gun to kill someone is not good, unless in self-defence.
But I do not think this is what you are asking. You may be saying is it okay that this security guard had access to guns? Or maybe you are asking is it fine that someone who had been investigated by the FBI had been able to purchase a gun legally?
The answer to any of these questions is "Maybe". Did he slip through the cracks? Was he someone who was able to function in society without the right types of people able to make the right kinds of connections about him that would have otherwise exclude him from gun use? You don't know and neither do I. Do you want me to speculate or are you making a bigger point?
It was purely a gun problem:
Not purely, but it was a gun problem, yes.
If he had of used a pipe bomb to the same effect, it would have been a pipe bomb problem. If this is what you mean by "problem", that is fine. If you are meaning it in another way, then "no".
If there was absolutely sanctioning on guns, then criminals won't be able to get them.
They will not have any other reason to be more creative in how they kill.
Their ideology that compels them to be murderous would deplete.
They would all be well-adjusted.
The threat in America would disappear.
Everyone in America would hand over every single gun.
Everyone in America will embrace revoking of the Constitution rights.
Pigs fly
Okay with all of that in mind
Your words, not mine. I am not that naive. Are you trying to misrepresent what I am saying?
I hope you are not that naive but given the last few months I am forced to question pretty much everything you say.
Here is the thing, If Westboro Baptists decided to ramp up their hate a little more and started graffiti tombstones of service men and of gays whilst it would be a graffiti problem and the may be a graffiti problem in inner cities with tagging. They are not the same. They use the same tools and do similar damage but they are not the same. Th motive between the two are chalk and cheese.
Furthermore IF the Westboro Baptist started doing a few bombings and gun murders domestically and did them with their ideological righteous justifications, it would be foolhardy to either isolate the gun murders from the bombings or to consider the bombings with other domestic bombings and the gun murders with other gun murders.
If they then did online courses promoting their hate and encouraging others to do the same, if a course taker did follow their ideals and commit such crimes and identified as doing it for the Westboro Baptists and considered themselves a Westboro Baptist, it would not matter if they attended the parish or had a relationship personally with them.
Yeah, let's avoid any thoughts that could help avoid the next one.
How would THAT "avoid" the next one. What is the plan? Tell me something practical and not completely ludicrous that buys into your gun control in America narrative.
See above.
But what's your plan? Me, I would suggest that there is no god-given right for every idiot to obtain a gun, not without a proper background check or, say, a license. I would further suggest that at least some weapons should be off limits for most individuals, say, like those automatic things used in the last couple of shootings in the US.
No, it would not stop all the criminals but it would make it a lot harder for the lone nutjob to follow his every whim.
Why do you think the US is against North Korea's nuclear weapons? Any guesses? After all, there are plenty of countries with full nuclear capabilities. Why shouldn't they have them? If the US and Russia and China have them, why not North Korea?
No guesses?
I personally do not think ANY country should have nuclear weapons and further IF America has them, then so should Soviets and North Korea and any other country. They are terrible things but who can say who is safer with them. For decades there was a narrative that Russia was seconds away from flipping the switch. They were all crazy and unstable (what we here now of that North Korean fuckwit) apparently. However I say that Russia was no better or worse than America and I trust neither. Nor do i trust China, nor Israel nor the next country to make nuclear weapons.
No? Okay now let's look at this as a wider problem than a crazy homophobe with a gun.
Let's see his motive and whether America is at risk of imminent threat of more Mateens.
Absolutely. San Bernadino and 9/11 are two more examples of terrorist attacks on US soil from terrorists. So there is already a tiny element of US immigrants or second generation immigrants from Muslim countries and many of these people were displaced from their countries of birth or heritage due to US altercations. These are people with hatred to America and its allies and compassion for the Islamic countries from where they were displaced.
Don't go steal Donald's speeches. He'll be cross.
How many shootings on US soil do you suppose have anything to do with terrorism? Any guesses? The fact is that you don't know if the Orlando shootings were an act of terrorism, you only know that ISIS claimed credit for them.
But even if it did, with the current laws, he was a US citizen and obtained his weapon legally. What would you have them do? Throw out every second-generation immigrant, too? Ban Islam on US soil? Pretty sure that would not go well with their constitutional rights but I'm not a lawyer.
Why not ask the one we have among us?
Steal Donald Trump speeches? Let's be real. Even if Donald trump want to say or mean EXACTLY what I just wrote, he would reduce it all into an embarrassing soundbyte which would go something like this:
"Muslims come here and kill all of us because they all hate America."Then he would need someone like Katrina Pierson have to translate that for him. "When he said Muslims he mean Radicalised Islamic Muslim Fundamentalists, and when he said all of us, he meant all Americans everywhere are at risk of Radicalised Muslim violence. When he said they hate America, he meant Radical Muslims hate America".
Me? I am more nuanced. He isn't. He is more often than not cringeworthy to watch.
No I know that Mateen made trips to Afganistan and was inspired by a radical Iman and did courses from him that were anti-American and Pro-ISIS. I know that he pledged loyalty to ISIL.
If you want to say that he was not directed by ISIS, I agree, there is nothing showing this, BUT if you are saying the only link was ISIS taking credit for the murders, that simply is not true.
What exactly are you wanting me to ask MLA now? You want me to ask him something that you are wondering, about throwing out second generation immigrants? Its your question, you ask him if you like. I have no interest in it.
If you are wanting what my personal belief is that America should ramp up its screening and intel. It should crack down and monitor Hell out of any and all potential terrorism ties or associations within its borders. It should definitely try restrictive immigration measures.
What these measure should be? Dunno and what's more don't care. I do think that the want for a country to protect itself from foreign threats, and from toxic and harmful ideologies is very important. As to whether a security measure may regrettably also place a hold on non-radical Muslims wanting to peacefully immigrate and make another country their home....its bad luck. Truly bad luck. It is unfortunate but in my opinion until you can differentiate good from bad, it is okay erring on the side of caution.
So increase surveillance and access to intelligence on these communities in US may help deal with future potential problems BUT what will NOT is Clinton trying to bring in 500% of the current rates of Syrian refugees (When the Intelligence community in America registers that they are unable to confidently screen and vet everyone decently). Freezing Muslim immigration until America can screen more confidently will ABSOLUTELY reduce the potential of more similar attacks.
About 100,000 or so Syrian refugees had fled to Sweden by the end of last year, while a mere 4,000 got as far as the US. We have yet to have anything even remotely like Orlando or San Bernadino here, so I think what you are describing here is yet another logic fail in one of Donald's speeches (and I'm ignoring the blatant bigotry for now).
But the capital letters sure look dramatic.
There is no blatantly bigotry so by all means you can back that too.
Yes you say that the 100 000 Syrian refugees have not presented any problems for your country. I sincerely hope that they do not. I really, really do hope for that. I do not want Paris like attacks on your shores. Nor do I want your airports to be bombed like what happened in Brussels. Nor do I want Swedish New Year's sex attacks like the ones in Cologne. I also hope that there will never be rape gangs like there were in Rotherham in your community.
As to whether you have any of these issues and whether if you did, whether it would be informed through immigrant populations from Muslim countries, I don't know
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/175434/1-4-swedish-women-will-be-raped-sexual-assaults-daniel-greenfieldI hope not. I do not want you women, children and men in your community at risk. What about you?
