Yup. I know a guy in my town who is outspokenly proud of having gone to Ireland after Vietnam and materially helping the terrorist IRA. While they may have been freedom fighters in the beginning, they rapidly turned into a criminal, terrorist organization.
As are victim-disarmament aficionados, who refuse to acknowledge the defensive uses of firearms, including those where the mere presence of an armed non-criminal ended what might otherwise be a violent conclusion.
Of course, it's easy to dismiss them because nothing actually happened. It's always "you can't say for certain it was beneficial," which might work for isolated cases but when accounting for all cases combined can't possibly be relegated to "none of those turned out better due to the presence of a defensive firearm."
Typically, the extreme actions that police (or the military, internationally) attempt to legitimize through the farce of "protecting" society create more terrorists.
Your statement might be true if the "checking" done was approached humanely. As it is, there is nothing humane about how the US goes about prosecuting the War on Terror.
People become terrorists typically because they have no hope, and joining a cell makes them feel empowered. Stop crushing everyone to get a few, and the terrorists have a much harder time recruiting.
More guns don't help limit the number of criminal-on-criminal violence, but they certainly help with regard to criminal-on-non-criminal violence. The national news media doesn't like to report on firearms being used appropriately though, so there appears to be widespread belief amongst people who have never learned firearm safety that such events are scarce. However, such events are not scarce. They are regularly reported in local news stories in areas with high legal firearm ownership. As for criminal-on-criminal firearm deaths, I have no problem with them.
There will never be parity with nations which fundamentally view firearms differently than the US. If you have a problem with firearms, work toward an Amendment repealing the 2nd. The people trying to circumvent that process are to blame for the circumvention of all the other Amendments as well. If you support a non-Amendment workaround to restricting firearms purchases by non-criminals and those of sound mind, you (implicitly, at least) are also supporting the violations of all those Amendments victim-disarmers support so vocally.
There are now decisions on record allowing the use of tainted evidence so long as the police obtained it by "accidentally" violating procedural rules.
Now it's only thrown out if the defendant can prove the police violated due process intentionally, which is a much higher bar for getting evidence thrown out. Of course, with the process above, you may not even be able to see the evidence, let alone contest it.
I think the point was in using an example to bring up the social problem, rather than using it to claim technology is the problem. That's how I read it, anyway.
A parasitic relationship doesn't need to be intra-species. While most people seem to object to classifying pregnancy as a parasitic relationship, it still is.
In actual practice, Marxism at its core is about using copious amounts of violent force against anyone who objects to whatever "society" (actually a small group of people at the top) deems is in the best interest of "the people" (again, what's actually in the best interest of the party regarding maintaining power). The theory of
Marxism will always require much more persistent use of state-sponsored violence to remain "pure" Marxism than any sort of representative government.
I would certainly advise people to get chicken pox rather than be vaccinated. Getting a primary chicken pox infection as an adult is far more serious than getting it as a child, and you need to get lifelong boosters of the vaccine in order to avoid any risk of getting chicken pox later in life.
Unfortunately, it's almost certain they'll declare war on secessionist. At least the first one or two, anyway, until they are so broke they can't pay the military and generals start selling black market weapons on the side.
That's not how government works. Volunteer labor? Bah, unless you're being volun-told (which certain people love to do), it's whoever hires the most lobbyists, has the most connections, or knows the best ways to game the system.
A fair amount of people living paycheck to paycheck do so because of poor decisions.
Just to be clear, I don't say this as someone coming from a comfortable middle-class background. I say this as someone who lives on roughly $1000/month and supports someone else on that as well. I live in a decent-sized city, eat well, and don't really want for much. I could live like a king on minimum wage.
And no, having children is not an acceptable excuse. Children are a choice, and if you value having children over having discretionary spending, you've made that choice and need to live with it. I understand there are lots of catastrophic occurrences, but those are not in any way the norm for why people live in poverty. Far more likely is the myopic notion that "I should be able to have all this stuff because other people do!"
Self-responsibility is scary though, so someone in the government should fix things so I can spend like a moron and not have to worry about things like budgets. After all, the government doesn't care about things like budgets, so why should I?
In such an instance there would be nobody to buy their products, hence they would not make a pile of profits.
Instead, there will develop an equilibrium which allows a business owner to sell products because there are enough people making enough money to afford them.
Most libertarians I know would ignore this moron because he's obviously not worth the time to entertain past perhaps a single comment telling him he's a moron. There's nothing to discuss with someone who has an almost religious faith in his own self-importance.
Slashdot Mirror
The vast majority of religions of peace are only like that due to being forced into that path by society and education.
Preventing the mentally ill from purchasing firearms wouldn't make even so much as a dent in the sale of firearms.
That said, the JPFO is a far better pro-firearms group to join.
Yup. I know a guy in my town who is outspokenly proud of having gone to Ireland after Vietnam and materially helping the terrorist IRA. While they may have been freedom fighters in the beginning, they rapidly turned into a criminal, terrorist organization.
As are victim-disarmament aficionados, who refuse to acknowledge the defensive uses of firearms, including those where the mere presence of an armed non-criminal ended what might otherwise be a violent conclusion.
