Sign In or Create an Account
It used to be quite common for amateur websites to be indefinitely under construction 10-15 years ago, which is how dated that site looks.
Strangely enough, no animated gifs.
Here's their website when it was still online: https://web.archive.org/web/20170515184717/http://www.gapeachbar.com/
I thought all of that was Biden's fault.
To be fair, what the article says is that it is a natural process that has been occurring since the founding of the United States, and not a shadowy conspiracy by the elites.
The videos show that Russian soldiers have been engaged in looting, so it makes the story about the washing machines more believable. Also, what you are essentially saying is that sure, they have been looting various stuff, but not the washing machines on this one particular truck.
Washers with air drier functions look similar, or it could have been also a standalone drier.
The question is if it was really a Mi-28. I've also seen claims that it could have been a Mi-35, which would have space for a washing machine: https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/mi-35m.jpg
Yes, but it contains video footage and photographs showing the Russian army looting. Here you can see more from a different source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoM5yx1IVFY
Then there is also this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwSNPTe2o1c
The tops of a lot of washing machines aren't made of metal, so they would have likely burned: https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/secondary/LFB-washing-machine-604092.jpg
As for field laundry units, they apparently look more like this: https://www.eurogunzel.com/2017/09/russian-army-shower-laundry-trains/ as opposed to standalone consumer grade washing machines being loaded on a military truck.
It seems to be a theme: https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1510214095844356097/photo/1
What you are making is essentially just the slippery slope argument.
I am not advocating for mental health checks for every gun owner though. What I'm saying that if somebody already has a history of mental health issues and they are openly talking about wanting to murder people, that they shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun.
Not sure that math is sound. First, 225 is the number of mass shootings this year alone (and it is only May). It isn't the total number of mass shooters in the population. To approximate that you would probably have to add up the number of mass shootings that occurred over a human lifetime. Second, you are using the total number of US citizens, which includes children and very old people, both of which aren't candidates for mass shooters.
Well, most people in the MAGA movement don't like the GOP either.
Opioids have been a major component of drug addiction in the US. As for mass shootings being very rare in the US, here is a list of mass shootings for this year alone: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
Not everyone has a history of mental health issues and is openly talking about murdering people like the Buffalo shooter did.
Maybe, maybe not. The shooter has the advantage of being able to act first and others having to react. And if the shooter is suicidal, they don't care if they will get shot as long as they manage to shoot as many people as possible first. Oftentimes they even want to get shot and to become a martyr in their minds.
Well, if you restrict sales of guns to people with severe mental issues, it would also apply to sales among friends and family members, i.e. they would be held liable. Stealing a gun or buying it on the street isn't as easy for someone who isn't a seasoned criminal. Of course you can't entirely prevent bad people from getting guns, but making it harder usually means that less people will bother. You can see this for example in England, where there have been attacks with knives, but mass shootings are extremely rare.
As for the argument that restricting access to guns might motivate a deranged person, I'm not sure that someone would become a murderer just because they weren't allowed to buy a gun for self defense. In such cases they would likely already have an inclination for such behavior and the gun sale would merely be the "last straw", so selling them a gun doesn't seem too wise IMHO.
I suspect you do care if it's a sword, a slingshot, or a gun. You probably wouldn't want for someone to ban guns and tell you that your natural right for arming yourself is still intact, because you can get a sword. In any case, my point was that mental health evaluations in connection to guns aren't nothing new.
Some drugs do have beneficial uses, like alleviating pain in hospital conditions. But the same drugs can be used for illicit purposes.
Just like with guns, where they can be used for hunting or self defense, but also to commit mass shootings. Restricting drugs doesn't mean that it is impossible to get them, but it makes it harder so less people will do it. The same applies to restricting access to guns for certain individuals.
Or were you saying that he's president now?
Not sure you can run for two consecutive terms after you already completed one term.
How do we know that Waukesha wasn't just another false flag attack with crisis actors though?