[–] WakeUPorDieNow 0 points 13 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago
So is this still a conspiracy?look what a mainstream Jewish publication just said.
" we are liberals, outsiders, exceptional minds, achievers, victims of anti-Semitism, analytical intellectuals and talkers (we’re smarter), dedicated to civil rights and feminism. -"
" You have to not criticize Zionism or you won’t get anywhere."
" I don’t know how you can claim to be an outsider at a time when the Democratic National Committee lists cultivating Jewish donors as its thirdmost priority"
" I don’t know that most Jews understand the extent to which Zionism has become an Establishment value."
Just racist conspiracy theories right? Only when a non Jew says it?
[–] CervicalStrike 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago (edited ago)
I pray that The Donald gets elected in the United States. If Germany decides to take back their nation and Hillary Clinton is in the chair, she will declare war on the "EVIL NAZI REBELS" on direct command from George Soros. If the AfD is elected somehow and starts deporting 100% of rapefugees, I don't think Trump would do anything to stop it. He would probably applaud it, and dare the EU to stop it. This would collapse the EU completely and then everything is up for grabs. I imagine new parties taking power alongside shill organizations saying, "but please, think of the muzzies, let all those good boys in" and just getting shouted down by nationalism. 5-10 years from now, we could be living in an Orwellian nightmare world. On the other hand, it is possible that all filth will be removed from Europe.
[–] aileron_ron 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
I left the CDU and now AFD thanks to Merkel.
[–] 23049842 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
The necessity of this discussion is also the fault of the right wing.
Often, leftist people claim that more weapons will lead to more gun-related deaths and the right wing opposes to that.
BUT the left wing is actually right with their statement, it's actually true.
So then why should we have armed citizens?
Not to reduce terrorist attacks or anything, but instead to be able to overthrow the government at any time, if it is neccessary.
That's what the left doesn't see, that armed citizens are important in the bigger picture, but not when you look at a few single lives.
You can't overthrow a dictatorial government with pillows.
Armed citizens are the last line of defense of democracy.
There's even a law in Germany that contains the right to resistance. Of course, there is nothing about arms written in this law, but how would you oppose someone that has an army without arms?
[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I don't have any citation right now, so I take that back and say instead: "more weapons might lead to more gun-related deaths"
The reason why I believe that they will lead to more gun related deaths is the following: If everyone was armed, people still quarrel or fight from time to time (even if the prevalence of guns made them more polite) and some of the fights would lead to a gun fight if everyone had guns. These same situations wouldn't lead to gun fights if gun-carry was not allowed.
Now of course that is only true in the current situation.
If things are bad, gang wars occur and stuff like that, it's better to have a gun at home to at least have a chance to hold back attackers until the police arrives. In such a situation, owning a gun may actually reduce the number of gun-related deaths.
But anyway, I'm just guessing and I might be wrong. But tell me, what are the reasons you believe that gun-carry would not lead to more gun-related deaths?
[–] LiberatedDeathStar 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
What they don't see is that the intention is not to overthrow your government, not to defend yourself, not to hunt, but to do some weird combination of all of those.
The real idea is that you, as an individual, are responsible for yourself. You are responsible to defend your country and family from your government, from invaders, and from criminals wanting to do you harm. These are all basic concepts, and even still exist in the world they wish to craft. Even without guns, these are your responsibilities, you just have a harder time doing it. No amount of government can protect you and your family, even when they themselves think they're safe.
All the right to arms does is give you tools to fulfill your basic obligations, these obligations are still yours regardless of weaponry. A man always has these responsibilities, and they cannot be taken away. We should give men the freedom to defend their family and themselves from tyranny, both foreign and domestic.
Anyways, I'm thankful to my ancestors that I can exercise this right, and bear arms I am and shall continue to do.
[–] HeavyBrain 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
That's what the left doesn't see
Oh they see, but they are retarded and waht they don't see is that "they" aka the footsoilders doing all the screaming and dirty work won't be on top of the food chain, thats waht they calculatiing on, because you know mom told them they are so fucking speciall that they can be anything.
I back German citizens right to arm themselves too.
[–] HeavyBrain 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I back your backing, now we jusst need a few million more and things can start going in the right direction.
[–] Mohamerde06 0 points 16 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago
There should be NRAs pushing for this in every european countries. This and free speech laws, that's the key to turn the tide around.
[–] Possibly_a_Carrot 0 points 11 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago (edited ago)
Every region of the globe needs not only a military, but militias as well. Not only militias, either, but a generally armed populace. It boggles my mind when I have to argue this basic concept with people.
What further boggles my mind is that free speech doctrine isn't a required standard for joining the global community. How can we, as international governments/investors/citizens, take a country's government seriously when they don't even allow their citizens the very basic right of free speech?
edit: To clarify - Article 18 and 19 of The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 DOES dictate that any joining member observe the right to free speech in the following context:
Article 18:
Article 19:
Neither of these seem to have been exceptionally "enforced" in the past few decades, I think we can all agree...