|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Holy poo poo these people are monsters and have absolutely no self-awareness at all. Once they said waterboarding wasn't torture, it can never be torture. Never mind that everyone that's said it wasn't torture and then submitted themselves to it changed their mind. And then their's Hannity, who's a massive chicken
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
zoux posted:It ain't their money they're spending. The only down side to Walker dropping out so early is that he didn't get a chance to waste even more Koch money.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
zoux posted:Maybe if several thousand people died in a single shooting but apart from that, nah. The Onion beat you to that one a few years ago... http://www.theonion.com/article/nra-sets-1000-killed-in-school-shooting-as-amount--28352
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:If I ever die in a mass shooting, please put on my tombstone: After you get gunned down in a mass shooting is no time to talk about gun control.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:The controls people are asking for are just, like, national background checks and closing the gun show loophole right? This and I believe actually tracking deaths due to guns again. Like I'm totally ok with gun ownership and the fact that these aren't done is loving dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Well, the other option is that a bunch of people who have a really bare understanding of how guns work and how they're used (assuming they aren't completely clueless) keep trying to make decisions about them. Hi, I'm someone with a deep understanding of guns and the subject matter related to them. Gun control is good and needs to loving happen.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Meaningful gun control would be the following. Any firearm that can fire more than one round per trigger pull or any firearm with a barrel length under 14" should be treated exactly the same regarding gun control laws. All firearm sales require a minimum 15 day waiting period & federal background check, including gun sales between two parties.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:15-day waiting period is really kind of needless in today's technology world, tbqh. Its not like there's a human doing any of that. (also a real federal background check is super expensive) Waiting periods actually do a lot with preventing crimes of passion, and obviously it would not be the full-on federal background check. SedanChair posted:It's legal to make machine guns again!! I'm actually fine with this provided they are massively regulated if handguns are also subject to those regulations.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:For the record I'm in favor of strict gun control but how do you stop someone from buying a gun, ostensibly for themselves, then just gifting it to someone for free? If they didn't report it stolen or didn't include a writ of sale (which would be for $0 in the case of a gift) then that person gets blackballed from ever buying a gun legally again. As for black market gun sales... well poo poo. Guess we just shouldn't have laws then.  You obviously keep going after them and prosecuting the people involved like we're doing now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'm OK with this because by the time congress gets done with it none of the stuff about handguns would be in there, just like happened with the National Firearms Act. Well yeah, getting meaningful gun control laws would require a sane congress so I'm well aware of discussing such matters being a work of complete fantasy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Monkey Fracas posted:But if we ban them only criminals will have them and as a conceal carry proponent I *wet juicy fart* This is true. Cops carry hand guns.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:You know Hitler actually loosened gun laws, right? Look man, he said Hitler but meant Lenin. All socialists are the same right?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Thump! posted:Don't you know though!? Australia and Britain are setting up their pogroms now as we speak! They disarmed their populace, and are currently marching all their undesirables to the ovens and invading their neighbors! At least in the case of Australia they did actually make camps for undesirables. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Milk Malk posted:You know the statistics say that an increase the the availability of guns actually reduces violent crime? And that Hitler, though a reprehensible human being and a horrible, horrible racist, was actually a leader who wanted the best for his people? Don't try to cast me as a holocaust apologist either, in this analogy the American people would be the Jews--castrated, emasculated, and defenseless. Yeah, because gun control in Australia had a zero positive effect after it was implemented. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
SubponticatePoster posted:Make part of the gun buying process similar to what Republicans keep trying to do with abortion. First, you have to see pictures of victims of mass shootings and audio recordings of the screams of the dying. Then get something randomly shoved up your rear end - you must consent to this or else you're not allowed to purchase a firearm. Then after all that you still have to come back and speak with a counselor twice more with a waiting period of 48 hours in between sessions. Also regulate the stores that sell firearms down to the nails used in construction, make sure the seller has admitting privileges at a local hospital (in case something goes wrong), they can't be within 1000 ft of a school or church, and the name of everyone that buys a gun is posted in the local paper. Oh, and they have to recommend alternatives, like slingshots and paintball/airsoft. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
fknlo posted:You can't be that dense. He actually thinks the Hillary email poo poo (a) matters (b) was criminal... so yeah he can.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:You definitely don't want to replace your penis with a handgun. Would that be considered a method of legal abortion though?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:If you speak to a gun advocate from California, that person will speak as though they live in totalitarian Cambodia. All thanks to saint Reagan to. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:I'm not sure what an independent and impartial international body holding investigative authority over the sovereign government of a superpower would even look like 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I hope someone gets court martialed. A whole bunch of people actually. Yeah this, along with several years at Leavenworth. Like, I totally buy the Afghan military being so loving incompetent that they called in an airstrike on a MSF hospital that has been at the same location for a while. The air crew not confirming the target, or them getting the green light from someone when it was on a "do not loving target this" list is the part that's 100% on the US soldiers.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Part of the problem is that it'll be difficult to say exactly where responsibility lies. The pilots followed the order of someone who should've known better, but that person authorized the bombing after receiving bad (?) information from Afghani soldiers on the ground who said that they were being fired on from the hospital. The person that authorized the bombing should have maybe checked the "don't loving target this" list before giving the green light. Air crew being in the middle is hosed up for them and all, but I really, really loving doubt the Afghani army had full control over what that gunship was targeting.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Who are you going to charge, and with what? The officer that gave the green light, or the air crew that didn't verify the target. Also, I really loving doubt that the Afghani army can just call up the US forces in the area to give 100% no questions asked CAS. Special forces getting that, sure I buy that. But as it was shown with the tanker convoy indecent a non US force calling in an air strike using US troops doesn't just go "strike called in -> waste the fuckers". There are a few layers between those two and that's where the fault lies.