Details » J3nm1ler

- Url: http://j3nm1ler.informe.com/
- Category: Food
- Description: dcuo
- Members: 7
- Created On: Apr 8, 2011
- Posts: 75
- Hits: 4990
- Rating: 

Post your rating:
- Rating:          
- Comment:

- Verification Image:
- Verification Code:
 


User Comments:
1. | Aug 4, 2014
FK1i3o Thanks for the article post. Want more.
2. | Jul 21, 2014
old friend and coelgalue Bob Gourley asks if we are any closer to achieving aa0cyber deterrence policy. I say: stop burning CPU cycles focusing on a narrow set of legacy futures or start developing new
3. | Jul 6, 2014
....Then he has even less excuse for wniritg second rate rubbish with little apparent objective review of source material that would get a first year journalism cadet student a terse "please explain" from their lecturer, and a boot in the backside from their editor.
4. | Jun 18, 2014
PART 2 (continued from first post)By definition, clnoeaced carry means that those who would do you harm do not know if you have the means to defend yourself. Not knowing is a potential deterrent. However, positively identifying that the risk does ACTUALLY exist would seem to be an inherently better deterrent.In your Israeli example, as you state, the terrorist has the option to wait, or kill you first. However, if he is hellbent on carrying out his attack then you will likely die in any scenario whether your firearm is displayed or clnoeaced, it will just be delayed if clnoeaced.Should he decide to wait, you have saved your life, as well as anyone with your party. Carrying a firearm is an individual responsibility that should not be taken lightly. While open carry may prevent the victimization of others, it is meant to prevent the victimization of myself and my loved ones first. I utterly refuse to be held accountable for 'not preventing' a crime for those who choose not to take prudent steps for their family's security. The carrier's responsibilities should not be confused with the responsibilities of law enforcement.As a side not, I generally do not open carry, and when I do it is not to make a statement. If making a statement is your only reasoning, then you have missed the boat. The primary reason I conceal is to keep from dealing with people who ask a myriad of questions when I am out and about.I open carry when concealing the firearm is not practical or when my inclination would be to leave the firearm at home because concealing would be a major hassle. If it's gotten to that point, in my opinion, having a firearm carried openly is far better than having it in the safe. There are also situations where quick access to my firearm would be severely compromised by concealing. In that case, why bother carrying clnoeaced if you can't get to it! A good example is when driving a car, with seatbelt on, with a clnoeaced firearm. Access is much slower than openly carrying as the seatbelt will not obstruct access. There are plenty of other examples as well.
5. | May 17, 2014
PART 2 (continued from first post)By definition, cnlecaoed carry means that those who would do you harm do not know if you have the means to defend yourself. Not knowing is a potential deterrent. However, positively identifying that the risk does ACTUALLY exist would seem to be an inherently better deterrent.In your Israeli example, as you state, the terrorist has the option to wait, or kill you first. However, if he is hellbent on carrying out his attack then you will likely die in any scenario whether your firearm is displayed or cnlecaoed, it will just be delayed if cnlecaoed.Should he decide to wait, you have saved your life, as well as anyone with your party. Carrying a firearm is an individual responsibility that should not be taken lightly. While open carry may prevent the victimization of others, it is meant to prevent the victimization of myself and my loved ones first. I utterly refuse to be held accountable for 'not preventing' a crime for those who choose not to take prudent steps for their family's security. The carrier's responsibilities should not be confused with the responsibilities of law enforcement.As a side not, I generally do not open carry, and when I do it is not to make a statement. If making a statement is your only reasoning, then you have missed the boat. The primary reason I conceal is to keep from dealing with people who ask a myriad of questions when I am out and about.I open carry when concealing the firearm is not practical or when my inclination would be to leave the firearm at home because concealing would be a major hassle. If it's gotten to that point, in my opinion, having a firearm carried openly is far better than having it in the safe. There are also situations where quick access to my firearm would be severely compromised by concealing. In that case, why bother carrying cnlecaoed if you can't get to it! A good example is when driving a car, with seatbelt on, with a cnlecaoed firearm. Access is much slower than openly carrying as the seatbelt will not obstruct access. There are plenty of other examples as well.
