@legacy-fan said:

It does not follow that what they do with conventional weapons is what they'll do if they acquire nuclear technology.

@legacy-fan said:

Kind interesting which parts of the constitution are deemed acceptable to shit all over. e.g. Snowden a hero, 2nd amendment proponents are redneck dumbasses.

The 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments were shit all over in the name of preventing terrorism. Personal privacy was also compromised and the NSA was allowed to monitor anything and everything (they deserve a pat on the back for stopping that school shooting in Oregon - oh wait, they didn't actually stop shit). I'd rather not the same shit happen to the 2nd amendment because of a knee jerk reaction school shootings. Terrorist attacks and mass murders are viscerally jarring, but the number of people they actually affect is miniscule.

The gun control lobby wants to increase gun restrictions, but no one, and I mean no one, has put together a reasonable plan that will actually prevent shootings of this nature. The assault weapon bans are fucking stupid - per the now expired 1994 ban, AR-15s were unavailable to purchase, but Mini 14s were okay. They both fire the same ammunition and are functionally equivalent weapons. So why is one banned, but not the other? Because one looks scarier. I wish I was joking.

This is the kind of shit that pro gun control lawmakers push, and it makes it pretty clear that they have no idea what they're legislating - it's not too much different from the braindead morons trying to restrict purchase of video games or music with explicit content. Bernie Sanders just gave reddit a boner by announcing that he would enact sensible and reasonable legislation with respect to gun control, without explaining what would make it sensible and reasonable. If you ask anyone who's for more gun control what steps should actually be taken, the best answer they'll come up with is "something's gotta be better than this." That's not good enough for me, and unfortunately, congress hasn't developed that thought any further, and have actually implemented worse laws as evidenced above.

@vaportrail said:

the constitution has been shit all over since 9/11 in the name of patriotism and stopping terrorists.

Ole "Crocodile Tears" Barry sure has his sights set on (pun intended) the amendment situated directly between the 1st & the 3rd. All in the name of protecting children. (Pssst. Stop killing babies. Maybe go ban the Assault Whopper or Automatic Big Mac - stupid fucks).

We've taken your speech, your privacy, and now we are trying to take away your ability to do anything about it.

@vaportrail said:

Unitedwithisrael. I'm sure it's the most unbiased of sources.

@oldbrownsfan said:

If they continue to be assholes than yeah folks will turn on em.

@calfoxwc said:

I'm afraid that kind of thought is going to only become stronger in the United States. The bible states there will come a time when all the nations turn against Israel. If language means anything that unfortunately would include the United States.

********************************************************

So, if you were walking down a street at night, with your younger cousin, and a couple of thugs

walk up, and say "we're going to beat this young kid up, so you had better leave and do what's

best for you"...

You're fine with that? A friend asks you to go with him to pick up his wife at the amtrak station in a bad

part of town.... at a deserted 1:30 in the morning... and you don't go because that is what is best for you?

Staying out of WWI and WWII was best for us? Except eventually, the problems exploded into

global ones, and we finally had to enter the war, and the cost was horrifically high because we waited

so long?

What you mean is, turning out backs on Israel would be EASIER, at least until millions of Israelis'

are destroyed. Again.

You are so wrong about it.

@westside-steve said:

Than you agree with the road to our ruin. And we weren't the world policeman all these years for the benefit of the world, we did some bad shit for our own gain and it's progressively gotten us a bad name. Slapping little countries against the wall that didn't open up their national resources to us under "our" terms was only gonna fly for so long.

@calfoxwc said:

I could spend hours talking your ear off about why i'm not a "friend of Israel". I'm more ambivalent about Iran because I know that despite being run by the Ayatollahs, most Persians that get out of there are actually fairly progressive people. They're a country still haunted by certain domestic interventions by foreign entities that happened long ago and are as shameful and contemptible as anything we criticize the Russians for.

@vaportrail said:

It's not our job to police the world.

I disagree.

WSS

For example of all the crackpots that hate whoever the President of the United States is at a particular time assassinated him it would most likely not make their side any safer. Probably to the contrary.

WSS

@calfoxwc said:

Our relationship with Israel is the reason Islamic extremists have painted a target on our backs. Rethinking that relationship is probably the single best thing we could do to improve national security.

@westside-steve said:

Well for one thing I think we've overstated the importance of Osama bin Laden as we usually do in America. Pick some fucking figurehead and pretend it's all about him.

Agree to disagree. The guy played a role in a huge number of attacks in the 90s and 2000s. The effects of the 9/11 attacks 14 years ago are still being felt today. The guy was extremely intelligent and changed our country for the worse - the constitution has been shit all over since 9/11 in the name of patriotism and stopping terrorists.

And for that matter if I could prevent it I wouldn't want Pakistan or North Korea to have nuclear weapons either.

It's not our job to police the world.

@vaportrail said:

Let's compare them to Pakistan. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and their relationship with the US is currently much more strained than that of Iran (they hid Osama bin Laden a few miles from their premier military academy). So where's all the outrage and fear over Pakistani nukes?

Well for one thing I think we've overstated the importance of Osama bin Laden as we usually do in America. Pick some fucking figurehead and pretend it's all about him.

And for that matter if I could prevent it I wouldn't want Pakistan or North Korea to have nuclear weapons either.

WSS

WHY do you disagree ?

And why be "not a friend of Israel"...

and perhaps "be supportive of Iran" getting nukes?

I don't get it..got explanations?

LeT and banned it's existence.

How much intel subgroups favor helping terrorists...

who knows.

But comparing that with Iran is ridiculous.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/18/pakistan-isi-mumbai-terror-attacks

@calfoxwc said:

That's worse than hiding and protecting the mastermind of 9/11?

around the world:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/testimony/LevittTestimony20120725.pdf

Any terrorist groups like hamas and hezbollah, etc... funded to

go destroy Israel?

Sure, Pakistan should not have them either. Look at the hostile atmosphere between

them and India. And, Pakistan IS divided, some in the Intelligence community

support terrorists by allowing them sanctuary in their country.

But Pakistan is a huge different deal. Pakistan is on the other side of Iran and Afghanistan.

There are now going to be Iranian troops officially in Syria.

Seriously. Want to change the subject to the Oman or Sudan while you're at it?

@westside-steve said:

Let's compare them to Pakistan. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and their relationship with the US is currently much more strained than that of Iran (they hid Osama bin Laden a few miles from their premier military academy). So where's all the outrage and fear over Pakistani nukes?

It's going nowwhere til you quit "not being a fan" of Israel, and

stop thinking that iran, with all it's aggression and maniacal

threats... would be any kind of a good thing. What the hell is up with that?

that implies that you are pro-Israel's enemies a tiny bit, maybe? or not....

And nukes compared to Ak-47's...

try a small dirty bomb. Or a lot of them proliferated around the countries

hostile to Israel. Iran doesn't have to develop and implement actual nukes.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/12/16/danger-and-delay-on-dirty-bombs/

They could just proliferate dirty radioactive material to terrorists. Like Hamas.

The middle east is closer and closer to going to war. and it isn't all that farfetched

that Russia and our U.S.A. are way too close to each other over there already.

btw, why in the bullbleep would anybody "not be a friend of Israel", and defend it's enemies?