Community > Posts By > Kleisto

 
Kleisto's photo
Fri 12/28/12 10:15 AM
Pure propaganda.......

Kleisto's photo
Wed 12/26/12 10:32 AM
Edited by Kleisto on Wed 12/26/12 10:35 AM



true, nothing is ever ABSOLUTELY Safe, but that is no excuse not to try and make things SAFER,,,,


And yet by removing weapons from the RESPONSIBLE people, which is what WILL happen if you let them start to regulate your guns, you make them LESS safe than if they had it to protect themselves in the first place. I believe that's called bass ackwards.


well, thata another assumption I dont agree wiht


they already have some regulations about guns and plenty of supposedly responsible people in this forum seem to still have theirs

I believe thats called a reality check


no guns would be constitutionally wrong


As if they care about the constitution, they've already shown they don't in how they flagrantly tear it to pieces with each new law they put on the books.

I believe you need the reality check.....fact is, whether you want to believe it or not, they care nothing for your rights, god given or otherwise, just their own power and control. If you let them, they will take just about every last one you have away. Doesn't matter whether you agree with that "assumption" or not, it will happen, history has shown it with any dictatorship. Leave power unchecked and it will consume the people it is supposed to be governing.

Even now we are already less free than we were just 20-30 years ago. These things do not happen over night, they are a gradual thing. You may not think they can do certain things now, but there's a lot of things people didn't think would happen, that did with time because of that lack of paying attention. We must be vigilant if we want our freedom. If we aren't, we will lose it.

Kleisto's photo
Wed 12/26/12 10:22 AM

true, nothing is ever ABSOLUTELY Safe, but that is no excuse not to try and make things SAFER,,,,


And yet by removing weapons from the RESPONSIBLE people, which is what WILL happen if you let them start to regulate your guns, you make them LESS safe than if they had it to protect themselves in the first place. I believe that's called bass ackwards.

Kleisto's photo
Mon 12/24/12 07:29 PM

I guess there's no point in bringing up the practical utility of guns when "they" are trying to con you out of wanting to have them.


This. It's the same reason it wasn't publicized much that the Oregon shooter a few days before the shooting at the school, was confronted by a man in the mall who had a license to carry a concealed weapon, and though he wasn't shot at (guy didn't want to shoot someone innocent behind him), he shot himself not long after. These things simply don't fit the anti-gun agenda they are trying to push down the throat of the brainwashed masses.

Kleisto's photo
Mon 12/24/12 02:32 PM





whatever, a weak argument at it's best...


What is the weak argument?…That the second amendment was intended to preserve your freedom?


i never slaughtered anyone...


Good for you, I haven't either. Beyond that, I have ensured that Canada will not get one cent of my money for anything until it cleans up its act morally speaking. Canada has committed far fewer crimes against humanity than the USA. I hope you are at least doing as I do, or at least taking some action because if you aren't, you are complicit in the crimes against humanity committed by the USA.


if your so cared of the government, then go somewhere where your not so scared, it would seem to benefit you..


I am not scared of "the government" I govern myself and have no fear whatsoever of ANY government. The worst any of them can do to me is torture or kill me and my loved ones (Huey, Dewey & Louie), and only a coward would surrender his honour or liberty for the false security of not being attacked by a tyrannical "government." Besides, if the tyrant has his way, my loved ones would probably wind up as Duck L'Orange anyway, so what is the point of such surrender?

Since you or I could go anywhere in the world and still be targeted by a killer drone that the US president is already using against US citizens without either a hearing or trial, but based only on whether or not the administration doesn't like you, where would you suggest either of us could go to be safe? Why would you want to hold an allegiance to a bank owned, bankrupt, corporate business (called a "country") that doesn't even respect the rule of law?

It was bad enough when the only thing I had to worry about was hunting season, but your government has turned you all into sitting ducks, who can be killed, in or out of season, anytime it feels like it.

