Elerond

In that case I would say that issue isn't that much about people on no fly list not being able to buy a gun, but process how people those end up those lists, which should be on top priority list of things to be fixed if it is currently against constitution.

The NRA would never let that get through. They don't even let the CDC do research on anything related to gun violence. NRA said they're for keeping guns from possible terrorists, what that means in practice I don't know. I do know that all the Democrat proposals involve complete violations of due process. So now Dems are against the fifth amendment, is there any provision in the bill of rights the Dems are still in favor of? Wouldn't that mean that no flight lists themselves are violation of due process?

I think you have right organization http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetstemwedel/2015/10/01/congress-still-bans-cdc-scientists-from-studying-gun-violence/#3136ff53b700

Democrats seem to have decided to play quite heavy political game for upcoming election. They invoke fear that no flight lists, fear mongering how nobody can know if there is terrorist among refugees, Muslims etc.. They proclaim idea that they are preventing these terrorists getting their hands on weapons at least not in any legal way. They use also distrust towards government, lobbyist, and big corporations to build up their argument They also heavily really on fact that GOP senators and members of congress will block any gun control bill that they propose. This all will create narrative that GOP senators and members of congress will not prevent terrorists buying legally guns and put american people in jeopardy, because they get millions of dollars from big gun manufactures.

eyyyy That seem bit failed study. Because data pointed towards Clinton winning over Sanders. Even I was able to predict Clinton most likely taking nomination based on poll and vote data in early March. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85040-us-elections-2016/page-10?do=findComment&comment=1786341 But of course there is always possible that poll data from all polling sources was fraudulent. And that there was country wide conspiracy in Democratic primaries, with thousands of participants.

I'm in the same camp but because I'm against globalism. It is communism for the capitalist elite and against the interests of nations, which cloaks itself in liberal policies that pretend or intent to do go but end up hurting the countries that have to obey those policies. So Global Capitalism is actually Communism? Bro you high or something? Communist ideology turns into a kind of socialism that promotes the spread of socialism throughout nations. It puts globalism and global interests ahead of national interests but instead of being the state that directs it, it's private entities. That is the thing that differentiate capitalism from socialism/communism. It is all about who is in the control of things.

Allah (Allāh‎ = Arabic word referring to God in Abrahamic religions, it is same word for when they refer Christian or Jewish gods [because they believe them to be same entity as the god they worship]) it is believed to be just contraction of al ilāh (the God). Although lots of Muslims have tendency to use Allah instead of their native language version for God if their native language isn't Arabic. Also Arab Christians use Allah when they speak about their god. But anyway sounds quite stupid and strange to translate/change words in transcripts.

Yes, well, countries like the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and Denmark may feel quite a bit more uncomfortable in an E.U. without GB to balance out Germany and France, so I wouldn't be too sure things will be business as usual. Especially since GB's contributions to the budget will fall away, and that money will have to come from somewhere. And it sure won't be coming from those nice Eastern European chaps... UK has been more often against Finland in issues than on same side in EU politics. Although now that Finns Party (our anti EU - anti immigration - right wing nationalist party ) is in government and they are allies with Conservatives in EU parliament I would guess that our countries start to be more often on same page.

Dont get annoyed by this, people like this I consider fundamentalist Christians and dont represent the views of the majority of Americans or Christians ...very few people nowadays in the US would be this open about there bigotry I am not sure about your assessment of very few people, there has been quite lot people in twitter and facebook that have openly celebrated this attack. Although all don't necessary directly declare death for gays but aren't really that sympathetic towards people being killed just because who they love https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McJcI7zcBfc

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016/06/13/sacramento-baptist-preacher-praises-orlando-gay-nightclub-attack/ A Sacramento Baptist preacher’s sermon praising an attack on an Orlando nightclub that killed 50 people has the local LGBT community outraged. “Are you sad that 50 pedophiles were killed today?” he said in the sermon. “Um no, I think that’s great! I think that helps society. I think Orlando, Florida is a little safer tonight.” “If we lived in a righteous government, they should round them all up and put them up against a firing wall, and blow their brains out,” Jimenez said in the sermon.

