Rather than scratching such a law as unfeasible, impractical and irrational, they would simply make another law criminalizing clicking the "terrorist" button without just cause, making false police reports, etc. Following up with tracing your IP address and arresting you. Either way, liberty become prey.
Agreed. But if you were to accuse any one American or small group of Americans, they would be offended at such remarks. Americans don't see themselves as ignorant or gullible. But hat certainly doesn't change the facts does it? They even take pride in their ignorance and gullibity by associating it with (radical) individualism. They believe you can believe what you want no matter how uninformed it might be. Take religion as one example.
Of course they do. Viruses are no different than other microbes. They will eventually do whatever it takes to propagate and survive. Which in many cases is in response to changes in their environment.
You obviously are unfamiliar with the "precautionary principle" which says in essence that being overly cautious is safer than employing too little caution. Just like the so-called "protocol lapses" in which nurses have contracted Ebola. Those protocol problems are guesses at best on the part of hospitals and the CDC. You also seem to be unaware of a recent broadcast on CNN in which it was stated that the Ebola virus CAN live outside the body so long as the medium that contains the virus remains "wet". That includes door knobs, mop handles, clothing, hand rails, etc. It's better to be "reactionary" than lackadaisical in such an unknown situation. Besides, you've provided no reasons whatsoever to ASSUME that Ebola is not easily transferred from one person to another (including being airborne). You can accuse (me) of being irrational but you fail to provide any reason to back up your claim. The facts are, the CDC has no idea of the virulence of this strain. And the idea that you would be willing to accept the government's propaganda at face value merely demonstrates naivety on your part.
What in the world are thinking! Are you proposing that viruses don't mutate? Fact is, any microscopic organism can and do mutate all the time. Ever hear of influenza? HIV? Cold? Plus hundreds of other viruses?
That's naïve. You seem to ignore a number of significant facts such as: Muslims are easily identified; their radicalism usually takes months to ferment into deadly action; radical activity can to a great degree be remotely monitored for signs of potential dangerous plots; and their movements are easily monitored. None of those apply to a microscopic organism that is unseen, can easily spread to a large area undetected and is more deadly than any terrorist because the infection can kill within days. Few (of any) global conflicts have killed (or maimed) as many people as bacteria and viruses.
The problem with that philosophy is this, healthcare administrators are premised upon certain assumptions. For one they keep insisting Ebola is not airborne even though this strain has not been tested for mutations that could make it so. Doctors Without Borders claim they have successfully treated Ebola for years in Africa. However, there is no explanation as to why this outbreak has been so virulent and easy to contract. It may be true that their isolation protocols give the appearance that it is not airborne. But those same protocols would also provide protection against an airborne strain. However, assuming it is not airborne could end up being a big surprise for potential victims. Besides, viruses have a tendency to mutate (survival mechanism) as the number of immune systems it is exposed to increases. Discovery of mutations are almost always an after the fact. Also, I don't buy the excuse that banning travel to and from infected African areas is more harmful. It's scandalous in fact. All one needs do is extrapolate the use of isolation in foreign nations (such as the effected African ones), in medical wards in Africa, Spain, the U.S. etc. as a mechanism of infection control, and wonder why isolating travel into this country is no big deal. Logically it makes little sense.
True. There is good reason for police (all law enforcement) to be distrusted. Everyone is now suspect even with a modicum of evidence (or no evidence just mere suspicion). When people feel they are potential targets, unjustly, they will begin to loose confidence in law enforcement. Ultimately that could lead to anarchy. Even though law enforcement feels justified in suspecting everyone, they are ultimately undermining public confidence in the system. In the interim, people should be seeking out non-traditional methods of communication, such as snail mail. Snail mail may not satisfy everyone's fascination with instantaneous talk, but from a privacy perspective it is far safer.
You put too much trust in encryption. Any encryption can be cracked (eventually). The government believes they could and should take any measures to curb terrorism. That includes waging a consistent war upon encryption systems. They can do that from a distance, deconstruct multiple encryption systems simultaneously at relatively low cost. There is nothing safer than innocuous, non-descript snail mail. Given the fact that snail mail is often delivered in a matter of a day or two, the added privacy benefit it conveys and the relatively low cost (as opposed to the money it costs for a computer, internet service, etc.) snail mail has a definitive privacy advantage.