Read the NDAA.


they never killed me... i'm not on their hit list, so why should i care? your just paranoid...


Because one day you MAY be......it's easy to say you have nothing to fear when you're not the one targeted, but if their power is left unchecked eventually you will be too. That's why they need to be watched, and why you should care, maybe more than ever before now.


lol, if i ever do something that warrants a hit on me from the government, then i would deserve it...


like i said, paranoid


you won't be saying that one day, I assure you......but best of luck dude.

Kleisto's photo
Mon 12/24/12 01:08 PM




its not easy nor is it likely guns will be 'banned'

it is more likely and easier for them to require licensing that is regulated,,, just like cars,,,

And that will keep guns out ofthe hands of criminals how?


no more than rape laws keeps rapists from finding victims,,,

but as stated a hundred times, laws arent designed with the illusion that they will eradicate crimes completely

Then why punish the law abiding citizen?


Amen, and also.....the lawmakers would sure like you to THINK their laws will eradicate crime......it's how they get away with their BS.

Kleisto's photo
Sun 12/23/12 04:13 PM
Edited by Kleisto on Sun 12/23/12 04:14 PM



whatever, a weak argument at it's best...


What is the weak argument?…That the second amendment was intended to preserve your freedom?


i never slaughtered anyone...


Good for you, I haven't either. Beyond that, I have ensured that Canada will not get one cent of my money for anything until it cleans up its act morally speaking. Canada has committed far fewer crimes against humanity than the USA. I hope you are at least doing as I do, or at least taking some action because if you aren't, you are complicit in the crimes against humanity committed by the USA.


if your so cared of the government, then go somewhere where your not so scared, it would seem to benefit you..


I am not scared of "the government" I govern myself and have no fear whatsoever of ANY government. The worst any of them can do to me is torture or kill me and my loved ones (Huey, Dewey & Louie), and only a coward would surrender his honour or liberty for the false security of not being attacked by a tyrannical "government." Besides, if the tyrant has his way, my loved ones would probably wind up as Duck L'Orange anyway, so what is the point of such surrender?

Since you or I could go anywhere in the world and still be targeted by a killer drone that the US president is already using against US citizens without either a hearing or trial, but based only on whether or not the administration doesn't like you, where would you suggest either of us could go to be safe? Why would you want to hold an allegiance to a bank owned, bankrupt, corporate business (called a "country") that doesn't even respect the rule of law?

It was bad enough when the only thing I had to worry about was hunting season, but your government has turned you all into sitting ducks, who can be killed, in or out of season, anytime it feels like it.

Read the NDAA.


they never killed me... i'm not on their hit list, so why should i care? your just paranoid...


Because one day you MAY be......it's easy to say you have nothing to fear when you're not the one targeted, but if their power is left unchecked eventually you will be too. That's why they need to be watched, and why you should care, maybe more than ever before now.

Kleisto's photo
Sat 12/22/12 05:25 PM
Edited by Kleisto on Sat 12/22/12 05:27 PM




I can see a time in the future if you shoot a home invader or a rapist, you should probably just get rid of the body. LOL



if someone is in the act of a violent crime like rape, a violent response to me seems 'reasonable'

it seems less reasonable to shoot someone running away with property because they wont stop and put it down,,,





so what's the better option? do nothing, or rely on police to handle it when they may well fail you? life isn't always simple msharmony I am sorry to tell you, sometimes you have to do what you have to do to defend yourself and your property.

and also......as far as the death thing goes.....firstly it's not always about killing the person, it's more them KNOWING you could or could wound them that is the thing. Obviously you don't want to have to, but if you have that ability you are much more likely to deter them from coming after you than if you do not.

And regardless I will say it again, if you do the crime, you get no sympathy from me. Your right to be protected ends where you cross someone elses rights. At that point you deserve what you get.

Also about crossfire, you can make the same argument for cops here, but they still are allowed to carry a gun aren't they? If they can use a gun to defend themselves or someone else why can't we? Again life is just not simple.....the bystander thing sucks but it can happen, it's not a good enough reason to take away everyone's right to self defense based on potential alone.