There are eye witness reports that he shouted 'Britain First' which is anti EU party in UK. Also UK don't have total ban of guns. Although reports say that he used home made gun.

http://ktla.com/2016/06/15/orlando-nightclub-gunman-called-friend-tv-station-during-attack-officials-say/ "Salman, Mateen's second wife, has been cooperating with various law enforcement agencies. Salman told investigators that Mateen told her he had interest in carrying out a jihadist attack -- but she denied knowing of any specific plans, according to two law enforcement officials. She initially denied that when Mateen left the house Saturday she had any inkling he was going to do anything violent. But in subsequent statements, Salman conceded she had a suspicion he might be planning to do an attack, perhaps on Pulse, the officials said. According to one official, she knew "for a while" Mateen had thoughts of wanting to do something violent. He had been talking about it for months, if not years." "Federal investigators are focused on Mateen's and Salman's activities in the days and weeks leading up to rampage, which left 49 people dead and 53 wounded. Mateen appeared to be conducting surveillance at Pulse and Disney properties days. Investigators believe he made surveillance trips to the club and the Disney Springs shopping complex during Gay Days 2016, a citywide celebration, a law enforcement official said. Walt Disney World and other Orlando locations held Gay Days 2016, events from May 31 to June 6. Disney security officials told the FBI they believe he also visited Disney World on April 26 to conduct surveillance, the law enforcement official said." "Salman has told investigators she was with her husband on at least one trip to buy ammunition, according to multiple law enforcement officials. When and where that occurred is unclear. Salman claims she didn't know he was buying ammunition to kill people when she accompanied him, but such purchases were not unusual for him. CNN has reported that Mateen picked up a Sig Sauer rifle on June 9, four days after he purchased it from the St. Lucie Shooting Center. Records indicate that Mateen purchased ammunition from that store on June 9, according to a law enforcement official. The owner of the shop, Ed Henson, told CNN's Christopher Lett that Mateen visited the store on multiple occasions but he never saw Salman. More than a month after the Disney World trip in April, Mateen and his wife visited Pulse and Disney Springs -- apparently to scout out the locations, a law enforcement official said." "Authorities piecing together the timeline of the killing found that Mateen stopped to make several phone calls as his victims lay bleeding to death at the Pulse. He called a friend to tell him goodbye, two law enforcement officials said. He also called 911 to pledge his allegiance to ISIS. And he called CNN affiliate News 13 in Orlando to proclaim he was carrying out the massacre on behalf of the terror group. Producer Matthew Gentili answered the newsroom phone early Sunday. "I'm the shooter. It's me. I am the shooter," Mateen said, according to Gentili. "I did it for ISIS. I did it for the Islamic State." Authorities are facing the challenge of trying to glean information from the gunman's cell phone. It was damaged after it was submerged in water and blood, law enforcement officials said." "Mateen made derogatory comments about gays and expressed outrage over the sight of two men kissing, according to reports. But in the months leading up to the carnage, Mateen visited gay chat rooms, messaged people on gay dating apps and even frequented the same gay nightclub he would eventually terrorize, sources said. Investigators don't know whether the gunman frequented Pulse and chat rooms for personal reasons or for surveillance. Hopper said he had no knowledge of Mateen patronizing any gay nightclubs other than Pulse. FBI agents are interviewing people who claim they met the gunman on gay dating apps, a law enforcement official said. Those claims "certainly change the perspective," the source said. No men have publicly come forward claiming to have had sexual contact with him." "Was the mass shooting fueled by homophobia? Was the gunman struggling with his own sexuality? Or was he really inspired by ISIS, as his final phone calls suggest? An analysis of Mateen's electronic devices showed searches for jihadist propaganda, including videos of ISIS beheadings, an official said. A law enforcement official said the gunman increased his consumption of a variety of jihadist propaganda, such as beheading videos two weeks before the attack. Before that the source says his consumption was infrequent and he certainly wasn't immersing himself in it. The official described Mateen as an "angry and violent man who in the last few weeks started watching ISIS videos." A source said he was looking for any excuse to do something violent and he was a "boiling kettle." But Mateen's father, Seddique Mateen, said his son didn't have ties to the terror group -- which he calls "the enemy of humanity." He said he didn't believe his son was gay. "I don't know if he was, if that was his way of his life, but I don't believe so," Seddique Mateen said. He said his son was married with a child."

I wonder how that's going to go down with Isis. Will be kicked out of paradise now for being a conflicted gay man. It isn't uncommon that homophobic people go in gay clubs and look people from dating apps and sites that are meant for gays. And it isn't also uncommon that this behavior eventually leads escalation where said people start assault and even kill gays. And it is also common that in these cases people believe that these criminals just could not handle fact that they are gay, but usually there isn't no other evidence than their fascination towards thing that they clearly hate that there is anything gay in them. Usually people that show behavior where they become more and more fascinated with target of their hate and eventually escalating to violence towards target is called stalking but in cases like this people often jump in conclusion that person just could not handle being gay. Which may be because they think that it is insulting towards said homophobic criminals or because it works as easy explanation for that person's violent behavior, but this both things are quite problematic for people that were targeted by these criminals hatred. That's possible I guess. But he was on several gay social media. I took that to mean he had a profile. If you have a profile, I mean ods are you are gay. But having wife and child and no known male partners lowers odds to be gay somewhat especially for millennial who has grown in USA. And even being in denial becomes quite questionable if he really has have been visiting Pulse and other gay nightclubs for years and seeking male company (at least I haven't heard about one) from dating apps and sites, because that is quite lot time to be in denial about yourself but still constantly seeking environment with people that you deny being part of. This aren't behaviors that you commonly see in people that are in denial.

