BaldProphet @ BaldProphet @kbin.social

2 Kings 2:23-24: A story about what happens when you make fun of bald dudes

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

413

Joined

2 yr. ago

Hamas exists. A Palestinian resistance to Hamas could exist as well (and would likely be supported by Israel and the United States). Yet, there does not seem to be any Palestinian resistance to their violent and corrupt Hamas overlords.

If I recall correctly, Israelis were all out in the streets protesting their government just a month or so ago.

No, I mean people literally calling Hamas "freedom fighters", and outright cheering them on. There's a difference between "calling for the stop of oppression and genocide and ethnic cleansing" and blatantly supporting the actions of a terror organization.

Many people are calling Hamas "freedom fighters" and outright defending its actions. I would say a significant portion of Fediverse users fall into this camp, from what I've seen.

If only the other refugees would rise against Hamas and stop supporting them.

Yeah, because a world run like Amazon sounds like such a utopia. /s

It is mind-blowing that people defend these monsters.

Tithing receipts have, at least since 1990, stated that donations become the property of the Church and that they are used at the Church's discretion. No promises are made as to how these donations are used. https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/11/01/23/77294963-12699733-image-m-141698881844059.jpg

Flip side of that argument: Once we ban guns, won't they just find other weapons to commit murder with? I'm confident that they will.

I believe that "gun free zones" should only exist with the presence of robust security systems. Having an easily-entered school with little, if any physical security designated as a "gun free zone" makes it a target for the fringe minority of people who have a desire to commit mass murder.

I also think that more meaningful social improvements need to be made, including addressing housing affordability, wealth equality, access to affordable health care, and addressing the decades-long mental health crisis.

I won't ever be supportive of a ban on guns for the same reason the United States refuses to sign on to certain arms treaties (such as the ones against cluster munitions and land mines): I refuse to go along with anything that would limit my ability to defend myself. The government won't guarantee my safety, so why should I give up the most effective tool for preventing myself from being a victim of violence?

I used to buy used books all the time, and I read most of them. However, now that I have a decent e-reader (Kobo Libre 2), I'll probably only buy a physical copy of a book if I really enjoy it and think I might read it again or if it has otherwise left an impact on me.

I really don’t give a shit about any other argument.

Your dogmatic fundamentalism prevents your words from being persuasive.

Sorry bud, but safety is absolutely a factor. The top mass murders of the 20th century (body counts in tens of millions) were preceded by the disarmament of the targeted groups by the government. The Second Amendment exists to help prevent that kind of thing happening here.

As long as the police are generally corrupt and unreliable, and as long as the United States has a standing army, there will never be an amendment revoking the right to keep and bear arms. If such an amendment does come to pass, there will be a civil war and likely an end to the American experiment.

Thanks.

Sure, but the rifle in question is not, and has never been a military weapon. The premise is that this is a "weapon of war", as the redcoats like to describe it.

Besides, the "assault-style features" are purely cosmetic and have no bearing on the functionality of the rifle.

The rest of the First World are entitled to their irrelevant opinions. They are also free to actually state facts and share sources.

From the piece,

How did the AR-15 go from being mainly used on battlefields to one of the most popular firearms among civilians in the US?

This question is based on a false premise. Neither the Colt AR-15, nor the ArmaLite AR-15 have ever been used "on battlefields".

You still see leaders in the Democratic party talking about, “we need another assault weapons ban,” when, as we show in our book, the first one really didn’t work. And secondly, there’s more than 20m in civilian hands right now – what’s a ban going to do at this point?

Support for those movements has been very episodic, whereas gun rights groups are laser-focused on one thing. So people have to start to talk beyond this binary of guns are bad or guns are good. We need to start thinking about surgical ways to make us all safer, because that’s the bottom line.

The man speaks truth. Gun bans aren't going to make anyone, except for police and criminals, safer.

I keep hearing good things about Martha Wells. I need to start reading her books.