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you don't get to oops warcrimes I don't think the air crew should be charge unless they didn't verify the target. The officer that gave the target, and any officer that verified a target that was on a "don't loving target this" list, weather he was Afghani or US should abso-loving-lutely face charges though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:so it would be better if they knew it was a hospital they weren't supposed to shoot at? I don't know how close the air crew was to the hospital, and if they could even see it due to clouds / dust / smoke/ altitude or whatever. The fact that MSF has told everyone operating in the area repeatedly that they are a hospital be they US/Afghan/Taliban forces means that somewhere in the chain of command someone didn't check what they were calling in the strike on, and the air crew is about the lowest rung on the ladder when it comes to verifying targets.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Boon posted:Admittedly, I dont know how targeting works within the plane and dont know what procedures they walk through internally. My experience is in TLAM and have worked at both MOCs and AOCs. Yeah, I'm 100% for a full investigation on this. My point is that anyone who hosed up, either through ignorance or malice, gets charged, court-marshaled, and spends a very long time in Kansas.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's arguably not a war crime if either A) they actually were taking fire from the hospital compound, or B) they did not know and could not reasonably have known that the building was a hospital. MSF has said a poo poo load of times that nothing was being fired from the compound, and I would be inclined to believe them over the US military. The 105mm has a range of several miles so I don't even know if the air crew visually confirmed the target or just fired on a target location, which if it's the latter despite the target being a hospital that's actually really impressive. The air crew not knowing it's a hospital they're targeting would of course absolve them of being charged, but to say that no one that passed along the targeting and fire order knew what that building was a hospital or an Afghani being dumb as gently caress and thinking that they were taking fire from it (when again MSF claims otherwise) means that it was almost definitely a war crime.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:First problem, and the biggest problem I have with Condiv. Look at the objective facts first. You don't have to like the military, but if your argument starts with "I believe the other guy more", it undercuts the rest of your post a bit. The only problem I have with the military is that they don't prosecute themselves enough and have a history of lying or distorting the facts. MSF doesn't have a history of lying so yeah, I think it's totally legit to believe them over the military. The fog of war is a bitch and I've made it pretty clear that the air crew should only be blamed if they were negligent. Having their lives hosed because officer rear end-clown either didn't verify the target or didn't give a poo poo would be hosed up and I would much rather officer rear end-clown get charged if that was the case. And I really, really doubt that it was as simple as (a) call in an air strike (b) start firing without there being some confirmation of verification of the target first, and it's the head of the person that verified it as a legit target that needs to roll, of if it was that simple than whoever made it so targets aren't verified needs to get court-marshaled for negligence.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
walgreenslatino posted:- DoD changed their argument from the bombing being a complete accident, to claiming the hospital and base were being used as "human shields" by the Taliban, which is not true Not only that but they've also admitted that the line of communication wasn't "Afghani Army -> AC-130" but instead was "Afghani Army -> special forces -> command and control -> AC-130". At a minimum the command and control part might not have existed, but that still means we didn't check poo poo before we bombed it, or the SF guys panicked and called in a strike on a position that wasn't actually firing at them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:The biggest challenge in Afghanistan is there is no real drive to get anything done. The local government doesn't care and we sure as hell don't (anymore). It worked out great last time we tried it. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Wouldn't have mattered. Gunships fire well beyond the range at which you'd see a red crescent. The gently caress-up happened somewhere on the controller level. Yup. This is what I was saying yesterday in that no one at the controller level checked the "don't loving bomb here" list before telling the gunship to fire. Those are the people that should be facing charges IMO, not the gunship crew.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Artificer posted:Yeah that was the gist of what I was getting too. Clearly you've never met anyone that's in / been in the military.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:I don't think you can actually draw that conclusion at all! Yeah I'm not seeing evidence that the military knew they were bombing a hospital while it was being bombed. The gently caress-up(s) I'm seeing is that C2 didn't cross check this against the list of "don't loving bomb this" sites and how long it took for them to relay to the gunship crew to stop after MSF contacted them that they're bombing a loving hospital.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Artificer posted:Oh gently caress. No, but I'll just put it out there that the US military probably has the least number of idiots % wise compared to every other nations military.* *Marines excluded.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Thump! posted:Nah, it's a pretty common theme in all militaries throughout the entirety of human history. Hell, I bet Spartans were drawing dicks on the insides of their barracks bathrooms in their downtime. Knowing how the Spartans were I would actually be shocked if they weren't drawing dicks on everything in sight.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:The real surprise is we've lived so long as a species. Dinosaurs were around for something like 165 million years. Humans have only been around for only 200,000 and we've hosed up the plant way more than they ever did so give it some time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:The US military should help rebuild that hospital probably, they certainly have the money for it. Only this time paint a red bullseye instead of a red crescent on it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Wouldn't Kissinger bombing Le Duc Tho count? Or does that not count because Nixon? Kissinger got his peace prize after we stopped bombing Vietnam.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Maybe Andy Kaufman never died but just moved to Vermont? I still maintain that Kaufman went black-face ala RDJ in Tropic Thunder only to become the CEO of Godfather's Pizza.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:WaPo reports that Donald Trump has a "Wall of Shame" in his New York Trump Tower office, featuring downcast photos of Scott Walker If it's ever confirmed that Trump is running only gently caress Jeb! (and Carlos Slim) over he'll pretty much go down as (a) pulling off the greatest troll of all time and (b) make him one of the top 10 Americans of all time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Jesus was pure so he was white. God made darker people as punishment for their sins. You joke, but this is literally what a ton of preachers will tell you the punishment for Cain was since it was made popular in the 1800's and lasted up until about 70-80 years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2015 22:19
|
|