I wonder how that's going to go down with Isis. Will be kicked out of paradise now for being a conflicted gay man. It isn't uncommon that homophobic people go in gay clubs and look people from dating apps and sites that are meant for gays. And it isn't also uncommon that this behavior eventually leads escalation where said people start assault and even kill gays. And it is also common that in these cases people believe that these criminals just could not handle fact that they are gay, but usually there isn't no other evidence than their fascination towards thing that they clearly hate that there is anything gay in them. Usually people that show behavior where they become more and more fascinated with target of their hate and eventually escalating to violence towards target is called stalking but in cases like this people often jump in conclusion that person just could not handle being gay. Which may be because they think that it is insulting towards said homophobic criminals or because it works as easy explanation for that person's violent behavior, but this both things are quite problematic for people that were targeted by these criminals hatred.

Extremists target everybody that their ideology and society schools them to hate and everything that they think will forward their agenda or give them visibility/merit. Also it seem that both Trump and Clinton have already started to use this horrific act of hate to advertise their policies and candidacies. I would say that it is safe bet to say that this particular mass murderer's hate towards homosexuals was fueled by his religion and most likely upbringing. In news he is identified as second generation immigrant from Afghan background, so he is most likely grown his hateful self in USA and found ISIS's hateful world view corresponding with that hate, which has lead to his world view become more and more radicalized and given him motivation to plan and carry out his attack against those that he hates. To me it is senseless act of violence that ended lots of lives that should not have ended. I just hope that it leads changes that make society better for everybody.

Strength isn't that important when you are fighting with those weapons, you need just enough to wield weapon (which is something that both men and women can quite easily achieve especially in time most of the house hold work was done with similar tools, especially farmers [and there was no farming house where women didn't partake in reaping, and other heavy duties, because they could not afford not to]) without problems, but then you need skill, speed, hand eye coordination and understanding how your opponent can move and most likely move. This is because sharp sword, spear or axe needs quite minimal force to wound and kill person. Strength also plays quite little in in armored combat, because additional force that you can put behind weapon isn't that much without risking losing control over it which is when you opponent most likely wins the duel, you are better of to find spot where there isn't armor. While I have no desire to discuss gender in gaming, I will make a point of interest. The above statement by Elerond is horrendously false. They have no idea what they're talking about. Strength is critical in wielding a melee weapon. It influences everything. Endrance. How easily you can maneuver it. The ability to break through a parry. The ability to effectively parry. How precisely you can place a strike, and yes, the severity of a blow. All of this is also true in instances with armor. Source: 6 years Aikido, 3 years of Fencing, 2 years Okinawan Kenpo, 1 year of Kendo. I stand by words as person that has practiced sport judo for 20 years, hema for 15 years and who has taught both men and women to fight with swords, spears, axes, halberds, bows, rifles, knives, daggers. From my personal experience I have come to conclusion that if person has enough strength to wield weapon with ease (which means that person needs to have enough endurance to fling weapon for sometime) then in duel person's strength don't really play in when it comes to who will win the duel. People that fare best in in hema tournaments (or even judo tournaments) aren't really never come from the end that has people with most strength. They don't come even from tallest end even though reach plays more in advantage than strength in duels. But if person has strength and endurance to work 10 hours on the field during harvest then they have enough strength and endurance to wield sword, spear or axe. EDIT: To add, in my experience it isn't strength that put women in disadvantage in judo for example, but that fact that they are 20-40 centimeters shorter than me and weight 30-50 kg less than me. Because I have much more reach and they need to use much more strength to throw me. Meaning that I have easier time to get holds and for them fight is more tiring. But if I match with woman of my size then things are much more equal even if I can lift from bench more, then determining factors are usually skill, mistakes, tactics. In sword fight reach is thing that gives you most advantage (but shorter people need to just use tactics that aims to negate that advantage, but of course it still gives you advantage), strength plays much more in because you don't need to try to throw your opponent or anything like that but only wield your weapon. And as stronger person I can't put all my strength behind the hits because then I can't react to what my opponent is doing. In spear fighting even advantage from height starts to disappear because weapon itself has massive reach already and strength plays quite little in because you need quite little strength to get massive force behind your jabs and thrusts with spear, it is more about speed which you make it move than strength that you but behind it. In parries and binds strength can play in bit more, but even then it is technique that plays more in than who is the strongest. Knife and dagger fights are closer to judo, but even them weapon equals the field. EDIT2: After reading my post again I realize that I let my annoyance over comment by some anonymous person in internet to cloud my judgement, which has lead me to fail full heartedly in this debate because not only I appealed to authority, but I made myself (an anonymous person in internet) that authority. So I just let myself out and leave this topic to people that actually can debate without doing beginner's mistakes.

