Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
Was in our media too, not only in Russia ;-)
this author is known as western propaganda author also in western EU :-)
@lindseyhilsum
@lindseyhilsum
so it seems to be true ? Good to hear :-)
"This will be a time bomb for decades ahead," he said.
Always been that way in parts of Africa and the Middle East.
Always been that way in parts of Africa and the Middle East.
A lot of Americans will simply refuse to cooperate.
When something, whatever it is, is made illegal to own by law, many probably won't want to own them anymore as going to jail isn't worth it. But ofcourse some will be very stubborn and won't listen, but they will be risking jailtime because of breaking the law.
And yet, you are pro banning certain weapons everywhere in the States, no? And if you don't: then a New York citizen can just go to Montana or whatever to buy a gun and then return to New York.
Guns are almost never the answer and almost never really used for the reasons people say why they have to own them, like 'protection'. Besides, in some US states it's legal to buy canabis, but the moment you take it to another state where it still is illegal you are breaking their law. You know, federal states.
Nice example. So what? People should only do what is beneficial for them, or what are you saying here?
What I'm saying is that owning guns as protection often won't work that way, and in some (or many even many) cases it will even make it worse.
Times change, fundamental rights don't. Fundamental human rights have nothing to do with the law.
Everything change over time, also rights and laws. Just look at the history of human rights and for example slavery, but there are many more examples that are still happening today.
And yes, this is true. Criminals change too. So does the state (which is a possible criminal to the individual).
About the state I already answered, the argument of the paranoids. And yes, criminals change too, but that doesn't change the argument that many shootings at schools and universities are done by 'normal' civilians and not by criminals (as in robbers, drugdealers, etc). If criminals set the benchmark, why don't you own a gun, as criminals in our country also use guns? Or arm yourself to protect yourself against the scary government?
And a nice article, but just an opinion written by 1 person who maybe, yes maybe, is more responsible as others.
When something, whatever it is, is made illegal to own by law, many probably won't want to own them anymore as going to jail isn't worth it. But ofcourse some will be very stubborn and won't listen, but they will be risking jailtime because of breaking the law.
And yet, you are pro banning certain weapons everywhere in the States, no? And if you don't: then a New York citizen can just go to Montana or whatever to buy a gun and then return to New York.
Guns are almost never the answer and almost never really used for the reasons people say why they have to own them, like 'protection'. Besides, in some US states it's legal to buy canabis, but the moment you take it to another state where it still is illegal you are breaking their law. You know, federal states.
Nice example. So what? People should only do what is beneficial for them, or what are you saying here?
What I'm saying is that owning guns as protection often won't work that way, and in some (or many even many) cases it will even make it worse.
Times change, fundamental rights don't. Fundamental human rights have nothing to do with the law.
Everything change over time, also rights and laws. Just look at the history of human rights and for example slavery, but there are many more examples that are still happening today.
And yes, this is true. Criminals change too. So does the state (which is a possible criminal to the individual).
About the state I already answered, the argument of the paranoids. And yes, criminals change too, but that doesn't change the argument that many shootings at schools and universities are done by 'normal' civilians and not by criminals (as in robbers, drugdealers, etc). If criminals set the benchmark, why don't you own a gun, as criminals in our country also use guns? Or arm yourself to protect yourself against the scary government?
And a nice article, but just an opinion written by 1 person who maybe, yes maybe, is more responsible as others.
When something, whatever it is, is made illegal to own by law, many probably won't want to own them anymore as going to jail isn't worth it. But ofcourse some will be very stubborn and won't listen, but they will be risking jailtime because of breaking the law.
I wish you the best of luck of convincing the Americans to give in their weapons. Or will you visit every single house and force them to let you in?
Guns are almost never the answer and almost never really used for the reasons people say why they have to own them, like 'protection'. Besides, in some US states it's legal to buy canabis, but the moment you take it to another state where it still is illegal you are breaking their law. You know, federal states.
Actually, I must admit that I don't know exactly how state border control is organized. Do you?
What I'm saying is that owning guns as protection often won't work that way, and in some (or many even many) cases it will even make it worse.
I agree on that. So what?
Everything change over time, also rights and laws. Just look at the history of human rights and for example slavery, but there are many more examples that are still happening today.
Yes, legal rights and laws change. I'm talking about fundamental human rights. Those are absolute (at least for me).
About the state I already answered, the argument of the paranoids. And yes, criminals change too, but that doesn't change the argument that many shootings at schools and universities are done by 'normal' civilians and not by criminals (as in robbers, drugdealers, etc). If criminals set the benchmark, why don't you own a gun, as criminals in our country also use guns? Or arm yourself to protect yourself against the scary government?
Well, you can call them paranoids, but that won't convince them, will it?
Oh, and the reason I don't own a gun? I have a lot of reasons. Basically all reasons you give for wanting to ban guns. Those are my reasons for not owning a gun. I will never ever own a gun. Never.
