Provide documentation as to how a Soviet-style "health care" scheme would have prevented Adam Lanza from murdering, considering the fact that his family could well afford any "care" he needed.
There is no such "right not to be shot", as that will require the consent of your assailant, which you will never get as long as you are defenseless. Furthermore, you have no rights which infringe upon the natural rights of others.
I was listening to the local anti-American socialist/communist radio station, and they had the fat loudmouth Ed Schultz and his sycophant callers hollering about how we need to "stand up to the NRA" and ban guns. It's always the same "people" - the Left, who are always seeking more power for the State.
I for one think that anyone who advocates gun control or gun bans deserves to be killed. Any politician who tries to enact gun control legislation or gun bans as a result of this needs to be killed, preferably after being tortured.
Given that the median voter is a Gimmiedat - non-Asian minorities and single, white female sluts voting for government largess, it's no surprise that Obama won.
Fortunately, as an entrepreneur and a member of the top one percent, I can always lay off all my employees and live comfortably while disposing of my wealth faster than the Leviathan can seize it, instead of creating businesses, employment, and actual tax paying entities.
I think I'll do that. It sucks to be Leviathan, because it could have gotten far, far more money if it had not been a bastard.
Hopefully decisions like mine will hasten the coming economic and social collapse.
...was that more "people" who "think" like you weren't killed.
You want to solve the health care problem? Repeal EMTALA and the various laws that shift costs and shield pharmaceutical companies and health care providers from competition.
But you don't want that, because that would mean less power for the government, less power that sub-humans like you have over people like me.
Tax incentives, and governments "allowing" telecom companies to raise rates is not a "huge corporate giveaway", and is certainly not the same as government paying for the infrastructure.
Setting up terrorist death squad training camps whose product raped and murdered thousands including nuns?
They may have killed a few thousand, but they were at war against those like you - funded and supported from abroad - whose ideological compatriots had murdered millions.
It's the percentage of population that matters. Islam spreads primarily though violence. The borders of Islam are bloody. When Muslims are one to two percent of the population, you see sporadic violence and terror. When Muslims are five to ten percent of the population, full scale war sets in, as we see in as in Thailand and the Philippines, and the beginnings of which we are seeing in France.
Any reasonable person will also acknowledge that banning assault weapons is not banning access to guns for purposes that do not conflict with public safety.
Define "assault weapon", and give rational reasons for their prohibition.;
Has it ever occurred to you that you might just deserve to be modded down into oblivion, maybe for using murder to push an unpopular political agenda and demonizing those who disagree with you?
Technology is powerful, there's no way to argue with that. Look at the evolution of guns. Look at the advent of the Maxim gun. Do you think that the laws at the time covered cases where people start stockpiling automatic weapons?
As irrelevant to the Second Amendment as the Internet and instantaneous mass-communication is to the First. The purpose was to, at the very least, have military small arms in the hands of the citizenry. As a legal owner of one of the few full-auto Colt M16A2s manufactured and registered prior to May of 1986, I can tell you that the only practical use of automatic fire is for suppression. If you really want to kill someone, it's far more efficient to use aimed semi-automatic fire.
By the way, there were privately owned, heavily armed frigates around in the early days of the united States that were capable of doing quite a bit of damage.
Technology has the power to enable to the user past their original abilities and as such, yes, we do find ourselves forced to regulate certain extremes.
Facial recognition software does not fall anywhere near 'extreme'.
As a small business owner, a member of the top one percent, and as an investor in many other small businesses, I can say with certainty that we stopped hiring due to Obamacare.
The small business I run personally has around 50 employees. Since the employer mandate only applies to businesses over 50 employees, I'm seriously considering laying people off come 2014.
The Love Canal landfill was perfectly fine, properly sealed and maintained by the company, which was unwilling to sell it. The local GOVERNMENT, wanting to build a school, came along and threatened to seize the land using eminent domain. The company relented and sold the property for one dollar, with the deed stating that the site was dangerous for human habitation. The local GOVERNMENT then proceeded to dig up the site for a sewer system and landscaping.
That's just one example. The rest of your points would collapse under similar scrutiny.
But, please, don't let me get in the way of your excellent "hooray for me, fuck you"/"all's fair in love and war" attitude. Just don't expect much sympathy when society adopts the same mentality and starts rolling the guillotines through the gated communities. It's happened before, and it's gonna happen again.
Thank you for once again proving my point that all of leftism is based on the threat of violence.
By the way, I'm wiling to bet that non-leftists have a higher gun ownership rate than "liberals" and "progressives".
These "Stand Your Ground" Laws that we have thanks to ALEC and the NRA are meant only to protect white people who shoot blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, etc.
Look, I understand that you want white people to be murdered before they're allowed to defend themselves against blacks, but you do realize that Zimmerman is half Hispanic, don't you?
I guess that pretty much blows your entire narrative up in your face, doesn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
Provide documentation as to how a Soviet-style "health care" scheme would have prevented Adam Lanza from murdering, considering the fact that his family could well afford any "care" he needed.
You seem to be swimming in a deficit of contemporary references.
Besides, the State was on the side of giving women the privilege of voting for an even larger State.
There is no such "right not to be shot", as that will require the consent of your assailant, which you will never get as long as you are defenseless. Furthermore, you have no rights which infringe upon the natural rights of others.