The problem with that is if you are open and honest using "electronic" communications, anyone hacked into your stream of data has the ability to manipulate what you sent with no accountability because the government has the ability to coerce ISPs into covering their tracks. And given the fact that the courts have a tendency to lean in favor of the government (for national security reasons or whatever reason they can plausibly invent) I would not put any trust with either one of them. Using snail mail could on the other hand overwhelm government ability to monitor a vast majority of communications, makes USPS jobs more secure and takes electronic companies out of the communication loop. This is not a pitch for the USPS. Rather it is a pitch for more secure communications.
We should support the USPS and go back to snail mail. With email (and such) the government can employ one person to spy on electronic communications and monitor thousands of accounts at one time. With snail mail the government could never hire enough people to open letters and packages to spy on their contents. You might suggest they could merely train USPS employees to do their spying but changes little. With the amount of mail the USPS processes everyday they simply could not take the time to monitor the contents of the same amount of mail they can monitor with electronic communications. New Age communications are premised upon electronics. They simply could not muster enough physical resources to spy on even a small fraction of snail mail nationwide.
We already have chimps (and other animals) running the country that have the right to vote. I might even suggest that chimpanzees (or dolphins) are more human (in thought or behavior) than many of our so-called powerful and wealthy. Because humans that are wealthy and/or powerful can be more inhumane than chimps or dolphins.
Seriously? Tehran actively supports the Shiite side in that religious war. That is a well known national security fact. You also have a very naïve notion about what can be done with air power in taking out armored ground forces. You're talking about a massive air campaign using up millions in aircraft, ammunition, guided rickets, cruise missiles, fuel, etc. It's very easy for a ground force to spread out its units so that each tank, guided missile platform, armored vehicle would require its own separate targeting. That would also include targeting of most of their modified half ton trucks they've retrofitting with 50 caliber guns.
The fact of the matter is, the forces they have now is a direct result of the U.S. leaving all that equipment behind in the (unrealistic) hope the Iraqis would have the guts to defend what we set up for them. They didn't. Why? Because when you hand someone something they haven't really earned there is little appreciation for what they had. The Iraqis walked away from the force we left them. The whole period of time we spent supplying them with armor and training was a failed plan from the get go. Why? Because their religious war runs so deep that even their own troops had more allegiance to their religion than civil government. They have NO appreciation for what they've never had. Civil, strong, democratic civil government. You won't defend what you don't understand. They've proved that many times over. Democracy is NOT appropriate everywhere. A population has to understand such things, deeply appreciate such a concept, are willing to die for it, and belief in it overrides any competing ideology. That's simply not the case over there.
We should've let them to their own devices years ago and they'd still be fighting with swords and single shot rifles. And ISIS would have very little military power as a result.
In fact the whole thing started when the Reagan administration armed the jihadists just to fight of the russian invasion. But everywhere we stick our nose into we end up making things worse in the long run. Just like a jihadist recent said in an interview, they don't care about democracy, about diversity, about compassion and civil rights. They only care about establishing their own retrograde Islamic caliphate with strict Islam law. When asked about the fact that many people don't want to live under such conditions the response was, "who are they, why haven't they left." Completely ignoring the fact that thousands have left. I say let them form what ever form of government they want. People will eventually leave or form their own committed revolution to get rid of them. It will be their blood spilt and their money spent. It is the price of revolution. Only then will they have an appreciation for democratic rule.
The more armor, the heavier, the more costly to operate, with questionable end results because you'd have to upgrade armor on nearly every ship to guard against attack. The boat swarm idea may very well be more cost effective. A more diversified attack/defensive force could be more successful by spreading out military but coordinated small units makes it much more difficult for an enemy to concentrate its force against any one target. Assuming the boat swarm units are smaller, faster, relatively light weight they could very well have results superior to monstrous single units with heavy armor.
Going after criminals (in foreign countries) requires the cooperation of that government. Russian government (like the U.S.) is corrupt enough to impede any legitimate investigations. Especially when government officials are benefitting from the criminal activities. In the case of Russia, there is little incentive for Putin to cooperate.
