SheZow

[CWCissey]

Freedom involves a right to bear arms, free speech, privacy, equality, and not being arrested for revving my engine in a "racist" manner, or getting arrested for being "racist" when asking to be put in a different group in school where people speak my language.

Sorry to go off topic but I just needed to say this.

The Daily Mail is full of shite.

A right to bear arms led to Dunblaine and Sandy Hook. Guns need to be heavily limited.

 

[Hasharin]

A right to bear arms led to Dunblaine and Sandy Hook. Guns need to be heavily limited.

It would be a stupid thing to do for your masters in these conditions:

1. SOME princes, so as to hold securely the state, have disarmed their subjects; others have kept their subject towns by factions; others have fostered enmities against themselves; others have laid themselves out to gain over those whom they distrusted in the beginning of their governments; some have built fortresses; some have overthrown and destroyed them. And although one cannot give a final judgment on all one of these things unless one possesses the particulars of those states in which a decision has to be made, nevertheless I will speak as comprehensively as the matter of itself will admit.

2. There never was a new prince who has disarmed his subjects; rather when he has found them disarmed he has always armed them, because, by arming them, those arms become yours, those men who were distrusted become faithful, and those who were faithful are kept so, and your subjects become your adherents. And whereas all subjects cannot be armed, yet when those whom you do arm are benefited, the others can be handled more freely, and this difference in their treatment, which they quite understand, makes the former your dependants, and the latter, considering it to be necessary that those who have the most danger and service should have the most reward, excuse you. But when you disarm them, you at once offend them by showing that you distrust them, either for cowardice or for want of loyalty, and either of these opinions breeds hatred against you. And because you cannot remain unarmed, it follows that you turn to mercenaries, which are of the character already shown; even if they should be good they would not be sufficient to defend you against powerful enemies and distrusted subjects. Therefore, as I have said, a new prince in a new principality has always distributed arms. Histories are full of examples. But when a prince acquires a new state, which he adds as a province to his old one, then it is necessary to disarm the men of that state, except those who have been his adherents in acquiring it; and these again, with time and opportunity, should be rendered soft and effeminate; and matters should be managed in such a way that all the armed men in the state shall be your own soldiers who in your old state were living near you.

 

[CatParty]

A right to bear arms led to Dunblaine and Sandy Hook. Guns need to be heavily limited.

It would be a stupid thing to do for your masters in these conditions:

1. SOME princes, so as to hold securely the state, have disarmed their subjects; others have kept their subject towns by factions; others have fostered enmities against themselves; others have laid themselves out to gain over those whom they distrusted in the beginning of their governments; some have built fortresses; some have overthrown and destroyed them. And although one cannot give a final judgment on all one of these things unless one possesses the particulars of those states in which a decision has to be made, nevertheless I will speak as comprehensively as the matter of itself will admit.

2. There never was a new prince who has disarmed his subjects; rather when he has found them disarmed he has always armed them, because, by arming them, those arms become yours, those men who were distrusted become faithful, and those who were faithful are kept so, and your subjects become your adherents. And whereas all subjects cannot be armed, yet when those whom you do arm are benefited, the others can be handled more freely, and this difference in their treatment, which they quite understand, makes the former your dependants, and the latter, considering it to be necessary that those who have the most danger and service should have the most reward, excuse you. But when you disarm them, you at once offend them by showing that you distrust them, either for cowardice or for want of loyalty, and either of these opinions breeds hatred against you. And because you cannot remain unarmed, it follows that you turn to mercenaries, which are of the character already shown; even if they should be good they would not be sufficient to defend you against powerful enemies and distrusted subjects. Therefore, as I have said, a new prince in a new principality has always distributed arms. Histories are full of examples. But when a prince acquires a new state, which he adds as a province to his old one, then it is necessary to disarm the men of that state, except those who have been his adherents in acquiring it; and these again, with time and opportunity, should be rendered soft and effeminate; and matters should be managed in such a way that all the armed men in the state shall be your own soldiers who in your old state were living near you.

[youtube]wsdy_rct6uo[/youtube]

 

[Ivan Komarov]

Freedom involves a right to bear arms, free speech, privacy, equality, and not being arrested for revving my engine in a "racist" manner, or getting arrested for being "racist" when asking to be put in a different group in school where people speak my language.

Sorry to go off topic but I just needed to say this.

The Daily Mail is full of shite.

A right to bear arms led to Dunblaine and Sandy Hook. Guns need to be heavily limited.

No. In the USA, murders are high in states with strict gun laws. I live in like the 2nd most permissive state for them, and we have some ridiculously low murder rate. You should have to get a license to be able to own guns, but, beyond that, don't limit them. The mother knew that her son was sociopathic, and tried to commit him. she was unable to get him to a mental hospital in time to stop the massacre. Also, most mass killers in the US were on some sort of either anti- ADHD medication, or anti depressant. Me should investigate these, and see what we can do about mental health laws before we institute a system that has been proven not to work.

 

[Saney]

Aaaand we're off topic again. Not like there's a politics read to discuss things like this or anything.

 

[QI 541]

There's not a lot of things you can do about mental health, unless you want to commit everyone with the slightest hint of mental illness into a mental hospital or something. It's simply not possible to reliably monitor everyone and predict who's going to go crazy, at least without some serious invasion of privacy and rights.

 

[Ivan Komarov]

There's not a lot of things you can do about mental health, unless you want to commit everyone with the slightest hint of mental illness into a mental hospital or something. It's simply not possible to reliably monitor everyone and predict who's going to go crazy, at least without some serious invasion of privacy and rights.

Sadly that's the truth. However, you could get a mental health check when you apply for a gun license, and a safety class so you don't shoot someone posing for a fb pic with a gun to your head. This wouldn't stop every criminal from getting guns, because you can't stop people from making them/ smuggling them, but it could help stop some people with mental problems from getting a gun.

 

[TL 611]

Right, people move this onto this thread if you wanna talk about it. Chris is for Chris.

 

[Rio]

Holy shit, this thread has gone beyond derailed. It left the rails and set course for the goddamn moon to spend the rest of its days alongside the tobacky and the moonpals.

Anyway, this show seems pretty shitty, with some sexist undertones thrown in for good measure... however that doesn't mean Chris won't enjoy it. He'll probably identify with the tomgirl protagonist or something. It would surprise me if the protagonist would become "his new hero," but I'd say that yes: Chris would probably watch something like this.

 

[Ivan Komarov]

Holy shit, this thread has gone beyond derailed. It left the rails and set course for the goddamn moon to spend the rest of its days alongside the tobacky and the moonpals.

Anyway, this show seems pretty shitty, with some sexist undertones thrown in for good measure... however that doesn't mean Chris won't enjoy it. He'll probably identify with the tomgirl protagonist or something. It would surprise me if the protagonist would become "his new hero," but I'd say that yes: Chris would probably watch something like this.

This. Chris could possibly make a video about how "tomgirls" are superheros, then have a "transformation" into his new superhero self, like in that vid where he paints himself blue, and turns into sanic-chris.

 

[LM 697]

America is great and so is Chris, but let's stay on topic and talk about the latter.