I never would propose that life is simple

what is more likely is a long list
more likely, if you have a gun, for someone else to get a hold of it(as in Adam Lanza) and harm others

more likely, if you have a gun, for someone else (a child) to get ahold of it and harm themself

its not as simple as deterring,, human life is sacred to me,, if thats liberal or unpatriotic, so be it

all crime is not deserving of a death penalty, as our own laws indicate

but we probably can deter lesser crimes by making people fear there are weapons that may kill them

but Id rather risk those lesser crimes where people SURVIVE to avoid people dying unnecessarily,,,





Then you only have yourself to blame if someone comes after you, because you allowed yourself to be put into the position to make it happen. I'm sorry but I just think it's insanity to do that, and what if the criminal in question wants to kill you? what about that? It's not just "lesser" crimes that can be deterred by the presence of a weapon.......is a criminal's life more sacred than those lives affected by those bigger ones?

And I'll say it again, you can't legislate based on assumptions or what ifs. There's what ifs and risks involved with everything, doesn't mean the answer is to ban.

Kleisto's photo
Sat 12/22/12 03:20 PM
Edited by Kleisto on Sat 12/22/12 03:26 PM


I can see a time in the future if you shoot a home invader or a rapist, you should probably just get rid of the body. LOL



if someone is in the act of a violent crime like rape, a violent response to me seems 'reasonable'

it seems less reasonable to shoot someone running away with property because they wont stop and put it down,,,





so what's the better option? do nothing, or rely on police to handle it when they may well fail you? life isn't always simple msharmony I am sorry to tell you, sometimes you have to do what you have to do to defend yourself and your property.

and also......as far as the death thing goes.....firstly it's not always about killing the person, it's more them KNOWING you could or could wound them that is the thing. Obviously you don't want to have to, but if you have that ability you are much more likely to deter them from coming after you than if you do not.

And regardless I will say it again, if you do the crime, you get no sympathy from me. Your right to be protected ends where you cross someone elses rights. At that point you deserve what you get.

Also about crossfire, you can make the same argument for cops here, but they still are allowed to carry a gun aren't they? If they can use a gun to defend themselves or someone else why can't we? Again life is just not simple.....the bystander thing sucks but it can happen, it's not a good enough reason to take away everyone's right to self defense based on potential alone.

Kleisto's photo
Sat 12/22/12 02:39 PM


When you commit a crime or try to commit one, your right to be protected ends right there.....if you get shot and die, that's your own fault, should have thought about that consequence before you decided to do whatever you were trying to do.

It is sad it happens that way at times? Yes, but the person brought it on themselves when they tried to commit the crime in the first place. Don't wanna die, then don't do the crime simple as that. Is it crude? Maybe so, but why should we be at all sympathetic to someone who chose to rob or steal? They made the mistake, so they need to deal with it.



In Britain you can get put in jail for shooting a home invader and the home invader can sue you for injuries.

Its ridiculous.

Personally, I like the "make my day" law in Colorado.




Same, and sad thing is it's getting that way here too, my friend's cousin got into trouble once over something similar to that a long time ago.

The one being attacked needs the protection more than the attacker, bottom line.

Kleisto's photo
Sat 12/22/12 01:44 PM
Edited by Kleisto on Sat 12/22/12 01:48 PM





I did live in Britain for a year

its actually, England, part of Ireland, Wales, and Scotland

I was in Wales

and it was refreshing, that the worst stories on the news were ones where PREDOMINATELY the victim(s) lived

as with any other country, there are some areas that are 'safer' than others, but Id still feel safer in their unsafe areas than in ours,,

and England may be an example where crime in general went up, because maybe people arent scared their crimes will get them killed

but thats not a negative to me, as Im not an advocate of people losing their lives over things like stealing or trespassing,,,

there are countries who have seen crime drop with more gun regulation as well

so its still not enough, to me, to hold up a few countries as some proof positive of one side or the other of the gun control debate,,,

(not that I believe that to be your intent, just speaking generally)



It is still wrong to ask the public to give up their right to defend themselves against crimes. Why should the criminals be given a population of unarmed victims to choose from?