I question the validity of your assertion our digestive and immune systems are well adapted to viral cross-species transmission. That may be somewhat correct when it comes to bacterial infections but not necessarily viral infections. For example, if it were not for yearly vaccinations against the flu, we'd have yearly widespread flu epidemics. That flu mutates every year from pigs in Asia, China in particular. That's merely one example. Ebola is another. The more a micro-organism is exposed to various environments (immune/defense) systems, the greater the evolutionary pressure for it to mutate. Resulting in more virulent and more cross species adaptation. Epidemiologists know that. But they are also aware they need to quell mass panic. They become politicians. They will essentially say just about anything to maintain civil law and order. But from a scientific viewpoint, they also realize (in fact the spokesman for the CDC in the past two days acknowledged) that mutations are practically impossible to guard against. It is only after a new breed of infection has emerged can they take any action (by identifying the new strain via DNA sequencing). In other words, civilization is ALWAYS playing catchup to bacterial and viral mutations. As a result, epidemics can emerge and propagate well before they are discovered. Just like the guy in Texas (traveler from Liberia) who went to the hospital and was sent home only to come back a week later only sicker. Why? Medical staff didn't take his illness seriously, the initial symptoms mimicked cold or flu, and it was not considered a threat in the U.S. In the interim a significant number of people were exposed. Granted, the U.S. feels they have the resources to address such things. That's assuming though the infection has a relatively long incubation period (as with Ebola). But that is just luck. A virus could infect and make carriers infective within hours with no significant physical symptoms. In which case an epidemic could spread well before being discovered.
Frankly, they can be held accountable by their agency. For example, there were at least two Secret Service people fired over the prostitution scandal a couple years ago (or so). Others were reprimanded and given demotions. In fact, it happens all the time that government employees are fired and prosecuted for criminal acts. You just don't hear about them. Of course I'm referring to peons, the average civil servant for the most part. The biggest problem is that very few in top administrative government positions are held accountable other than being forced to resign or on rare occasions removed from office.
Surely you jest. They've even covered on the major news networks that democrats are avoiding Obama during this election cycle because of his polling numbers.
As I mentioned, the republicans had a controlling majority in the passing of the Patriot Act. So if they can now blame the mess we have on Obama and the democrats, then the same principle applies to the republicans during their rein.
That military hardware being given away is a direct result of Obama's withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan which was a result of Bush's war. So you're delusional in that regard.
And I don't know what planet you live on but Obama has cut U.S. forces by 70% in those two countries. Additionally, the Iraqis and Afghanis didn't even want us there, pocketed millions of U.S. tax dollars via corruption (the only ones that wanted us there), and refused to grant immunity because of civilian casualties. Would you grant immunity to a foreign army you didn't want in country?
And yes, your response was even more pathetic because you can't end a 10 yr war over night. All military leaders promoted a planned withdrawal of troupes, CIA wanted a planned withdrawal to forge allies amount the Iraqis and Afghani so "terrorists couldn't fill the vacuum" created by the withdrawal, Congress wanted a planned withdrawal and advisors suggested a gradual drawback of troops. One of Obama's election pledges was to so just what he said. It may have taken five years, but that's what everyone else wanted.
Either you're being purposely recalcitrant or you are ignorant of politics.
Seriously? Is that a testament to your moral superiority? Perfection? Or naivety? Everyone has skeletons in their closet, without exception. The very nature of human existence is grounded upon being imperfect. I'd be will to bet that every single day, you and everyone else does something that some government agency could consider unlawful. Be that exceeding the speed limit, working under the table, donating to charities that are funding terrorism (unbeknownst to you of course, but that wouldn't matter to the government), trespassing on someone's property, running a stop sign/light, modifying your AK-47 for automatic firing, purchasing a prohibited (weapon) magazine, failure to provide insurance information at an accident you were involved in, illegally purchasing a vehicle inspection sticker, running prohibited equipment on your vehicle, engaging in prohibited "under the age of majority" sex (even as a teen), skipping school, cheating on entrance exams, flattening someone's tires who you don't like, smoking weed, etc. etc. ad infinitum. Why? The fact is, there are laws on the books in every state, that you could be in violation of without even knowing of their existence. And even though some of those laws may be obscure or rarely enforced, they still exist and could be used by the government as a pretense to investigate you. Don't be so naïve.
