Well, it might be a regional thing too. The majority of D.C.'s residents seem to favor gun control, even though it's not done much good for them. The same is true for Chicago.JohnG@lt wrote:
I did There's only a slim majority favoring bans on assault weapons (which is stupid because an assault weapon is no different from any other rifle). The rest are in favor of status quo or reversal of gun control laws. People realize that banning guns just puts law abiding citizens at the mercy of those that don't abide by them (well, except for my esteemed Mayor Bloomberg ).Turquoise wrote:
That would be the most practical move...
EDIT: Shit, John... you found it before I did... lol
It's mostly ignorance and fear. Every metropolitan area has residents in close proximity to each other, 99.9% of whom they do not know. I only know a handful of my neighbors, and none by name. Because we're all taught to lock our doors, our cars and our windows, we have little trust for anyone. To then expect people to be ok with their neighbor owning a weapon plays on these irrational fears. Movies and the media do not help either because they prey on peoples fears and tell people they should be afraid of people with a weapon. Is it any wonder we have such power tripping cops too? Everyone is taught to fear the man with the gun.Turquoise wrote:
Well, it might be a regional thing too. The majority of D.C.'s residents seem to favor gun control, even though it's not done much good for them. The same is true for Chicago.JohnG@lt wrote:
I did There's only a slim majority favoring bans on assault weapons (which is stupid because an assault weapon is no different from any other rifle). The rest are in favor of status quo or reversal of gun control laws. People realize that banning guns just puts law abiding citizens at the mercy of those that don't abide by them (well, except for my esteemed Mayor Bloomberg ).Turquoise wrote:
That would be the most practical move...
EDIT: Shit, John... you found it before I did... lol
Anyway, it's all very irrational. If more people were exposed to guns they would find they have little to fear. I would rather assume that my neighbors are responsible human beings and not sociopaths looking for an opportunity
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Good points... I mean, gun control does work for certain countries. It works for Australia, for example. Of course, Australia has a much smaller population and far less poverty than us. They also don't border a really poor fucked up country like we do.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's mostly ignorance and fear. Every metropolitan area has residents in close proximity to each other, 99.9% of whom they do not know. I only know a handful of my neighbors, and none by name. Because we're all taught to lock our doors, our cars and our windows, we have little trust for anyone. To then expect people to be ok with their neighbor owning a weapon plays on these irrational fears. Movies and the media do not help either because they prey on peoples fears and tell people they should be afraid of people with a weapon. Is it any wonder we have such power tripping cops too? Everyone is taught to fear the man with the gun.
Anyway, it's all very irrational. If more people were exposed to guns they would find they have little to fear. I would rather assume that my neighbors are responsible human beings and not sociopaths looking for an opportunity
But yeah, people need to see guns as a tool. They have equal potential for good or bad, but it all depends on how you use them.
I would say the same can be applied to regulation.
I..almost agree with everything you wrote there...must...lie...downJohnG@lt wrote:
It's mostly ignorance and fear. Every metropolitan area has residents in close proximity to each other, 99.9% of whom they do not know. I only know a handful of my neighbors, and none by name. Because we're all taught to lock our doors, our cars and our windows, we have little trust for anyone. To then expect people to be ok with their neighbor owning a weapon plays on these irrational fears. Movies and the media do not help either because they prey on peoples fears and tell people they should be afraid of people with a weapon. Is it any wonder we have such power tripping cops too? Everyone is taught to fear the man with the gun.
Anyway, it's all very irrational. If more people were exposed to guns they would find they have little to fear. I would rather assume that my neighbors are responsible human beings and not sociopaths looking for an opportunity
I read it, and I bow to the fact that you actually have a law against blasphemy, I also bow to the fact that their has been 1 attempt to actually enforce the law.IG-Calibre wrote:
well feel free to start with Bunreacht na hÉireann, also In 1999, there was an attempt to prosecute a newspaper for a cartoon mocking the (Catholic) church (Published 1995) - but the judge in that case noted that he could not prosecute, because there was no definition of what legally constituted blasphemy ( The case is Corway v Independent Newspapers ).