But this shows us once again that you still don't get what libertarianism is all about. Look, most people don't defend themselves with violence against the state because that is simply a battle you (as an individual) will always lose. Either they kill you or they kidnap you and lock you up. You cannot win it. However, I defend the people's right to try. You know my reasons why I do so.
I wish you the best of luck of convincing the Americans to give in their weapons. Or will you visit every single house and force them to let you in?
Guns are almost never the answer and almost never really used for the reasons people say why they have to own them, like 'protection'. Besides, in some US states it's legal to buy canabis, but the moment you take it to another state where it still is illegal you are breaking their law. You know, federal states.
Actually, I must admit that I don't know exactly how state border control is organized. Do you?
What I'm saying is that owning guns as protection often won't work that way, and in some (or many even many) cases it will even make it worse.
I agree on that. So what?
Everything change over time, also rights and laws. Just look at the history of human rights and for example slavery, but there are many more examples that are still happening today.
Yes, legal rights and laws change. I'm talking about fundamental human rights. Those are absolute (at least for me).
About the state I already answered, the argument of the paranoids. And yes, criminals change too, but that doesn't change the argument that many shootings at schools and universities are done by 'normal' civilians and not by criminals (as in robbers, drugdealers, etc). If criminals set the benchmark, why don't you own a gun, as criminals in our country also use guns? Or arm yourself to protect yourself against the scary government?
Well, you can call them paranoids, but that won't convince them, will it?
Oh, and the reason I don't own a gun? I have a lot of reasons. Basically all reasons you give for wanting to ban guns. Those are my reasons for not owning a gun. I will never ever own a gun. Never.
But this shows us once again that you still don't get what libertarianism is all about. Look, most people don't defend themselves with violence against the state because that is simply a battle you (as an individual) will always lose. Either they kill you or they kidnap you and lock you up. You cannot win it. However, I defend the people's right to try. You know my reasons why I do so.
But this shows us once again that you still don't get what libertarianism is all about.
If this is the reason why we are having this strange discussion, you acting as the devil's advocate, then I'm afraid the only thing left to say about it is that you are really loosing your mind with your new found religion .. euh, I mean political ideologie :/
If this is the reason why we are having this strange discussion, you acting as the devil's advocate, then I'm afraid the only thing left to say about it is that you are really loosing your mind with your new found religion .. euh, I mean political ideologie :/
Manual on leftist argumentation in discussions
1. Claim moral superiority by calling arguments differing from yours paranoid, religion or "you're losing your mind".
2. End the discussion.
1. Claim moral superiority by calling arguments differing from yours paranoid, religion or "you're losing your mind".
2. End the discussion.
Now you are really loosing it, you start to sound like a populist with your 'leftist' and not being able to see the difference between paranoid and reality :/
edit
(edited)
edit
(edited)
Yes, because if I make a joke on your argumentation, I'm a populist.
And I don't know what your problem with the word 'leftist' is. It is really just a neutral term to describe a collectivist-minded person.
(edited)
And I don't know what your problem with the word 'leftist' is. It is really just a neutral term to describe a collectivist-minded person.
(edited)
yeah good pic, european govs shouldnt support that extremists, dosent mind if they are against gaddafi or whatever, their system willl be worse to liberty
this people:
http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2013/01/30/actualidad/1359577781_567001.html
egyptian black block, laicists , against "musulman brothers" , these people should be supported, if some should be supported these are the ones
this people:
http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2013/01/30/actualidad/1359577781_567001.html
egyptian black block, laicists , against "musulman brothers" , these people should be supported, if some should be supported these are the ones
Usually there are multiple factions, that has different relations to each other, and I guess sometimes even the West don't know, who are they supporting exactly. For example here is a map about the situation in Mali:
Link
In the first half of last year Ansar Dine and MNLA were fighting together against the gov, around summer / autumn they turned against each other, when the French came in, MNLA offered cease fire to the government, etc.
In Lybia the rebels were also a loose alliance of several tribes and factions.
In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood promised, they will cooperate with the liberals, they will respect democracy and they will be like Erdogan's party in Turkey. Apparently they changed their mind, when they gained power.
So there's usually chaos, with temporary alliances, not one side against another. And extremists are usually very good at exploiting this chaos.
(edited)
Link
In the first half of last year Ansar Dine and MNLA were fighting together against the gov, around summer / autumn they turned against each other, when the French came in, MNLA offered cease fire to the government, etc.
In Lybia the rebels were also a loose alliance of several tribes and factions.
In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood promised, they will cooperate with the liberals, they will respect democracy and they will be like Erdogan's party in Turkey. Apparently they changed their mind, when they gained power.
So there's usually chaos, with temporary alliances, not one side against another. And extremists are usually very good at exploiting this chaos.
(edited)