I was listening to the local anti-American socialist/communist radio station, and they had the fat loudmouth Ed Schultz and his sycophant callers hollering about how we need to "stand up to the NRA" and ban guns. It's always the same "people" - the Left, who are always seeking more power for the State.
I for one think that anyone who advocates gun control or gun bans deserves to be killed. Any politician who tries to enact gun control legislation or gun bans as a result of this needs to be killed, preferably after being tortured.
Given that the median voter is a Gimmiedat - non-Asian minorities and single, white female sluts voting for government largess, it's no surprise that Obama won.
Fortunately, as an entrepreneur and a member of the top one percent, I can always lay off all my employees and live comfortably while disposing of my wealth faster than the Leviathan can seize it, instead of creating businesses, employment, and actual tax paying entities.
I think I'll do that. It sucks to be Leviathan, because it could have gotten far, far more money if it had not been a bastard.
Hopefully decisions like mine will hasten the coming economic and social collapse.
...was that more "people" who "think" like you weren't killed.
You want to solve the health care problem? Repeal EMTALA and the various laws that shift costs and shield pharmaceutical companies and health care providers from competition.
But you don't want that, because that would mean less power for the government, less power that sub-humans like you have over people like me.
Tax incentives, and governments "allowing" telecom companies to raise rates is not a "huge corporate giveaway", and is certainly not the same as government paying for the infrastructure.
Setting up terrorist death squad training camps whose product raped and murdered thousands including nuns?
They may have killed a few thousand, but they were at war against those like you - funded and supported from abroad - whose ideological compatriots had murdered millions.
The US populace is majority christian nation and they caused hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilizans,
Most Iraqis died due to Muslim-on-Muslim violence.
and their president said "God told me to invade Iraq". Truly a bloody religion.
Liar.
It's the percentage of population that matters. Islam spreads primarily though violence. The borders of Islam are bloody. When Muslims are one to two percent of the population, you see sporadic violence and terror. When Muslims are five to ten percent of the population, full scale war sets in, as we see in as in Thailand and the Philippines, and the beginnings of which we are seeing in France.
Any reasonable person will also acknowledge that banning assault weapons is not banning access to guns for purposes that do not conflict with public safety.
Define "assault weapon", and give rational reasons for their prohibition.;
Has it ever occurred to you that you might just deserve to be modded down into oblivion, maybe for using murder to push an unpopular political agenda and demonizing those who disagree with you?
Technology is powerful, there's no way to argue with that. Look at the evolution of guns. Look at the advent of the Maxim gun. Do you think that the laws at the time covered cases where people start stockpiling automatic weapons?
As irrelevant to the Second Amendment as the Internet and instantaneous mass-communication is to the First. The purpose was to, at the very least, have military small arms in the hands of the citizenry. As a legal owner of one of the few full-auto Colt M16A2s manufactured and registered prior to May of 1986, I can tell you that the only practical use of automatic fire is for suppression. If you really want to kill someone, it's far more efficient to use aimed semi-automatic fire.
By the way, there were privately owned, heavily armed frigates around in the early days of the united States that were capable of doing quite a bit of damage.
Technology has the power to enable to the user past their original abilities and as such, yes, we do find ourselves forced to regulate certain extremes.
Facial recognition software does not fall anywhere near 'extreme'.
2. I have the right to own any firearm I wish
That's correct.
If you have a problem with that, perhaps you need to be shot.
As a small business owner, a member of the top one percent, and as an investor in many other small businesses, I can say with certainty that we stopped hiring due to Obamacare.
The small business I run personally has around 50 employees. Since the employer mandate only applies to businesses over 50 employees, I'm seriously considering laying people off come 2014.
There are numerous examples throughout human history of what happens when too much wealth and power become concentrated in the hands of too few.
Capitalism doesn't concentrate too much wealth and power in the hands of too few. That's what socialism does.
The more capitalist a nation, the more stable it is. The more welfare and socialism, the more unstable it is, as evidenced by France and Greece.
But please, give me an example of what happens when the poor "punishes" the rich too much through "excessive taxation".
Zimbabwe. Most of sub-Saharan Africa. If it wasn't for tax "loopholes", the united States would be a third-world hellhole.;
The Love Canal landfill was perfectly fine, properly sealed and maintained by the company, which was unwilling to sell it. The local GOVERNMENT, wanting to build a school, came along and threatened to seize the land using eminent domain. The company relented and sold the property for one dollar, with the deed stating that the site was dangerous for human habitation. The local GOVERNMENT then proceeded to dig up the site for a sewer system and landscaping.
That's just one example. The rest of your points would collapse under similar scrutiny.
But, please, don't let me get in the way of your excellent "hooray for me, fuck you"/"all's fair in love and war" attitude. Just don't expect much sympathy when society adopts the same mentality and starts rolling the guillotines through the gated communities. It's happened before, and it's gonna happen again.
Thank you for once again proving my point that all of leftism is based on the threat of violence.
By the way, I'm wiling to bet that non-leftists have a higher gun ownership rate than "liberals" and "progressives".
These "Stand Your Ground" Laws that we have thanks to ALEC and the NRA are meant only to protect white people who shoot blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, etc.
Look, I understand that you want white people to be murdered before they're allowed to defend themselves against blacks, but you do realize that Zimmerman is half Hispanic, don't you?
I guess that pretty much blows your entire narrative up in your face, doesn't it?