Strength isn't that important when you are fighting with those weapons, you need just enough to wield weapon (which is something that both men and women can quite easily achieve especially in time most of the house hold work was done with similar tools, especially farmers [and there was no farming house where women didn't partake in reaping, and other heavy duties, because they could not afford not to]) without problems, but then you need skill, speed, hand eye coordination and understanding how your opponent can move and most likely move. This is because sharp sword, spear or axe needs quite minimal force to wound and kill person. Strength also plays quite little in in armored combat, because additional force that you can put behind weapon isn't that much without risking losing control over it which is when you opponent most likely wins the duel, you are better of to find spot where there isn't armor. So women not being part of fighting force was never really issue of their lack of strength, but their lack of schooling in using weapons. So it was more of social issue than anything else. Although in richer classes women often avoided physical work because they were able to afford to hire people to do work for them and it was socially excepted behavior.

Well, female fighting characters (either ones you fight as, with, or against) are certainly treated the same as male fighting characters in D&D - at least, I think so. Fighting characters are not the only type of characters in D&D, though, and on a wider overview, I don't think you could really consider that principle to stand up to any great degree... Yup. You're character is created, not randomly sampled, so she doesn't need to represent a typical member of society. You can play a Nikki Fuller-type character if you want. Revan is stating that in the typical fantasy universe, females are weaker than males. I don't see any evidence of that in D&D, at least that I've seen. I was thinking about games, movies or books, not p&p rulesets (by the way, the older D&D versions had inferior strenght cap for females - they removed them in the newer versions just to allow players to create every character they want, I guess -, and also I've not read stories based on D&D settings but I do think that most of the regular soldiers are men, as it is in games such as BG, IWD and NWN). For example, in The Wheel of Time women usually hold more power than men, but that is because they can use magic while men go mad after using saidin for a while (and so are forbidden to use it or hunted down). Regular soldiers are men, there are women that go to war with them but they are sorceresses. There's pretty much the same situation in The Witcher series (Triss, Yennefer, Philippa and the Lodge are arguably more powerful than Geralt, but their source of power is magic, not their combat prowess and the regular fighters/soldiers are men). Then again, there are women who rise up to become good fighters in many fantasy stories (Eowin in LOTR, Brienne in ASOIAF, etc.) but they are not common and don't represent the average woman (who shares the pros and cons and the traits of real world's women). In LOTR women were forbidden to take arms, and Éowyn just decided **** such nonsense and not just prove that she was capable warrior but that she was able to defeat Witch King immortal entity that had blighted Middle Earth for time of first war of the Rings (several thousands of years). Book don't give any information of prowess of other women in battle field. Although Galadriel is told to be one of the most powerful beings in the Middle Earth and that if she takes the One ring, then Sauron's rule would have been just cakewalk. And whole books point from start to beginning is not underestimate people and what they are capable to do. The Witcher series also has Ciri, who is as just capable in fighting as Geralt, of course magic from her elven heritage helps, but Geralt is magically mutated creature that also wields magic. But again Witcher's world is one where women's role isn't to be warriors, but in Skellige people don't seem to even bat an eye for idea of warrior woman, so they aren't some strange unicorns that pop-up once in the millennium. And if we look other fantasy worlds like for example Celano series' world there isn't any men because they all died in past because they weren't good enough (because of genetic tinkering of one person that really hated men). Lyremouth Chronicles' world where women are strongest people that exists (although it is only true in one part of the world other parts are controlled by wizards that don't care about person' gender) Meaning that they are fantasy worlds and their authors can make any changes to rules that they want to make, and if you only look fantasy world made men then you most likely find results that reflect ideas that men stronger, more capable, actual heroes, etc. just because nature of people.