That's ludicrous. Obama's popularity is in the Crapper (as is Congress'). You obviously have delusions about the rationality of "liberals". Many democrats are purposely avoiding backing him up, having Obama campaign for them, etc. I know many liberals that loath Obama and his policies. That's said, let's consider where this started in large part. With the Patriot Act. And who pushed through those laws? We'll all our politicians over reacted but it was driven by a republican dominated government. That being the House and the President. From that point on, *homeland security" (by any means) became the main function of government. And considering the two trillion spent on an unnecessary occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the number of innocent lives lost or maimed, I can't imaging how ANYONE could seriously claim that Obama is worse than Bush. Obama merely continued what Bush instituted.
You guys have misogynistic notions about motherhood with all your "scientific" talk about wombs, impregnating women, etc. Women want relationships with the fathers of their progeny. Relationships are just as important (if not more so) than babies. In male/female relationships it is the female that chooses the male suitor. Guys will take just about anyone that will have them. Women on the other hand are looking for "love". Bearing children for guys they will never meet or know is NOT a desirable experience for women. You're view of the complexity of female psyche is juvenile at best.
That was awhile ago. Mini 14's run anywhere from $800 to over 1000 with fewer options and accessories. A friend recently bought a S&W MP 15 (new) for $550 including Magpul (iron) sites and 30 round mag. I can't find any Mini 14's anywhere near that price. One has to consider what one is getting for the money.
Doesn't that depend upon how "rational" is defined? When left with the option between banning all guns and allowing all guns, I would have to say "rational" would be the option that provides the most freedom. Given the fact that natural law conveys a basic right to self protection; law enforcement being the last line of defense; self defense implies any means required to repel an aggressive threatening force in order to save life or limb; that more often than not aggressors prepare themselves with what they believe to be sufficient force to accomplish their aggression; thus people should be permitted to utilize any means possible for self defense. That is what I would call rational. Rationality by necessity is defined by what means are required by each individual circumstance. Not some hypothetical, unrealistic blanket scenario. Flexibility of choice is a necessity in such situations that are potentially life threatening and one cannot predict what sort of counter measures may be needed in advance. Thus it would be rational to allow any non-felon adult to decide for themselves what self defense measure may be required. That would be rational. Of course certain freedoms allow for certain potential dangers. That however is the price of freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
Rather than scratching such a law as unfeasible, impractical and irrational, they would simply make another law criminalizing clicking the "terrorist" button without just cause, making false police reports, etc. Following up with tracing your IP address and arresting you. Either way, liberty become prey.
Agreed. But if you were to accuse any one American or small group of Americans, they would be offended at such remarks. Americans don't see themselves as ignorant or gullible. But hat certainly doesn't change the facts does it? They even take pride in their ignorance and gullibity by associating it with (radical) individualism. They believe you can believe what you want no matter how uninformed it might be. Take religion as one example.
Of course they do. Viruses are no different than other microbes. They will eventually do whatever it takes to propagate and survive. Which in many cases is in response to changes in their environment.
You obviously are unfamiliar with the "precautionary principle" which says in essence that being overly cautious is safer than employing too little caution. Just like the so-called "protocol lapses" in which nurses have contracted Ebola. Those protocol problems are guesses at best on the part of hospitals and the CDC. You also seem to be unaware of a recent broadcast on CNN in which it was stated that the Ebola virus CAN live outside the body so long as the medium that contains the virus remains "wet". That includes door knobs, mop handles, clothing, hand rails, etc. It's better to be "reactionary" than lackadaisical in such an unknown situation. Besides, you've provided no reasons whatsoever to ASSUME that Ebola is not easily transferred from one person to another (including being airborne). You can accuse (me) of being irrational but you fail to provide any reason to back up your claim. The facts are, the CDC has no idea of the virulence of this strain. And the idea that you would be willing to accept the government's propaganda at face value merely demonstrates naivety on your part.
What in the world are thinking! Are you proposing that viruses don't mutate? Fact is, any microscopic organism can and do mutate all the time. Ever hear of influenza? HIV? Cold? Plus hundreds of other viruses?
That's naïve. You seem to ignore a number of significant facts such as: Muslims are easily identified; their radicalism usually takes months to ferment into deadly action; radical activity can to a great degree be remotely monitored for signs of potential dangerous plots; and their movements are easily monitored. None of those apply to a microscopic organism that is unseen, can easily spread to a large area undetected and is more deadly than any terrorist because the infection can kill within days. Few (of any) global conflicts have killed (or maimed) as many people as bacteria and viruses.