However, no one seems to take the law seriously enough to do anything about, until now. What has changed? What is the trigger for renewed interest in this enforcement?
Prove it? Well, OK FT Hood Tx, a Muslim major in the US Army takes out 13 people in the name of Islam, some dipshit managed to bypass security and get far enough to actually blow up an airplane in the name of Islam. Kinda sorta plenty of proof.ruisleipa wrote:
fuckin' prove it - or maybe that's just another of your paranoid fantasies 'ooooh the islamists are takin' over!'.lowing wrote:
Already countered that argument with this "In case you haven't noticed lately, Islam has had no problems infiltrating any place they see fit to lend attention to. "It's not that I disagree with you per se, but you're such a one-trick pony it gets boring listening to you go on about the same shit without actually reading or understanding anything about the OP, that's all.lowing wrote:
and Turquoise that really isn't fair of you to say, just because you and others do not agree with me does not mean my posts are irrational. They aren't.Maybe YOU should prove that these laws ARE to do with 'islamic terrorism and retalitation' since there's plenty of people here (like..the Irish) who one would imagine know more about it than you who say different.lowing wrote:
I have no problem being proven wrong here, I am just waiting for someone to stop dancing and show me where these laws were pressing issues BEFORE Islamic terrorism and Islamic retaliation became a concern. I really do not think that is an irrational request, especially since you all deny Islam has any thing to do with it.
No what is the one trick pony is the countless attempts at terror in the name of Islam, that goes largely dismissed as just a few nut cases.
What I have questioned is the coincidence of the timing of this legislation. It coincides with others that ARE a direct result of Islamic actions. and until recent, no one has shown me otherwise. Which still leaves questions for me.
quite frankly, the slow grinding of the gears of State, Lowing , and, certainly not through any pressure brought to bear by extremist Muslims..lowing wrote:
However, no one seems to take the law seriously enough to do anything about, until now. What has changed? What is the trigger for renewed interest in this enforcement?
Too ambiguous of an answer, so I pose the same question. Considering, actions such as this are popping up everywhere, and directly because of Islamic behavior, explain why coincidently enough, these same laws are now becoming a priorty in Ireland, if not for the same reason.IG-Calibre wrote:
quite frankly, the slow grinding of the gears of State, Lowing , and, certainly not through any pressure brought to bear by extremist Muslims..lowing wrote:
However, no one seems to take the law seriously enough to do anything about, until now. What has changed? What is the trigger for renewed interest in this enforcement?
oh fuck off Lowing tbf..
I see, well, so much for that dialog. Anyone one else?IG-Calibre wrote:
oh fuck off Lowing tbf..
Who asked for Ireland’s blasphemy law?
Well, here’s how it came about:
In February 2006, Irish President Mary McAleese visited Saudi Arabia and condemned the publication of the Danish Mohammed cartoons, saying, “Muslims have every right to feel angry.” “It was designed to provoke, to be rude, to inflame,” she told reporters just a couple of hours before calling on Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah.
taken from http://sheikyermami.com/2010/01/03/blas … n-ireland/
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/200 … n-ireland/
Seems there is enough to question this, and contrary to popular belief, it is rational and legitimate enough to do so
Well, here’s how it came about:
In February 2006, Irish President Mary McAleese visited Saudi Arabia and condemned the publication of the Danish Mohammed cartoons, saying, “Muslims have every right to feel angry.” “It was designed to provoke, to be rude, to inflame,” she told reporters just a couple of hours before calling on Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah.
taken from http://sheikyermami.com/2010/01/03/blas … n-ireland/
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/200 … n-ireland/
Seems there is enough to question this, and contrary to popular belief, it is rational and legitimate enough to do so
Last edited by lowing (2010-01-03 15:51:08)
Oh Lowing Lowing Lowing, seriously pal.. I don't know, Mary McAleese has fuck all to do with this, she certainly didn't introduce it, your thinking that our system works the same as yours and it doesn't!! so PLEASE STOP POSTING FUCKING NONSENSE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR OWN IRRATIONAL ISLAMOPHOBIA FROM WANK SOURCES..
Lowing, I gotta admit... You're putting an amazing amount of effort toward this, but 2 things...lowing wrote:
Who asked for Ireland’s blasphemy law?
