Oh, America doing something retarded.

WhyamInotsurprised.tga.gif.png

>Students in Texas will now be taught the benefits of US free-market economics and how government taxation can harm economic progress.
Butthurt republicans strike again

>Thomas Jefferson has been dropped from a list of enlightenment thinkers in the world-history curriculum, despite being one of the Founding Fathers who is credited with developing the idea that church and state should be separate
Butthurt christians strike again

whatever, only spics and niggers in texas

apart from the jefferson thing, if ail to see the problem. the UN thing and the tax thing are both true.

Why is /r9k/ getting flooded with pages about this shit? I read about this story weeks ago.

Frankly, people should be educated about the dangers of the UN.

>>9064562
>people should be educated about the dangers of the UN.

I'll bet every guy pushing this will also tell you about how fucking useless they are and how they can't get anything done without the US saying so.

>>9064534

>freedom to invade

>>9064489

Oh my fucking god. How many times do I have to say it?

HE IS STILL MENTIONED IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND HISTORY PORTIONS OF THE TEXT, BUT NOT IN THE ENLIGHTENMENT THINKERS PORTION.

HE IS BEING REPLACED WITH WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, A BRITISH JUDGE WHOSE IDEAS FORMED THE BASIS FOR AMERICAN AND BRITISH JURISPRUDENCE, WHICH IS A BETTER FIT. SINCE JEFFERSON DID LITLE CREATION OF HIS OWN, AND ACTED MORE LIKE AN EDITOR OF THOSE FREE-THINKERS WHO CAME BEFORE HIM.

THINK BEFORE YOU POST SOMETHING STUPID.

Forgive me. I forgot you weren't interested in facts or being knowledgable about a subject-- you just wanted to spew ignorant bullshit.

Carry on .

>>9064590
no, i dont believe in big government. different regions should totally have their own legislative control.

FOR EXAMPLE:

I would argue there is no need for a federal nation wide abortion law, why not let it be legal in california and illegal in kansas?

Why do we need the UN? different nations should have different laws.

>>9064409
Texas =/= America
Texas = The South

Northfag here. I don't really have anything against southerners except they let their religion get too involved in everything.

I can't stop laughing. This is the beginning of fascism in the U.S. "The people on the outside are a threat there should be no working together" "Church should be required to be a large part of your life" "Capitalism has never failed you (except for all those times it did, we are going to ignore those) keep using it the way it was used pre-Great Depression" I honestly can't wait to leave this shit hole of a country, all I need is just some more money so I can laugh at this from the outside.

>>9064647
>different nations should have different laws.

Admirable thinking. Too bad even your conservatives no longer support this.

>>9064646
He's not being dropped because someone else was a better fit, he's being dropped because he's associated with the separation of church and state. Christians don't like that shit.

>>9064647
Letting state governments have too much power leads to conflicts...like the Civil War. States would try to influence each others laws and some states would feel that their rights are being abridged. Secession ensues, etc.

>>9064674
Well, seems to me they are teaching it in schools?

>>9064647
lol 8/10 great lols for basic trolling

'why can't some regions have allow murder and others allow stealing?'

>>9064718
youre a fucking tool. Murder and theft are prime examples of laws that should be federal.

>>9064712

So why does everyone over there now seem to think:

>different nations should have 'MURRICAN LAW, FUCK YEAH. MANIFEST DESTINY, YOU FUCKIN HAJIS!!

So basically America will get even dumber than it is right now?

I'm ok with this.

>>9064675

Opponents of the move-- even on the board of education-- are trying to paint it that way. But that's not why, else they would have removed him from the curriculum entirely, not merely that portion.

>>9064699
The federal govenremt started the civil war. To avoid derailing the thread entirely, Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to bring the states that had already left without firing a shot back into the Union forcibly.

Also, I'd rather have certain state governements be powerful, cuase I can just move to aviod them. Now that we have an overbearing Federal Leviathan, where can I go?

The Feds are a greater threat to liberty than any state government could ever be.

>>9064754
I don't know. You said conservatives aren't teaching it. Texas is a hardcore conservative state, and they're teaching it. What do you want from me?

>>9064798
Libertarian fag...
GTFO and go to Somalia.