6. | Jan 20, 2014
contdOf course the death ptlenay deters. A review of the debate.Dudley Sharp 1) Anti death ptlenay folks say that the burden of proof is on those who say that the death ptlenay deters. Untrue. It is a rational truism that all potential negative outcomes deter some - there is no exception. It is the burden of death ptlenay opponents to prove that the death ptlenay, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the only prospect of a negative outcome that deters none. They cannot. 2) There have been 28 recent studies finding for death ptlenay deterrence. A few of those have been criticized. The criticism has, itself been rebutted and/or the criticism doesn't negate no. 1 or nos. 3-10. 3) No deterrence study finds that the death ptlenay deters none. They cannot. Anti death ptlenay columnists Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune states, "No one argues that the death ptlenay deters none." Yes, some do, But Zorn is correct, the issue is not "Does the death ptlenay deter?". It does. The only issue is to what degree. 4) About 99% of those murderers who are subject to the death ptlenay do everything they can to receive a lesser sentence, in pre trial, plea bargains, trial, in appeals and in clemency/commutation proceedings. Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life. No surprise. Would a more rational group, those who choose not to murder, also share in that overwhelming fear of death and be deterred by the prospects of execution? Of course. 5) There are a number of known cases of individual deterrence, those potential murderers who have stated that they were prevented from committing murder because of their fear of the death ptlenay. Individual deterrence exists. 6) General deterrence exists because individual deterrence cannot exist without it. 7) Even the dean of anti death ptlenay academics, Hugo Adam Bedau, agrees that the death ptlenay deters .. . but he doesn't believe it deters more than a life sentence. Nos. 4-6 and 10 provide anecdotal and rational evidence that the death ptlenay is a greater deterrent than a life sentence. In addition, the 28 studies finding for deterrence, find that the death ptlenay is an enhanced deterrent over a life sentence. 8) All criminal sanctions deter. If you doubt that, what do you think would happen if we ended all criminal sanctions? No rational person has any doubt. Some would have us, irrationally, believe that the most severe sanction, execution, is the only sanction which doesn't deter. 9) If we execute and there is no deterrence, we have justly punished a murderer and have prevented that murderer from ever harming/murdering, again. If we execute and there is deterrence, we have those benefits, plus we have spared more innocent lives. If we don't execute and there is deterrence, we have spared murderers at the cost of more innocent deaths. 10) Overwhelmingly, people prefer life over death and fear death more than life. "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call." John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science
7. | Jan 19, 2014
etot kurginyan sladot rothschildov! ego tozhe raskrutshiwaut w Rossii dlja psewdosozialisma po trotskomu (nowi tolpolitarism) i raswala Rossii (revoluzia kak eto uzhe bilo) Info pro kurginyana na KPE. ru´╗┐ !!!Dmitri Slawoljubov ..wash bibleiski projekt w rasnowidnoi forme skoro prowaliza i washa psewdowlast (kapitalism, pwsewdosozialism gde toka elita rulit a ne narod..) isbrannix balnix skoro bolshe nebudet
8. | Jan 11, 2014
Try coming up with a real issue berofe you pretend that one (1) blogger is 1.) a BIG DEAL; and 2.) and I quote RCP . . . posting links one story equals links.The way you breathless posted your comment, I had assumed that the front page was flooded with links to stories about Christie's malfeasance. I had to do a search of the site to even find this one puny blog entry. It definitely ranks up there with Bush & Katrina! Thanks for alerting us to the news. If you want to see what a real pummeling looks like, just Google Bloomberg and Snow Storm. P.S. For the truly clueless, consult your dictionary entry for HYPERBOLE.