Well, here’s how it came about:
In February 2006, Irish President Mary McAleese visited Saudi Arabia and condemned the publication of the Danish Mohammed cartoons, saying, “Muslims have every right to feel angry.” “It was designed to provoke, to be rude, to inflame,” she told reporters just a couple of hours before calling on Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah.
taken from http://sheikyermami.com/2010/01/03/blas … n-ireland/
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/200 … n-ireland/
Seems there is enough to question this, and contrary to popular belief, it is rational and legitimate enough to do so
1) The sources you're using are rather fanatical in their own right.
2) Mary McAleese was condemning the tactic of being intentionally offensive toward Muslims, not freedom of speech itself.
NO it's not proof you dumbass. You say 'Islam can get into any place blah blah' like there's a big gang of people called Islam who only want to blow shit up. You're full of it man - shit that is. You probably think the fuckin IRA were also infiltrated by Muslims.lowing wrote:
Prove it? Well, OK FT Hood Tx, a Muslim major in the US Army takes out 13 people in the name of Islam, some dipshit managed to bypass security and get far enough to actually blow up an airplane in the name of Islam. Kinda sorta plenty of proof.
Oh, and did you READ calibre's reply in response to your dumb assertion that this is to do with appeasing Muslims.
I don't know why you bother tbh. Mind you, I don't know why I bother either...oh yeah, it's to see how many totally unrelated things you can link to Islamic extremism...games, games, games.
If the Irish hate protestants... Why the fuck would they bow down to Islam? Fucking lowing.IG-Calibre wrote:
Oh Lowing Lowing Lowing, seriously pal.. I don't know, Mary McAleese has fuck all to do with this, she certainly didn't introduce it, your thinking that our system works the same as yours and it doesn't!! so PLEASE STOP POSTING FUCKING NONSENSE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR OWN IRRATIONAL ISLAMOPHOBIA FROM WANK SOURCES..
lol. It was in our constitution in 1937 - it was only legislated for now. You really don't get how powerful the Catholic Church is in this nation do you? They run the primary schools for christ's sake - which is abhorrent in a modern western society. Ireland has practically no muslims - there would be nobody much to appease in that regard. This law must be struck out of our nation by means of referendum (given that it's part of our constitution). The main parties are probably too chickenshit because they don't want to upset all the cross-wielding rosary-chanting Catholic biddy voters. Irish politics is a tad more 'provincial' that it is in the US or UK or elsewhere, something you don't seem to know, realise or care to realise.lowing wrote:
this is directed toward Islamic appeasement and nothing more. Period
If you honestly think this has anything to do with Islam then it absolutely 100% proves you are irrational and make baseless comments as a matter of course, with little understanding for anything much you post on. Period.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-01-04 11:21:40)
By the tone of your post... YOURE AN APPEASER TO TEH MOOSLIMS WHO ARE BOMBING US IN IRAQIA AND AFGHANISTANCameronPoe wrote:
lol. It was in our constitution in 1937 - it was only legislated for now. You really don't get how powerful the Catholic Church is in this nation do you? They run the primary schools for christ's sake - which is abhorrent in a modern western society. Ireland has practically no muslims - there would be nobody much to appease in that regard. This law must be struck out of our nation by means of referendum (given that it's part of our constitution). The main parties are probably too chickenshit because they don't want to upset all the cross-wielding rosary-chanting Catholic biddy voters.lowing wrote:
this is directed toward Islamic appeasement and nothing more. Period
If you honestly think this has anything to do with Islam then it absolutely 100% proves you are irrational and make baseless comments as a matter of course, with little understanding for anything much you post on. Period.
3 irishmen in a thread, this could be the basis for some joke
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
I didn't say "Islam can get into anyplace blah blah blah", I gave examples of people that have gotten into seemingly secure places and blew shit up in the name of Islam.ruisleipa wrote:
NO it's not proof you dumbass. You say 'Islam can get into any place blah blah' like there's a big gang of people called Islam who only want to blow shit up. You're full of it man - shit that is. You probably think the fuckin IRA were also infiltrated by Muslims.lowing wrote:
Prove it? Well, OK FT Hood Tx, a Muslim major in the US Army takes out 13 people in the name of Islam, some dipshit managed to bypass security and get far enough to actually blow up an airplane in the name of Islam. Kinda sorta plenty of proof.