>>9064802

I didn't mean the schools. I meant conservative philosophy.

>>9064798
thank you, finally someone on my side. (I'm>>9064647)

It's TEXAS, motherfucker.
It is an ever-present stain of cancer on the fucking planet.
It's also reason number-one why you should NEVER trust a Republican.

>>9064839
I think you'll find traditional conservatism supports this. neoconservatism is all sorts of fucked up. Im a libertarian, so i dont like either of them

>>9064754
>everyone over there

America has more than 300 million people! The more you know.

>>9064825
Communist fag, go to china

>>9064534
urgh. Must all you Republicans be such faggots?

>>9064868
Isn't China nicer to live in than Somalia?

>>9064798
>The federal govenremt started the civil war.

South Carolina seceded from the union along with a few other states, which prompted the GOVERNMENT to act in order to preserve the union. This occurred after regional conflicts that had been going on since the creation of the colonies, and after recent government issues on slavery and other items really pissed off SC.

>>9064896
not a republican, libertarian

>>9064907
Fine, go to North Korea

>>9064798
Started the war...
MOTHER FUCKER, THE SOUTH WAS TRYING TO SECEDE BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO KEEP SLAVES!!

>>9064825
I'm sure you're a troll, but I'll humor you. I assume you're pissed off at this line:

>>The Feds are a greater threat to liberty than any state government could ever be.

Please prove me wrong. Explain to me how a smaller, less powerful government can threaten the liberty of a larger, more powerful one with jurisdiction over more territory, resources, and military might?

What's that? It can't? Oh, so you're just a troll then.

>>9064917
Eat shit.
that's a republican's paradise.
the country's big on the death penalty,
and even bigger on military spending.

>>9064929
Except that they also have no guns, civil liberties, or private enterprise

>>9064942
nor a friendly relationship with the U.N.

>>9064947
Nor does China, whats your point?

I don't know what you guys are doing, but as a Eurofag i'll be building a deep, fortified bunker. Fucking yanks are getting completely out of hand. Teaching kids that the UN could be a threat to MURKAN FREEDUM?!
Yeah, ok...
I laughed my ass of when i heard the North Korean media refer to America as "The American Imperialist Aggression Forces", but it's starting to look like that might be a good name for them.

>>9064956
Isn't China also known for ferocious military spending and rampant use of the death penalty?

>>9064959
No, not USA.
Just Texas.
As well as some of the other Southern states as well like Alabama and Mississippi.

The rest of the United States is absolutely ashamed of places like Texas and the Deep South.

>>9064959
Why WONT the UN threaten any nations sovereignty?

All it can possibly do is attempt to apply regulation that nation doesn't want. Thus threatening their freedom.

>>9064959
Also, building a deep bunker is probably illegal in Europe without like 12 different EU permits, so fuck off.

>>9064908
>>9064920

Secession was Constitutional under the 10th Amendment (Also see the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions).

If secession was wrong, then how could the colonies secede from the British empire?

Also, at >>9064920
I'm not arguing in favor of slavery. I'm arguing against the Statist, anti-Constituioonal interpretation of Federal power espoused by Abraham Lincoln.

Abe Lincoln shredded the Constituion in order to wage his war. The real lesson of the American Civil War is that the America is whatever the man with the most guns says it is, and to hell with that "God-damned piece of paper". (To quote Geroge W. Bush.)

Incredible, simply incredible.

You know, countries have been invaded and liberated who had more rights and freedoms than America does right now.

Never change, US, never change.

Pretend I am a blank slate.
Somebody explain to me in simple terms how the UN - the United Nations of the planet earth - is a threat to American freedom.

Fuck Texas.
The rednecks have been holding the rest of us back for too long now.

Fortunately California is thinking of taking up standards of its own which would be based in reality. Frankly, I think all the states that aren't ass backwards should simply band together on this.

>>9065012
what the fuck point are you making, and who are you making it at?

>>9065015
It's not.
But, the Republicans have somehow convinced themselves that the U.N. is posed to launch a nefarious plot for World Domination within the decade.

>>9065023
He's saying what the rest of are saying, fuckwit.
That Texas is so fucked-up, he can hardly believe what he read.