And it is not just a few countries from what I gather.

But putting all that statistic stuff to one side, I personally don't want anyone to tell me I can't carry a gun to protect myself and my possessions.









I agree, it is wrong to not have the right to defend oneself

that is not the issue though


there are some of us concerned with 'reasonable' forms of defense

who seek reasonable regulation of the arms used for such defense and the reasonable assessment of those who would own such arms,,,

as I stated, my mother has a gun, my uncle has a gun and killed a home invader with it

all that was required was a source to deliver the BULLET,, it was not reasonable(imho) that that source be able to deliver 20 or 30 bullets in ten seconds

not having THAT type of arm had nothing to do with my uncle using his right to 'defend' himself,,


Here's the thing though.....once you give the government the right to regulate one thing....you open the door immediately to them regulating something else. You cannot give them that chance, because history has proven many times over for those who actually know it that they NEVER stop with one thing. Guns, ESPECIALLY guns given that they can be used against them.....would be no different.

Furthermore here, I have to comment on this.....I generally stay away from these topics around here anymore but I can't not say something about this. You said:

"and England may be an example where crime in general went up, because maybe people arent scared their crimes will get them killed

but thats not a negative to me, as Im not an advocate of people losing their lives over things like stealing or trespassing,,, "

So you're seriously going to tell me.....that when the option is give the criminal a serious deterrent to committing a crime knowing he or she could be risking their life in the process or having nothing at all to keep them from doing it basically....you'd rather have nothing? Really? There's no words for how absolutely insane that is, truly.

When you commit a crime or try to commit one, your right to be protected ends right there.....if you get shot and die, that's your own fault, should have thought about that consequence before you decided to do whatever you were trying to do.

It is sad it happens that way at times? Yes, but the person brought it on themselves when they tried to commit the crime in the first place. Don't wanna die, then don't do the crime simple as that. Is it crude? Maybe so, but why should we be at all sympathetic to someone who chose to rob or steal? They made the mistake, so they need to deal with it.

Kleisto's photo
Tue 09/11/12 12:42 AM
Edited by Kleisto on Tue 09/11/12 12:42 AM

Jerry was waiting to hear if he was going to be in a match with CM Punk tonight but collapsed before he heard. He wasn't chosen anyway but at 62 years old, he is a little over the hill to compete. The match was because CM Punk wants "respect"....something he doesn't deserve.

Get well Jerry Lawler....


(Loved seeing Bret Hart tonight and was so happy to see him hit Punk upside the head)


He did have a match you know......involving Punk as well, the collapse came after. It was so eerie as a sidenote listening to him struggle to breath as that occurred, really really eerie.

I agree though he is too old for this....he supposedly wrestles independently a lot too, and harder.

Kleisto's photo
Mon 09/03/12 02:06 PM


imagine.....

just be good for goodness sake ..
and,
derive your strength from family, friends and yourself..
not from an imaginary, mythological friend

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930


The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness. The Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primative, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
- Albert Einstein, Letter to Erik Gutkind, January 3, 1954


why not get our 'strength' where we find it?

what is so much different from a scientist or individual advising us in regards to strength and the bible advising us?

good ideas, good advice, good counsel, will still be good ideas, good advice, and good counsel

regardless of the 'source'





Yes but the problem becomes when we take that "source" and make it into a gospel when it really should not be one, such as with the Bible. We believe far too much on certain things than we really should be.

Kleisto's photo
Tue 08/28/12 11:54 PM
I built up to running 3 miles this summer, first time I ever ran, am rather proud of it.