Oh, and did you READ calibre's reply in response to your dumb assertion that this is to do with appeasing Muslims.
I don't know why you bother tbh. Mind you, I don't know why I bother either...oh yeah, it's to see how many totally unrelated things you can link to Islamic extremism...games, games, games.
Yeah I read it, and as I provide links that show my argument is valid, all I have gotten from all of you is insults in return.
Once again, here we go attacking sources instead of information.Turquoise wrote:
Lowing, I gotta admit... You're putting an amazing amount of effort toward this, but 2 things...lowing wrote:
Who asked for Ireland’s blasphemy law?
Well, here’s how it came about:
In February 2006, Irish President Mary McAleese visited Saudi Arabia and condemned the publication of the Danish Mohammed cartoons, saying, “Muslims have every right to feel angry.” “It was designed to provoke, to be rude, to inflame,” she told reporters just a couple of hours before calling on Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah.
taken from http://sheikyermami.com/2010/01/03/blas … n-ireland/
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/200 … n-ireland/
Seems there is enough to question this, and contrary to popular belief, it is rational and legitimate enough to do so
1) The sources you're using are rather fanatical in their own right.
2) Mary McAleese was condemning the tactic of being intentionally offensive toward Muslims, not freedom of speech itself.
Since when do you have a right NOT to be offended, if not for appeasement. Who else has that right?
I have been shown it has been in your constitution, but it has never been taken seriously until now. This new found interest coincides with similar being pushed into legislation of other countries or is already legislation in Islamic countries.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. It was in our constitution in 1937 - it was only legislated for now. You really don't get how powerful the Catholic Church is in this nation do you? They run the primary schools for christ's sake - which is abhorrent in a modern western society. Ireland has practically no muslims - there would be nobody much to appease in that regard. This law must be struck out of our nation by means of referendum (given that it's part of our constitution). The main parties are probably too chickenshit because they don't want to upset all the cross-wielding rosary-chanting Catholic biddy voters. Irish politics is a tad more 'provincial' that it is in the US or UK or elsewhere, something you don't seem to know, realise or care to realise.lowing wrote:
this is directed toward Islamic appeasement and nothing more. Period
If you honestly think this has anything to do with Islam then it absolutely 100% proves you are irrational and make baseless comments as a matter of course, with little understanding for anything much you post on. Period.
The UN is also pushing this type of legislation into international law.
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/200 … ional-law/
It appears Ireland is doing nothing but jumping on the band wagon.
unless you can show me where this new found interest in curtailing your freedoms stems from, what other conclusion could be made?
THis is what I have been asking for and still no one has given me any links to this. Plenty of insults though.
don't even have to bother saying your info is shit if it's being linked from 'creepingsharia.com' lol. sources are the backbone of plenty of 'intelligent' discussion or publishing.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
If info is shit, then it should be no problem discrediting it, so do it. But merely saying it is shit is not good enough. This goes for any debate not just here.FatherTed wrote:
don't even have to bother saying your info is shit if it's being linked from 'creepingsharia.com' lol. sources are the backbone of plenty of 'intelligent' discussion or publishing.
Last edited by lowing (2010-01-04 13:57:16)
like ive said before, you're so badly wrong on this topic that i couldn't care to actually debate with you, i'm quite content just sitting here and watching you try and ram your opinion in on a topic that you know nothing about, and more intelligent people than me have said you know nothing about. oh, and three people who live in ireland, vs your information from muslimsareevil.com and ifitlooksdarkhangit.com
carry on
carry on
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
qft roflmaoFatherTed wrote:
like ive said before, you're so badly wrong on this topic that i couldn't care to actually debate with you, i'm quite content just sitting here and watching you try and ram your opinion in on a topic that you know nothing about, and more intelligent people than me have said you know nothing about. oh, and three people who live in ireland, vs your information from muslimsareevil.com and ifitlooksdarkhangit.com
carry on