>>9065015

In the world of rednecks the UN is both a useless organization and a world crushing behemoth that will enslave us all.

>>9065015
All the UN can EVER do is attempt to apply/force regulation on a nation that doesn't already have it, thus compromising that nations sovereignty.

>>9065036
Exactly.
Just like how Obama is a Black Christian Evangelist...
AND... a solid to the core Muslim.

>>9065026
>>9065036
>>9065052
please explain the error here:>>9065038

>>9064911
Beware of seat belt laws.
They'll be the doom of us all.

Texas, home of Ron Paul, where evolution never happened.

>>9065059
holy shit, i actually beat 3 people in an argument?

>>9064977

Stop fucking apologizing for rational thought.

>>9064959

And you.
>hurr durr US doesn't want to submit to the UN...IMPERIALIST AMERIKKKA!!!

No, faggot. We just don't like a lot of the shit the UN tries to coerce us into doing through treaties..Like disarming our citizenry, or deactivating our nuclear stockpiles, or being subject to nonsensical and unrealistic environmental limitations on industry (That are somehow OK because "Oh, it's just in a decade.").

It's the exact same shit, on a slightly larger scale, as the state power vs. federal power debate.

>>9065038

How is that different to a society's laws - based on that society's median moral values - forcing an individual to follows those values, and punishing an individual for contravening them? It's an international community.

>>9065012
I'm not American but what "rights" (lol) are being infringed upon here?

>>9065052

Who says he's a Chrsitian Evangelist?

He went to a "Liberation Theology" church, which has about as much to do with Christianity as a steakhouse does with PETA .

>>9065052

>hurr let's spout stereotypes and accept them as the opinions of any kind of majoirty based on the actions of a very, very, very small extremism

>>9065105
>UN tries to coerce us into doing through treaties..Like disarming our citizenry, or deactivating our nuclear stockpiles, or being subject to nonsensical and unrealistic environmental limitations on industry

You MUST be trolling, you MUST be!
How can you possibly believe that enforcing gun laws, nuclear dissarmement and environmental protection laws is a stupid and pointless thing?
If we let America run around with its dick out as it was doing throughout the cold war, we would be in an IRL Fallout 3 right now.

I cant even get my head around people like you, its beyond me.

California fag here.

This is good news. The more backwards Texas becomes the better off we are. It's all about competition. Were gonna look hella awesome after they pass these reforms and go full retard.

California gets its own custom written textbooks so we don't have to swallow the shit Texas dictates in their curriculum. There are three main states for which textbooks are custom tailored Texas, California, and New York. When Texas goes shit bat insane their books are simply going to get abandoned. Then the textbooks from the other two more liberal states will be the SOLE textbooks.

Overall this is a great move for Democrats since the books written for CA and NY will spread the liberal bias to all the states that Texas textbooks used to serve. All Texas is doing is removing itself from the competition by not acting evolved. Natural selection at the State level weeding out Texas. The irony is delicious!


I can't wait for science as a whole to completely vanish from Texas's boarders. Then we'll kill them all with out advanced lazerrzz weaponriez!

NICE AMERICA. You want to make people complete moronic in the future?

>>9065038

The UN doesn't take away a nations right to rule themselves... they can merely impose sanctions on nations. You might as well accuse the WTO of the same thing

>>9065110
The people of nation (or a state within a nation), are more likely to have the same idea of morality (and thus what should be law). Thus it is fair to apply geographic regulation.

Attempting to apply one set of global rules is in nobody's interest, and ultimately unfeasable

>>9065105

Holy shit! An international organization that tries to broker treaties? That's fukkin horrible!!!

Made me glad I got out while I could. Fuck Texas schools.

>>9065149
I am not trolling, I am strongly anti big government. did it ever occur to you that I cant get my head around people like you?

>>9065149

Because the UN's idea of 'enforcing gun laws' is about the same as the UK's idea of 'enforcing gun laws', which is, essentially, a total ban on ownership, sale, or use.

Because our nuclear stockpiles are an integral part of our national defense, by way of their deterrence.

Because the environmental regulations, while not bad in the sense of the desires motivating them, are unrealistic, and exist only to be broken when their deadline hits.

