Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:A classic case of a kettle calling the pot blac (Score 0) 170

by Worthless_Comments (#43446713) Attached to: Guantanamo Hearings Delayed as Legal Files Vanish
Just because "nobody wants them" doesn't mean you get to hold someone prisoner indefinitely. You can talk till you're blue in the face about "enemy combatants" but if you're holding someone with no intention of doing ANYTHING other than holding them indefinitely without trial or publicly presented evidence, it just makes you an asshole.

Comment: Re:Or the reverse (Score 1) 899

by Worthless_Comments (#42745663) Attached to: New York Pistol Permit Owner List Leaked
Where to start...

Not sure where the Republican remark came from? I'm guessing it's because you think I must be, which I assure you I am not. I detest both parties.


You claim that not allowing regular people to own guns does not lead to totalitarian regimes, which I believe is just wrong. It is commonly the first step of tyrants is to disarm the people. Not to 'Godwin' the discussion, but look at Nazi Germany. For that matter, look at modern day England and to what degree of a nanny state they have become. If you think that is a good direction for America to head in, then we just have fundamental differences in opinion about what American liberty is supposed to be about. I don't know what to say about thinking nothing can ever happen in America, since that is exactly what everyone thinks, "it can never happen to me." As far as untrained fanatics going against the government, maybe you should look at, well, nearly any major conflict in the last 50-60 years. Ask a Vietnam vet what rural villagers with small arms can do. I can point to numerous examples of underarmed groups overcoming superior military might, and if you read a little history you can find them yourself.

And I agree ficitonal media does not cause violence. But a lot of people do. That's the problem, who gets to decide what indicates the potentially violent individuals you mentioned in your first post? Just because you think it doesn't means nothing, chances are you won't get to make those decisions. You see, I'm not in favor of banning your guns or your video games. I like all of the Constitution.

No, reducing the amount of deaths by 1 is not sufficient to limit liberty, nor is the prevention of 100 deaths sufficient. That's like saying it's okay to torture a terrorist if the information he gives you could save lives. Compromising our ideals is not worth it. There is no price too high for freedom to the man determined not to be a slave. So perhaps, as a nation, it's time to ask ourselves: is freedom no longer worth the cost? If that's the case, I wish we could at least be open about it.

Comment: Re:Or the reverse (Score 1) 899

by Worthless_Comments (#42736401) Attached to: New York Pistol Permit Owner List Leaked
Not only is it impossible to prevent a Newtown-like event, that is not my goal. The goal is not to be able to stop random acts of violence(which are on the decline, actually) but to stop the spread of the tyrant state. Do you think the TSA makes you safe? Another sideshow, just like gun control, meant as another means of controlling the people. It's time to ask yourself what is more important to you, a free and open society, or the illusion of society.

And both your "ways" are quite illogical anyway. Number one is entirely subjective until someone has acted. Maybe playing violent video games and movies makes one potentially violent; shall we ban those and imprison individuals who have been exposed to them? As for number two...that's just inane. You think people aren't able to murder successfully without advanced weaponry? Humans have been exceptionally talented at killing each others for many, many years before the invention of the firearm. As I said before, violent crime is on the decline - there are numbers that back this up.

We are experiencing system trouble -- do not adjust your terminal.

Working...