The problem with that philosophy is this, healthcare administrators are premised upon certain assumptions. For one they keep insisting Ebola is not airborne even though this strain has not been tested for mutations that could make it so. Doctors Without Borders claim they have successfully treated Ebola for years in Africa. However, there is no explanation as to why this outbreak has been so virulent and easy to contract. It may be true that their isolation protocols give the appearance that it is not airborne. But those same protocols would also provide protection against an airborne strain. However, assuming it is not airborne could end up being a big surprise for potential victims. Besides, viruses have a tendency to mutate (survival mechanism) as the number of immune systems it is exposed to increases. Discovery of mutations are almost always an after the fact. Also, I don't buy the excuse that banning travel to and from infected African areas is more harmful. It's scandalous in fact. All one needs do is extrapolate the use of isolation in foreign nations (such as the effected African ones), in medical wards in Africa, Spain, the U.S. etc. as a mechanism of infection control, and wonder why isolating travel into this country is no big deal. Logically it makes little sense.
True. There is good reason for police (all law enforcement) to be distrusted. Everyone is now suspect even with a modicum of evidence (or no evidence just mere suspicion). When people feel they are potential targets, unjustly, they will begin to loose confidence in law enforcement. Ultimately that could lead to anarchy. Even though law enforcement feels justified in suspecting everyone, they are ultimately undermining public confidence in the system. In the interim, people should be seeking out non-traditional methods of communication, such as snail mail. Snail mail may not satisfy everyone's fascination with instantaneous talk, but from a privacy perspective it is far safer.
You put too much trust in encryption. Any encryption can be cracked (eventually). The government believes they could and should take any measures to curb terrorism. That includes waging a consistent war upon encryption systems. They can do that from a distance, deconstruct multiple encryption systems simultaneously at relatively low cost. There is nothing safer than innocuous, non-descript snail mail. Given the fact that snail mail is often delivered in a matter of a day or two, the added privacy benefit it conveys and the relatively low cost (as opposed to the money it costs for a computer, internet service, etc.) snail mail has a definitive privacy advantage.
The problem with that is if you are open and honest using "electronic" communications, anyone hacked into your stream of data has the ability to manipulate what you sent with no accountability because the government has the ability to coerce ISPs into covering their tracks. And given the fact that the courts have a tendency to lean in favor of the government (for national security reasons or whatever reason they can plausibly invent) I would not put any trust with either one of them. Using snail mail could on the other hand overwhelm government ability to monitor a vast majority of communications, makes USPS jobs more secure and takes electronic companies out of the communication loop. This is not a pitch for the USPS. Rather it is a pitch for more secure communications.
We should support the USPS and go back to snail mail. With email (and such) the government can employ one person to spy on electronic communications and monitor thousands of accounts at one time. With snail mail the government could never hire enough people to open letters and packages to spy on their contents. You might suggest they could merely train USPS employees to do their spying but changes little. With the amount of mail the USPS processes everyday they simply could not take the time to monitor the contents of the same amount of mail they can monitor with electronic communications. New Age communications are premised upon electronics. They simply could not muster enough physical resources to spy on even a small fraction of snail mail nationwide.