>>9065015
It is not. The U.S. is the one the provides the vast majority (90%ish) of the funding for the U.N. If we pulled out it simply would not exist anymore because no one would cough up the cash.

>>9065165

Treaties should be regarding trade and military relationships between nations, not on how those nations' people should govern themselves.

>>9065151

Wow, 15/10. Would scream, spit, flail wildly, and rage again.

>>9065183
>I have no solutions, I just hate the ones people have because they don't solve EVERYTHING

>>9065196

There's nothing about this statement which isn't ridiculous to me.

>>9065007
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Nice loose view of the constitution there. The founding fathers meant to create a "more perfect union", and George Washington expressed the same in his farewell speech.

Seceding is going against the beliefs of our founding fathers. Even Andrew motherfucking Jackson said that secession would destroy the unity of the nation.

So, when is the next colony ship heading to Alpha Centauri?
Put me on ice untill then please, i want no part in this bullshit.

>>9065213

In the long run, though... we probably would have been better off if secession had succeeded.

>>9065211
What the fuck political alignment are you?

>>9065151
That's what I'm hoping for. They're going to see what they are and other states will either adopt California's or New York's textbook versions.

>>9065151

You're state will go under before anything. Also, how will you print textbooks? You guys don't even have the cash to keep the lights on.

>>9065158

And what if that nations moral values contravene those of a different nation? If America can decide Iraq needs invading, what's to prevent another nation decide America needs invading?
I agree with the US's stance on a lot of things. Personally I believe a nuclear stockpile keeps the world in check. Not quite as many as America and Russia have, but some is enough. Therefore, less nukes. Not none.
I also believe America has developed a culture that has integrated the keeping and use of firearms into it, and though there are a lot of shooting deaths, 12,000 or so a year is paltry when you consider 350 million citizens. So tight gun laws, but not no guns.
I don't agree with everything the UN decides. But I usually do. If the international community decides this is a thing that needs doing, I trust it. It is the world's opinion. I don't think me disagreeing with some of the decisions a federation does, especially one as large and wise as the UN, means it is inherently flawed. You have to set standards for other countries. If America ignores the UN, what's to stop other countries doing so?

There are all sorts of reasons to listen to the UN.

>>9065219
We probably would've been carved up by hungry European powers.

>>9065015

Basically, the might of peer pressure, on a governmental scale.

It allows politicians that already want to go the wrong way (through downsizing/elimination of nuclear stockpiles, mandates for certain government assistance, restriction/elimination of gun rights, restriction of businesses with unrealistic and unfeasible environmental regulations, restrictions of free trade through interfering in the free market under the guise of stewardship, etc) to have a little more 'oomph', so to speak, behind their agendas that they try to push at the federal level, and if our President happens to be in favor of any of those things, or for whatever reason, he can sign treaties to that effect, obligating us to act according to their content.

It makes it harder for politicians that are opposed to any of these things, for whatever reason, to oppose them effectively.

>>9065196
You remind me of how politicians from shit countries (China, Russia, Iran, ect) always whine about "national sovereignty" when the UN tries to stop their citizens from being raped over by the government.

>>9065210

Pretty much the only point of mine that your retort could apply to is the environmental one.

And to that one, I do think that overstepping is more damaging than not going far enough.

As for the gun laws or nuclear stockpile elimination/reduction? I'm opposed to these, period. There is no 'right answer' except not to fucking do it.

>>9065250

repeatingforyourbenefitblox

>Treaties should be regarding trade and military relationships between nations, not on how those nations' people should govern themselves.

>not on how those nations' people should govern themselves.

>people should govern themselves.

>govern themselves.

A totalitarian government is not a nation's people governing themselves.

>>9065238
>And what if that nations moral values contravene those of a different nation? If America can decide Iraq needs invading, what's to prevent another nation decide America needs invading?

Those are the sovereign rights of every nation and people. Don't try and limit them.

Atlantic triangle trade is out? Wtf. That actually kinda made sense imo.

>>9065264
The only problem with self-determination is it sometimes leads to unpleasant results. Sometimes people do freely choose radical muslim extremists and fascist dictators because they genuinely believe it's the best thing for them.

>>9065283
People get the government they deserve blocs

>>9065238

While I do appreciate your acknowledgment and respect of America's firearms rights being a major cultural issue, as well as a liberty issue...

