Random Politics & Religion #00

If you don't have an army, you are better off not resisting. Unless you really want to die.

when did our hypothetical 'lives' become more important than our hypothetical 'freedom'?

aslo I think Aeyela just wants to disarm us so he / she can get us back under the queens boot-heel.

just what I would say if I was planning on re-acquiring an old asset that was taken from me...

I'm all talk anyway. I'm teaching my kids chinese right now so when they take over america we'll be able to kiss *** in their language, possibly securing myself a sheriff position or something.

Insurrection is a young man's game.

In another development on Friday, the US announced it would end efforts to train new Syrian rebel forces and instead shift to providing equipment and weapons to existing forces.
Its $500m (£326m) programme had aimed to train and equip 5,400 fighters this year and a further 15,000 in 2016.
However, it emerged last month that only four or five of the fighters were in Syria.
It was also revealed that US-trained rebels had handed vehicles and ammunition over to militants.
A senior administration official said the programme was being put on "pause" and said it could be restarted in future.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34494856
This little tidbit buried in the bottom...

If you don't have an army, you are better off not resisting. Unless you really want to die.

If you have an army, but no chance of winning and nobody is going to help you, they are stupid to even resist.

Maybe they'll waste years and a *** of money doing it like the whole "Benghazi investigation." Can we start suing them for wasting our money for political ***?

Just start taking it out of the military contractor budget.

The NRA supported him in 1990 just out of sheer spite for his anti-gun opponent. Their ads basically went: "Even the socialist is better than this guy." Since then they have supported his opponent in every election. That ad won't hurt him at all.

It potentially could with minority voters, but as he's struggling with those anyway...

The NRA supported him in 1990 just out of sheer spite for his anti-gun opponent. Their ads basically went: "Even the socialist is better than this guy." Since then they have supported his opponent in every election. That ad won't hurt him at all.

Vermont is a state known for gun-owners and hunting. He didn't keep his state senate position being anti-gun.

Well it sure looks like he did.

Their words, not mine. Look at his NRA voting record according to Slate:

During his time in Congress, Sanders opposed several moderate gun control bills. He also supported the most odious NRA–backed law in recent memory—one that may block Sandy Hook families from winning a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the gun used to massacre their children.
VOTED AGAINST BRADY ACT
In 1993, then-Rep. Sanders voted against the Brady Act, which mandated federal background checks for gun purchasers and restricted felons’ access to firearms.
VOTED TO ALLOW GUNS ON TRAINS
As a senator, Sanders supported bills to allow firearms in checked bags on Amtrak trains.
BLOCK FUNDING TO EVEN FOREIGN AID ORGANIZATIONS THAT REGISTERED GUNS
Blocked funding to any foreign aid organization that registered or taxed Americans’ guns.
INSULTED THE SANDY HOOK FAMILIES WITH THIS IGNORANCE
Sanders is dubious that gun control could help prevent gun violence, telling one interviewer after Sandy Hook that “if you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen.” (He has since endorsed some modest gun control measures.)

SANDERS HORRIBLE VOTE TO SUPPORT GUN DEALERS AND MANUFACTURERS
Sanders’ vote for a different kind of pro-gun bill is more puzzling—and profoundly disturbing. In 2005, a Republican-dominated Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This law doesn’t protect gun owners; it protects gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers. The PLCAA was the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association for years, because it shields gun makers and dealers from most liability when their firearms are used criminally. It is one of the most noxious pieces of pro-gun legislation ever passed. And Bernie Sanders voted for it. (Sanders’ campaign has not replied to a request for comment.)
THE HORRIBLE EFFECT OF BERNIE'S DISGRACEFUL VOTES
Before the PLCAA, most states imposed some form of tort liability on gun makers and sellers. If a gun manufacturer made an assault rifle that could slaughter dozens of people in a few seconds, for instance, one of its victims might sue the company for negligently making a gun that could foreseeably be used for mass murder. If a gun seller sold a gun to a customer without performing any kind of background check—and then the buyer opened fire on the subway—his victims might sue that seller for negligently providing a gun to a mentally unstable person. The standards in each state differed, but the bottom line remained the same: Victims of gun violence and their families could recover financially from the people and companies who negligently enabled gun violence.
The PLCAA changed all that. Remarkably, the act wiped out gun liability laws in all 50 states, rendering them invalid except for a handful of narrow exceptions. (So much for states’ rights.) Thanks to the law, victims of mass shootings are barred from suing the companies that produced a wartime weapon that no civilian could ever need. With few exceptions, victims cannot sue a gun seller for negligently providing a semiautomatic weapon to a lunatic who shoots them in a movie theater. Even if a jury decides a gun maker or seller should be liable, the PLCAA invalidates its verdict. The law tramples upon states’ rights, juries’ rights, and fundamental precepts of America’s civil justice system. And it received Bernie Sanders’ support—in both 2003 (when it was first introduced) and 2005 (when it finally passed).

Bernie's record on guns is so right-wing that the wingnut Daily Caller wrote this about him: "Bernie Sanders, Second Amendment Socialist?" They captured this statement from Bernie:
“If you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen,” Sanders told a liberal Vermont outlet after the Sandy Hook shootings. http://dailycaller.com/...
Really?
What is Bernie Sanders?

Seriously.

I would love to hear some of his supporters defend this record.

I don't consider supporting PLCAA in 2005 as anti-gun.

Insulating gun manufacturers against liability for people misusing their product only makes sense. It would be like allowing people to sue Ford if someone ran a F-150 through a carnival. What that has to do with Sandy Hook, I have no idea, but if you want to hold someone responsible for shootings, make it the person who made a gun available to the shooter.

I don't get why that's pro-gun, I'm not exactly a big gun rights person and I PLCAA as pro-common-sense.

'

It's also like suing Ford because i got into an accident due to my the accelerator on my car malfunctioning.