We already have chimps (and other animals) running the country that have the right to vote. I might even suggest that chimpanzees (or dolphins) are more human (in thought or behavior) than many of our so-called powerful and wealthy. Because humans that are wealthy and/or powerful can be more inhumane than chimps or dolphins.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Seriously? Tehran actively supports the Shiite side in that religious war. That is a well known national security fact. You also have a very naïve notion about what can be done with air power in taking out armored ground forces. You're talking about a massive air campaign using up millions in aircraft, ammunition, guided rickets, cruise missiles, fuel, etc. It's very easy for a ground force to spread out its units so that each tank, guided missile platform, armored vehicle would require its own separate targeting. That would also include targeting of most of their modified half ton trucks they've retrofitting with 50 caliber guns. The fact of the matter is, the forces they have now is a direct result of the U.S. leaving all that equipment behind in the (unrealistic) hope the Iraqis would have the guts to defend what we set up for them. They didn't. Why? Because when you hand someone something they haven't really earned there is little appreciation for what they had. The Iraqis walked away from the force we left them. The whole period of time we spent supplying them with armor and training was a failed plan from the get go. Why? Because their religious war runs so deep that even their own troops had more allegiance to their religion than civil government. They have NO appreciation for what they've never had. Civil, strong, democratic civil government. You won't defend what you don't understand. They've proved that many times over. Democracy is NOT appropriate everywhere. A population has to understand such things, deeply appreciate such a concept, are willing to die for it, and belief in it overrides any competing ideology. That's simply not the case over there. We should've let them to their own devices years ago and they'd still be fighting with swords and single shot rifles. And ISIS would have very little military power as a result. In fact the whole thing started when the Reagan administration armed the jihadists just to fight of the russian invasion. But everywhere we stick our nose into we end up making things worse in the long run. Just like a jihadist recent said in an interview, they don't care about democracy, about diversity, about compassion and civil rights. They only care about establishing their own retrograde Islamic caliphate with strict Islam law. When asked about the fact that many people don't want to live under such conditions the response was, "who are they, why haven't they left." Completely ignoring the fact that thousands have left. I say let them form what ever form of government they want. People will eventually leave or form their own committed revolution to get rid of them. It will be their blood spilt and their money spent. It is the price of revolution. Only then will they have an appreciation for democratic rule.
The more armor, the heavier, the more costly to operate, with questionable end results because you'd have to upgrade armor on nearly every ship to guard against attack. The boat swarm idea may very well be more cost effective. A more diversified attack/defensive force could be more successful by spreading out military but coordinated small units makes it much more difficult for an enemy to concentrate its force against any one target. Assuming the boat swarm units are smaller, faster, relatively light weight they could very well have results superior to monstrous single units with heavy armor.
Going after criminals (in foreign countries) requires the cooperation of that government. Russian government (like the U.S.) is corrupt enough to impede any legitimate investigations. Especially when government officials are benefitting from the criminal activities. In the case of Russia, there is little incentive for Putin to cooperate.
I question the validity of your assertion our digestive and immune systems are well adapted to viral cross-species transmission. That may be somewhat correct when it comes to bacterial infections but not necessarily viral infections. For example, if it were not for yearly vaccinations against the flu, we'd have yearly widespread flu epidemics. That flu mutates every year from pigs in Asia, China in particular. That's merely one example. Ebola is another. The more a micro-organism is exposed to various environments (immune/defense) systems, the greater the evolutionary pressure for it to mutate. Resulting in more virulent and more cross species adaptation. Epidemiologists know that. But they are also aware they need to quell mass panic. They become politicians. They will essentially say just about anything to maintain civil law and order. But from a scientific viewpoint, they also realize (in fact the spokesman for the CDC in the past two days acknowledged) that mutations are practically impossible to guard against. It is only after a new breed of infection has emerged can they take any action (by identifying the new strain via DNA sequencing). In other words, civilization is ALWAYS playing catchup to bacterial and viral mutations. As a result, epidemics can emerge and propagate well before they are discovered. Just like the guy in Texas (traveler from Liberia) who went to the hospital and was sent home only to come back a week later only sicker. Why? Medical staff didn't take his illness seriously, the initial symptoms mimicked cold or flu, and it was not considered a threat in the U.S. In the interim a significant number of people were exposed. Granted, the U.S. feels they have the resources to address such things. That's assuming though the infection has a relatively long incubation period (as with Ebola). But that is just luck. A virus could infect and make carriers infective within hours with no significant physical symptoms. In which case an epidemic could spread well before being discovered.
Frankly, they can be held accountable by their agency. For example, there were at least two Secret Service people fired over the prostitution scandal a couple years ago (or so). Others were reprimanded and given demotions. In fact, it happens all the time that government employees are fired and prosecuted for criminal acts. You just don't hear about them. Of course I'm referring to peons, the average civil servant for the most part. The biggest problem is that very few in top administrative government positions are held accountable other than being forced to resign or on rare occasions removed from office.
Without "truth" where is "justice" found?