>So tight gun laws, but not no guns.

>tight gun laws

Define 'tight', please?

>>9065264
>>9065265
This is why we need world government. Democratically elected, of course.

>>9065265

It's like any moral debate. One man's scruples involve pacifism. Another's allow him to kill. Where is evil here?
You find a moral middle point and enforce it. That's order.

>>9065283

And if they legitimately freely choose to be governed by a totalitarian government, then who are we to fuck with that choice, unless it ends up being a threat to us or others?

>>9065300
the two posts you highlighted are arguments against world government though

>>9065300

No, this is not.

A coalition or loose federation of governments? Perhaps.

But a *world government*? Fuck no. The US Federal government is already overstepping its bounds, I shudder to think what a full-blown world government would do.

>>9065213

Secession is part and parcel of American history and antebellum Constitutional law. Our nation WAS CREATED by an act of secession.Numerous parts of the United States threatened secession at various times.

And Andrew Jackson's interpretation of the Constitution was "It means whatever I damn well say it means". Look up the Trail of Tears and the controversy leading up to it. (it makes me sadface every time.)

Its not a loose itnerpretation, its the right one. Taking the words as the are, not twisting it to mean whatever is popular like nowadays.

""On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, in aletter to Judge William Johnson, from Monticello, June 12, 1823.

Just because Lincoln said secession was illegal by gun point doesn't make the Constitutioin any less clear, or make him any less wrong. (Same with Jackson, as far as the Cherokees were concerned.)

>>9065305
Hey Hey, we turned OP anti UN, score 1 for the educated guys!

>>9065293

Well gun laws exist in every state, I believe. Waiting times, background checks, limitations on design and calibre, that sort of thing. Things like gun amnesties occur to limit gun numbers. But nonetheless, guns are ferried into South America and Canada, and guns fall into the hands of minors and criminals with histories.
So be realistic. If a gun is for home and personal protection, why does an adult need more than one? I understand that hunting is an American pastime, weird as it is, so an extra weapon - one that fits hunting regulations, not a pistol or automatic - could be granted with a hunting license.
I don't know. Maybe I'm being naive, but it seems state-by-state laws on an issue whose problems are the same all over is irresponsible. I get that states already have a lot of weapons, but enforcing these laws now can limit future damage.
A big part of what the UN does is protecting the future, rather than only the present.

>>9065322

The monkeysphere. Nuff said.

>>9065327

You certainly did not.

>>9065377
wildly different interpretation of your post then i guess, seems to me you are acknowledging different people have different morales, and thus need different laws.

>>9065388

Different people have different morals, so find the median and globally enforce it.

>>9065369

There's two ways I can retort, but I'm not entirely sure of your motivations.

Would your desired end result be less crime, or just less gun-related crime?

>>9065394
How the fuck is that going to work? you are just going to piss everybody off.

>>9065399
The median of morals?
This can't be serious.

>>9065394

No. Absolutely fucking no.

Peoples views, wants, and expectations are so widely varied that it is tantamount to tyranny to subject one side to a median of the other side's views.

>>9065399

A gun offers more options to a criminal than a melee weapon. So I'd say they are the same thing. Give me both retorts!

>>9065394
Whats the median between free speech, and Islam? draw anything you want except Muhammad? Get fucked.

>refer to the slave trade as the "Atlantic triangular trade".
I lol'd at this. I wonder why it didn't pass...

>>9065476
thanks for being late to the party buddy, great contribution there

>>9065413

Alright...

More guns (more legally owned, legally purchased, legally manufactured, etc) guns (regardless of type), will, inevitably, mean more guns used by criminals.

However, if you have gun proliferation, there is going to be quite a bit more deterrent for committing violent crimes than without it. Yes, a criminal has more options with a gun than a melee weapon, but so does a victim. The victim is just going about their day-to-day life, the criminal has to consciously choose to engage in behavior that could very well mean the violent ending of his own life, and decide if it's worth the risk.

People are a lot more responsible (Both with regards to letting children handle, negligent discharges, or just going out and shooting random people) than you think, when around firearms.

Granted, this proliferation of firearms could have an increase of crimes committed with firearms, even if there was an overall drop in violent crimes committed, period.