Of course, it's easy to dismiss them because nothing actually happened. It's always "you can't say for certain it was beneficial," which might work for isolated cases but when accounting for all cases combined can't possibly be relegated to "none of those turned out better due to the presence of a defensive firearm."
In short, there's stupid on both sides.
Firearms and incarceration intersect in less than half of all cases. Most incarcerations are for non-violent crimes.
Typically, the extreme actions that police (or the military, internationally) attempt to legitimize through the farce of "protecting" society create more terrorists.
Your statement might be true if the "checking" done was approached humanely. As it is, there is nothing humane about how the US goes about prosecuting the War on Terror.
People become terrorists typically because they have no hope, and joining a cell makes them feel empowered. Stop crushing everyone to get a few, and the terrorists have a much harder time recruiting.
More guns don't help limit the number of criminal-on-criminal violence, but they certainly help with regard to criminal-on-non-criminal violence. The national news media doesn't like to report on firearms being used appropriately though, so there appears to be widespread belief amongst people who have never learned firearm safety that such events are scarce. However, such events are not scarce. They are regularly reported in local news stories in areas with high legal firearm ownership. As for criminal-on-criminal firearm deaths, I have no problem with them.
There will never be parity with nations which fundamentally view firearms differently than the US. If you have a problem with firearms, work toward an Amendment repealing the 2nd. The people trying to circumvent that process are to blame for the circumvention of all the other Amendments as well. If you support a non-Amendment workaround to restricting firearms purchases by non-criminals and those of sound mind, you (implicitly, at least) are also supporting the violations of all those Amendments victim-disarmers support so vocally.
Then use submission ports if your ISP blocks 25. Most ISPs I've found don't block them, even if they block port 25.
There are now decisions on record allowing the use of tainted evidence so long as the police obtained it by "accidentally" violating procedural rules.
Now it's only thrown out if the defendant can prove the police violated due process intentionally, which is a much higher bar for getting evidence thrown out. Of course, with the process above, you may not even be able to see the evidence, let alone contest it.
I think the point was in using an example to bring up the social problem, rather than using it to claim technology is the problem. That's how I read it, anyway.
A parasitic relationship doesn't need to be intra-species. While most people seem to object to classifying pregnancy as a parasitic relationship, it still is.
In actual practice, Marxism at its core is about using copious amounts of violent force against anyone who objects to whatever "society" (actually a small group of people at the top) deems is in the best interest of "the people" (again, what's actually in the best interest of the party regarding maintaining power). The theory of
Marxism will always require much more persistent use of state-sponsored violence to remain "pure" Marxism than any sort of representative government.
Actually, he stated he does get vaccinated. The point wasn't about doing it voluntarily based on choice, but having that choice removed.
I would certainly advise people to get chicken pox rather than be vaccinated. Getting a primary chicken pox infection as an adult is far more serious than getting it as a child, and you need to get lifelong boosters of the vaccine in order to avoid any risk of getting chicken pox later in life.
Unfortunately, it's almost certain they'll declare war on secessionist. At least the first one or two, anyway, until they are so broke they can't pay the military and generals start selling black market weapons on the side.
And how do they do that squishing? By being evil.
Bin Laden's demand was that the US remove all troops from certain Middle Eastern countries, not that the US convert to Islam.
I guarantee you FaceBook uses more complex logic than required for the healthcare site.
Except it is. The red tape prevents many of the more competent contractors to not even bother.
Yes, the direct result is not caused by red tape, but indirectly the red tape certainly had an enormous affect on the pool of available talent.
That's not how government works. Volunteer labor? Bah, unless you're being volun-told (which certain people love to do), it's whoever hires the most lobbyists, has the most connections, or knows the best ways to game the system.
A fair amount of people living paycheck to paycheck do so because of poor decisions.
Just to be clear, I don't say this as someone coming from a comfortable middle-class background. I say this as someone who lives on roughly $1000/month and supports someone else on that as well. I live in a decent-sized city, eat well, and don't really want for much. I could live like a king on minimum wage.
And no, having children is not an acceptable excuse. Children are a choice, and if you value having children over having discretionary spending, you've made that choice and need to live with it. I understand there are lots of catastrophic occurrences, but those are not in any way the norm for why people live in poverty. Far more likely is the myopic notion that "I should be able to have all this stuff because other people do!"
Self-responsibility is scary though, so someone in the government should fix things so I can spend like a moron and not have to worry about things like budgets. After all, the government doesn't care about things like budgets, so why should I?
In such an instance there would be nobody to buy their products, hence they would not make a pile of profits.
Instead, there will develop an equilibrium which allows a business owner to sell products because there are enough people making enough money to afford them.
NYC does have their own intelligence agency, complete with foreign operatives.
Most libertarians I know would ignore this moron because he's obviously not worth the time to entertain past perhaps a single comment telling him he's a moron. There's nothing to discuss with someone who has an almost religious faith in his own self-importance.
It's like any myopic organization. The ACLU supports the 1st but not the 2nd.