Surely you jest. They've even covered on the major news networks that democrats are avoiding Obama during this election cycle because of his polling numbers. As I mentioned, the republicans had a controlling majority in the passing of the Patriot Act. So if they can now blame the mess we have on Obama and the democrats, then the same principle applies to the republicans during their rein. That military hardware being given away is a direct result of Obama's withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan which was a result of Bush's war. So you're delusional in that regard. And I don't know what planet you live on but Obama has cut U.S. forces by 70% in those two countries. Additionally, the Iraqis and Afghanis didn't even want us there, pocketed millions of U.S. tax dollars via corruption (the only ones that wanted us there), and refused to grant immunity because of civilian casualties. Would you grant immunity to a foreign army you didn't want in country? And yes, your response was even more pathetic because you can't end a 10 yr war over night. All military leaders promoted a planned withdrawal of troupes, CIA wanted a planned withdrawal to forge allies amount the Iraqis and Afghani so "terrorists couldn't fill the vacuum" created by the withdrawal, Congress wanted a planned withdrawal and advisors suggested a gradual drawback of troops. One of Obama's election pledges was to so just what he said. It may have taken five years, but that's what everyone else wanted. Either you're being purposely recalcitrant or you are ignorant of politics.
Seriously? Is that a testament to your moral superiority? Perfection? Or naivety? Everyone has skeletons in their closet, without exception. The very nature of human existence is grounded upon being imperfect. I'd be will to bet that every single day, you and everyone else does something that some government agency could consider unlawful. Be that exceeding the speed limit, working under the table, donating to charities that are funding terrorism (unbeknownst to you of course, but that wouldn't matter to the government), trespassing on someone's property, running a stop sign/light, modifying your AK-47 for automatic firing, purchasing a prohibited (weapon) magazine, failure to provide insurance information at an accident you were involved in, illegally purchasing a vehicle inspection sticker, running prohibited equipment on your vehicle, engaging in prohibited "under the age of majority" sex (even as a teen), skipping school, cheating on entrance exams, flattening someone's tires who you don't like, smoking weed, etc. etc. ad infinitum. Why? The fact is, there are laws on the books in every state, that you could be in violation of without even knowing of their existence. And even though some of those laws may be obscure or rarely enforced, they still exist and could be used by the government as a pretense to investigate you. Don't be so naïve.
That's ludicrous. Obama's popularity is in the Crapper (as is Congress'). You obviously have delusions about the rationality of "liberals". Many democrats are purposely avoiding backing him up, having Obama campaign for them, etc. I know many liberals that loath Obama and his policies. That's said, let's consider where this started in large part. With the Patriot Act. And who pushed through those laws? We'll all our politicians over reacted but it was driven by a republican dominated government. That being the House and the President. From that point on, *homeland security" (by any means) became the main function of government. And considering the two trillion spent on an unnecessary occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the number of innocent lives lost or maimed, I can't imaging how ANYONE could seriously claim that Obama is worse than Bush. Obama merely continued what Bush instituted.
You guys have misogynistic notions about motherhood with all your "scientific" talk about wombs, impregnating women, etc. Women want relationships with the fathers of their progeny. Relationships are just as important (if not more so) than babies. In male/female relationships it is the female that chooses the male suitor. Guys will take just about anyone that will have them. Women on the other hand are looking for "love". Bearing children for guys they will never meet or know is NOT a desirable experience for women. You're view of the complexity of female psyche is juvenile at best.
That was awhile ago. Mini 14's run anywhere from $800 to over 1000 with fewer options and accessories. A friend recently bought a S&W MP 15 (new) for $550 including Magpul (iron) sites and 30 round mag. I can't find any Mini 14's anywhere near that price. One has to consider what one is getting for the money.
Doesn't that depend upon how "rational" is defined? When left with the option between banning all guns and allowing all guns, I would have to say "rational" would be the option that provides the most freedom. Given the fact that natural law conveys a basic right to self protection; law enforcement being the last line of defense; self defense implies any means required to repel an aggressive threatening force in order to save life or limb; that more often than not aggressors prepare themselves with what they believe to be sufficient force to accomplish their aggression; thus people should be permitted to utilize any means possible for self defense. That is what I would call rational. Rationality by necessity is defined by what means are required by each individual circumstance. Not some hypothetical, unrealistic blanket scenario. Flexibility of choice is a necessity in such situations that are potentially life threatening and one cannot predict what sort of counter measures may be needed in advance. Thus it would be rational to allow any non-felon adult to decide for themselves what self defense measure may be required. That would be rational. Of course certain freedoms allow for certain potential dangers. That however is the price of freedom.