Yes, there would likely be more accidental firearm deaths each year than without firearms, but this is unavoidable...You'd have less deaths due to vehicle accidents if only government and military could use them, too.

Disallowing someone to own a firearm is disallowing them to defend themselves effectively. Limiting their ownership based on 'style' (Seriously?) is retarded and does nothing (I'm not sure what you think across the pond, but the Assault Weapons Ban was an absolutely worthless and useless piece of legislation, it did nothing, I repeat *nothing* to stop the illegal use of firearms, nor did it restrict firearms in common criminal use - quite the opposite, it restricted the most popular legally-owned firearms)...If a person has five guns he is not necessarily more likely to be a victim or a perpetrator of a violent act than a person with one gun or a hundred...Being allowed to own a certain quantity of firearms is absurd.

>>9065495
Support case: Switzerland

>>9065413
>>9065495

I also ask, because one choice is something that can be argued against, and the other is zealotry.

Someone(And they do exist, I've debated with them in person before) who wants to reduce gun crime, while emphatically not caring if the methods used to do so place people in more danger of violent crime, cannot be reasoned with effectively.

Someone who believes reducing the level of gun ownership will reduce the levels of crime, period, can be reasoned with, because they are not fanatics, necessarily, they are just ignorant or naive.

>>9065419
>>9065411
>>9065404

I'm obviously not saying meet halfway between good and evil.
Look, isn't this what law is? Everyone agrees people should be protected. Most civilised people agree there should be absolute freedom of speech, human rights should be protected the world over, peace is preferable to war except in the direst circumstance. These agreements, though some may disagree, are the median. Most people agree on them.
Say you bullied a kid in school. He comes over, burns your house down. He is punished. Someone is going to be pissed off here. Both of you feel you were in the right in your actions - his burning, your pressing charges. Society's opinion dictates his behaviour was punishable.

Maybe I'm veering off topic. The UN doesn't really punish in a police-force kind of way. This just goes back to most of the countries in the world deciding on something and one country deciding not to let it apply to them.

>>9065495

But is that one gun he owns likely to be sold on to a criminal, or sent across the border?
You make some good points though. Even if your vehicle example doesn't apply (people need vehicles, not more than one gun). I still believe the right thing to do is to tighten gun laws.

>>9065495

(different fag here)

As to the issue of quantity, it seems to me that the more guns one has, the less likely they are a criminal, and the more likely they are an enthusiast

>>9065528

I would also caution you to do your own research into just how often firearms from the US actually *do* make it south of the border, be it Mexico, Central America, or South America.

It's not anywhere near as often as you think. A lot of those illegal arms come across the Pacific, or from the governments of their respective nations.

The bad thing about listening to the news media regarding guns (Especially anything relating to American guns) is that, by and large, the news agencies of the world have a bias against gun ownership as common and easy as it is in the US, and their stories reflect that bias. They see Mexico with a shitton of criminals with guns, and assume, or outright lie, and say they're guns from across the US border, because it means that US gun laws are negatively affecting other nations, thus making US gun laws look even worse.

>>9065528
>one country deciding not to let it apply to them.

Every sovereign nation should have this right though, but only if their people choose so, not because their government is totalitarian.

What is the benefit to forcing all people to have the same laws? If you say that you are not going to meet the Muslims half way on the free speech issue, you just pissed off every Muslim, well done, your world government totally owns.

>>9065529

This is also a valid point.

I own...what...eight? different guns, four of them purchased within the last six months. I'm one of the most law-abiding people I know...The level of casual criminal activity in my comrades and co-workers disgusts me.

>>9065566
I was actually under the impression many full auto guns are smuggled INTO the US every year from south america, no?

>>9065495
I hate Republicans.
But I can't fucking stand Libertarians.

>>9065566

But Calderon literally just asked the US last week to limit the guns going into Mexico. Or rather, the assault weapons. You can't put spin on the words he spoke to congress, really.

There ain't nuthing funnier than a Libertarian killed by irony.

>>9065595
How can anarchy + government enforcing basic rules be worse than just anarchy?

>>9065589
exactly, I am a genuine sportsman, and I own 6 handguns. I 'need' them all. a criminal only 'needs' one.

