Profile overview for Rebel_Ratel.
Submission statistics

This user made no submissions.

This user has so far shared a total of 0 links, started a total of 0 discussions and submitted a total of 102 comments.

Voting habits

Submissions: This user has upvoted 607 and downvoted 7 submissions.

Comments: This user has upvoted 3109 and downvoted 213 comments.

Submission ratings

5 highest rated submissions:

This user made no submissions.

5 lowest rated submissions:

This user made no submissions.

Comment ratings

3 highest rated comments:

Believing vaccines are safe because Big Pharma says so is just as stupid as believing cigarettes are safe because Big Tobacco says so submitted by madmalloy to Conspiracy

Rebel_Ratel 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago

For some it is not a question if vaccines do more harm than good, because overall I believe they have done good, lots of good.

The real issue is the concern of mandatory medical procedures dictated by the state. The last time we as a society wondered down this path there were shock treatments, lobotomies, castration, sterilization, and the horror list goes on. This is not conspiracy, this is history. Those who didn't agree with the group think of the time were involuntarily committed for treatment, for the greater good of course, and then had these procedures forced on them. The only thing we truly own is ourselves, when we give that away we are in real trouble.

For those critical thinkers you are so quick to dismiss and deride it is a question about frequency, amount, and actual need.

The frequency, or number given at one time is based on WHO recommendations, which are designed to address the whole world. That is the third world and developing nations that don't have consistent access to care. So they take the best opportunity to pump the children with as many as they can. Many on this site don't live in those conditions, have repeated contact with pediatric care for children, and question why we would follow that schedule.

The vaccines selected, once again, are based on recommendation from WHO, which is focused on the less fortunate of underdeveloped countries. The sheer number of required/suggested vaccines for our children that increased from 1980 till now should be a big red flag in itself, showing a manipulation of the "need" for at least some of these.

Speaking of need, there are documented side effects of taking vaccines, by the manufacturer. They are not without risk. So if the chance to catch the disease is less than the side effects, which does include disability and death, who should be forced to take that chance against their will? If that same person finds the chances have tipped the other direction then they are free to take the vaccine, but they can't untake it.

More gun laws wont work; gun opponents true aim is confiscation submitted by go1dfish to politics

Rebel_Ratel 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago

Better question is, are you going to commit murder to take my guns?

More gun laws wont work; gun opponents true aim is confiscation submitted by go1dfish to politics

Rebel_Ratel 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago

I welcome you personally to come and try. If not, then I suggest you reevaluate.

3 lowest rated comments:

Obama Expanded Background Checks Would Not Have Stopped Any Of Mass Shootings He Mentions submitted by Candygram_for_Mongo to politics

Rebel_Ratel 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago

Yes, the burden of proof is on those who want to further restrict and infringe on the right of the people. Weird, right? It's almost like their needs to be justification behind law and action.

There is no question if people died, pretending that is what is in question is disingenuous and a bit of a fallacy. The issue being discussed is the scope of the issue, as in the overall impact of these events on the population. Like that you are more likely to die or be injured by prescription medications, vehicles, etc. than a citizen who legally purchased a gun. The justification is required to support the changes, regarding their burden on those who have done nothing wrong and how effective they would actually be in addressing the outlined issue previously identified.

If you don't want name calling then don't go around calling people "bat-shit crazy".

I too live in reality, and so am a student of history. Like the number of governments that turned from democracy to the exact thing you claim is impossible. I don't think all police and military will turn against the people as a whole in my lifetime, but I do think that is assured in the future by keeping the population armed.

But you keep telling yourself everything thing is fine as our government continue to exemplify why the population doesn’t trust. You say you don't trust it, and then explain why you trust it. That's some solid double think right there. Either way, there are a number of people who are done with "compromise" and "common sense" on the subject, when the agenda is neither of those things.

Obama addresses the "conspiracy" that "we are creating a plot to take everybody's guns" submitted by ElspethTirel to Conspiracy

Rebel_Ratel 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago

And you think these "wackos" are going to do those things because.....?

How would you enforce universal background check on currently owned firearms? You can't, because people will refuse to comply, as has happened in a number of states already.

How would you implement universal background checks on future purchases? Gun registration, the first step in confiscation. I am sure those who want them will purchase everything they need well before this could be implemented.

We can't stop drugs, firearms or even people from illegally entering our country, what is going to change that? Look at the failed drug war, from prescription to recreational it has failed, and those can only be used once.