Well I am surprised 2133....pleasantly surprised. You somehow found a way to not attack and undermine the EU..even if its a small positive step forward And you right its not a authoritarian regime EU is collective democratic regime (meaning collection of independent democratic countries that have decided by themselves and freely to participate in bigger democratic institution to achieve common goals) where lots of decision making process is obscured by bureaucracy and complex power structure. And things are made worse by countries government using confusion caused by EU's complexity and distance from general public as scapegoat for unpopular decision that they themselves haven been part of making. Of course collective democratic regime can be seen that individual country is losing its power to decide about things by themselves because there are things where they need to come in agreement with wider community. But in other hand leaving such collective regime don't mean that you don't need to come in agreements with other countries anymore. But of course if country and its population has fundamental disagreement about where things should go than rest of the countries in said collective regime then leaving that regime is probably best for their own interests.

Do you have any sources that countries have done such thing as official declaration, and not just some politician speaking poppy****. Like for example there are Russian politician that tell every year how Russia will reclaim Finland, but that is quite far from Russia itself threatening to reclaim Finland. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0W50PN The Gibraltar one seems to be a few speculatory statement by the Spanish foreign minister taken as fact by several publications Good link but its just rhetoric, why would the UK allow that? If they do leave the EU the UK in fact would be more forceful and committed to stopping illegal immigrants. The UK is a small country and it could manage entry points effectively It isn't rhetorical threat, but quite real thing that France can do if they want. It is what Russia did for Finland from December to February, they just let immigrant pass their border control and then these immigrant seek asylum from UK and because of what was agreed on 1951 Refugee Convention UK has to take them in and process their petition for asylum. Of course UK can denounce it but such action probably would cause them quite lot problems in UN. You right about how I used the word rhetoric, I should have said " its rhetorical in the sense it wont impact the UK like France is suggesting " Not that France would do this but lets say France carried through with that threat and disbanded all the refugee camps near the English Channel and stopped policing there side and said to all the immigrants " there is UK we wont stop you " all that will mean is the UK will be finally able to implement proper border control.....there will be less refugees in the UK as the UK allows a certain percentage of refugees into the UK only because they have to due to there EU responsibility Currently UK can't say no for refugees that cross their border and seek asylum. It is what UK has agreed on when they signed UN's articles about refugee rights. Meaning that if France don't stop people that seek to go in UK to get asylum then UK don't actually can do anything else than take them process if they actually fulfill requirements to be refugee and if not sent them back to their home country if some other country don't take them. This scenario of course assumes that UK don't break their international agreements.

Do you have any sources that countries have done such thing as official declaration, and not just some politician speaking poppy****. Like for example there are Russian politician that tell every year how Russia will reclaim Finland, but that is quite far from Russia itself threatening to reclaim Finland. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0W50PN The Gibraltar one seems to be a few speculatory statement by the Spanish foreign minister taken as fact by several publications Good link but its just rhetoric, why would the UK allow that? If they do leave the EU the UK in fact would be more forceful and committed to stopping illegal immigrants. The UK is a small country and it could manage entry points effectively It isn't rhetorical threat, but quite real thing that France can do if they want. It is what Russia did for Finland from December to February, they just let immigrant pass their border control and then these immigrant seek asylum from UK and because of what was agreed on 1951 Refugee Convention UK has to take them in and process their petition for asylum. Of course UK can denounce it but such action probably would cause them quite lot problems in UN.

Do you have any sources that countries have done such thing as official declaration, and not just some politician speaking poppy****. Like for example there are Russian politician that tell every year how Russia will reclaim Finland, but that is quite far from Russia itself threatening to reclaim Finland.

This must be one of the most inaccurate posts you have ever made? You trolling I assume Lets keep it simple....is there one thing in this post that is true? Well, several EU nations have threatened retaliation if the UK leaves. Likely because if they leave they won't be the last. Which countries have given such threats?

Yeah you are right he is technically nazi and he even lived in Tibet two years after current Dalai Lama become Dalai Lama. Clear proof that Dalai Lama is nazi sympathizer, my bad.

*yawn* another pointless "we need to open our hearts and our borders"-diatribe, WAIT WHAT? He can't very well rail against mass han chinese migration to Tibet changing the identity of the region, then think its ok elsewhere. Plus he was good friends with various nazis and other nationalists. Current Dalai Lama was ten when WWII ended and was not recognized as Dalai Lama until 1950. And his predecessor died in 1933 without any remarkable connections to nazis that I can find, but as rebel leader of occupied country I can see him having connections to nationalists addition to CIA giving him millions to start guerrilla operations against China. But now Dalai Lama is changed man , he even ceded his power over Tibetan government in 2001.