>>9065589

To add to my 'gun nut'-ness, I also have several hundred rounds of ammunition, and at least a half-dozen high-capacity magazines for every weapon, with the exception of my AR-15, which I probably have about 3000 rounds for, and thirty five 20 or 30 round magazines.

Texas: where a collection of fundamentalist dentists, business men and concerned mothers get to decide whether or not historians are doing their job properly.

Fucking inbreds.

>>9065228
eat shit, faggot.
the california economic condition is actually better than schwarzenneger is saying.

Can we please just have a mass cultural cleansing and kill off every adult save for those that arent fucking stupid? Then we can raise the next generation properly.

>>9065606
You shouldn't have to wear a seatbelt if you don't want to... but you're a fucking moron if you don't who deserves to die.

HURF DURF.
SOCIalisM!!

>>9065606
Hey, he died for a cause he believed in. There is no compelling reason to force a person to wear a seatbelt. conversely, there is no compelling reason to not wear a seatbelt either.

>>9065600

He did, yes, I heard the speech, too.

But the guns in Mexico are *not* American guns. Sure, some small portion of them must be - we share a border with them, that's unavoidable.

But, seriously...The cartels are using fully-automatic assault rifles, general-purpose machine guns and heavy machine guns. These are things that are, effectively, illegal to own or use in the US, and have been for decades.

>>9065572

We piss off the Muslims anyway. And it's not like they'll be drawing pictures of Mohammed any time soon. But governments should be restricted from killing everyone who chooses to exercise their human rights.

'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.'

If they don't agree with that, let their young, modern and intelligent boil up from under them.

>>9065595
what the fuck with all of the isms bullshit here? How about the idea that anyone who subscribes to a clearly defined ism is a rigid, ideologically inflexible, partisan shithead?

>See the word 'Texas' in OP's post
>Think to myself 'It's gonna be christfags'


Hahaha! never change, Texas.

Never change.

Fucking Libertarians.
Those faggots would have us building fallout shelters from copper wire if they were in charge.

>>9065626
Yes. That would be the eugenics thread.
If you ever get to nuking the entire Deep South, let me know.
From the aftermath...
The U.S. would be thrown so far to the Left...
we'd have world peace in under 3years.

>>9065680

...until the socialist or communist systems instituted broke, and you had societal collapse, or open rebellion.

>>9065626

>hurf durf I want people who disagree with me to die and not be allowed to breed.

>>9065680

Hitler was a Social Democrat from the left. Germany had universal health care. Stalin and the Bolsheviks. Yeah, leftists LOVE world peace. Mao, anyone? Once the left has killed their millions each time, idiots like you forget and get swayed by the rhetoric.

>>9065724
Yeah sheeple, read this.

>>9065606

I don't agree with seat belt or helmet laws either. If people want to be stupid and drive without a seatbelt, then let them remove themselves from the gene pool.

>>9065650

Heck, free speech isn't available even in modern Germany. You can't say anything to dispute the holocaust without being arrested. Free speech should allow even idiots to state their bigoted opinion. Why do you think the liberal left want to restrict speech?

>>9065724

All the dictators had legs too. Want to take my legs?
Just because these people were vegetarians who liked their trains to arrive on time doesn't mean healthiness and punctuality should be outlawed.

>>9065650
>We piss off the Muslims anyway.

We do, but their own government doesn't, and barring retarded US foreign policy, that arrangement is not problematic for anyone.

>Governments should be restricted from killing everyone who chooses to exercise their human rights.

As distasteful as it may be to you, if the people of a nation support the death penalty for public indecency or blasphemy (eg. Saudi Arabia), I see no reason the UN should interfere. If you don't like it, don't live there, but DO NOT TRY TO FORCE THEM TO CHANGE ffs.

>'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.'

Freedom can be waived, and can not be forced on people who don't want it, (eg. compulsory voting is dumb, Australia) thats why its freedom.

The UN should only interfere with internal mechanics of a nation being ruled by a government that does not have the support of its people.

>>9065724

No,Hitler was a Conservative.
He was big on military spending...
Extremely nationalistic...
And a fervent supporter of the death penalty.
He also liked to invade other countries for stupid reasons.