Kleisto's photo
Fri 08/24/12 07:10 PM




I just will ask one question, why are you people so threatened by two people who love each other wanting to marry for? Is that gonna REALLY affect your own marriages? Leave your dogma behind for a second, what they do is NOT gonna impact your lives unless you let them. Period.



who feels 'threatened'

Im not threatened by someone else eating chocolate cake all day , but that doesnt mean I would support the government promoting, encouraging, or supporting such a choice


relationships are a choice,

encouraging men and women to commit to each other sets a strong foundation for future children, families, and communities that will arise out of a man and a woman sharing a physical moment,,,,


nothing else is 'the same', nothing else needs to be encouraged or promoted with the same passion or commitment,,,,


But not everyone WANTS or has the desire to commit to the opposite sex! You are in effect telling them their love is not as good as yours because they don't love the same way, and trying to use YOUR morality to dictate what they legally can or cannot do. I don't care how you wanna try and justify it, it is flat wrong. Live and let live, it's not hard.


and the law dosent dictate that anyone and everyone HAS to commit to the opposite sex

so there is no problem there,,,


Oh that's a load of crap! The law OPENLY discriminates against same sex couples as they cannot legally be together in the way a straight couple can be.

How the hell would YOU like it if we told you you couldn't marry another man because it goes against our beliefs of what is right and moral?

Put yourself in their shoes for a second, then maybe you might understand just why this is a problem.

Kleisto's photo
Fri 08/24/12 07:04 PM
That is not to mention the fact that a gay or lesbian can STILL have and raise a child in other ways if they so choose. So the idea that they can't have kids falls flat regardless. They may not be able to do it the traditional way, but they still can.

Kleisto's photo
Fri 08/24/12 12:07 PM


I just will ask one question, why are you people so threatened by two people who love each other wanting to marry for? Is that gonna REALLY affect your own marriages? Leave your dogma behind for a second, what they do is NOT gonna impact your lives unless you let them. Period.



who feels 'threatened'

Im not threatened by someone else eating chocolate cake all day , but that doesnt mean I would support the government promoting, encouraging, or supporting such a choice


relationships are a choice,

encouraging men and women to commit to each other sets a strong foundation for future children, families, and communities that will arise out of a man and a woman sharing a physical moment,,,,


nothing else is 'the same', nothing else needs to be encouraged or promoted with the same passion or commitment,,,,


But not everyone WANTS or has the desire to commit to the opposite sex! You are in effect telling them their love is not as good as yours because they don't love the same way, and trying to use YOUR morality to dictate what they legally can or cannot do. I don't care how you wanna try and justify it, it is flat wrong. Live and let live, it's not hard.

Kleisto's photo
Fri 08/24/12 11:26 AM
I just will ask one question, why are you people so threatened by two people who love each other wanting to marry for? Is that gonna REALLY affect your own marriages? Leave your dogma behind for a second, what they do is NOT gonna impact your lives unless you let them. Period.

Kleisto's photo
Fri 08/24/12 12:55 AM
Edited by Kleisto on Fri 08/24/12 12:55 AM



we can try to uproot everything because we dont like some of it

or we can hold on to those things that work and that make sense, and continue trying to improve on those things that are failing or harming others,,,,



Holding on to a system that is about to crash only means that we will crash with it.

Instead, we should begin building something that does work.






where is evidence that it is 'about to crash'? based upon what?


Simple common sense, and also looking back into history (which we are WOEFULLY ignorant of), we CANNOT keep sustaining things as they are we just can't. It WILL break at some point, it's happened before (see Great Depression) and it will happen again. Whether people wanna believe that or not really makes no difference, we will ALL be faced with the cold hard reality sooner or later. And if we're not prepared it will be that much harder to accept. Pride comes before the fall...

Kleisto's photo
Thu 08/23/12 05:48 PM




I want to protest, but crap I am even scared to do that. Some cop will say you are trespassing or disturbing the peace. Welcome to the police state.

So apply for a permit. Most places have laws in place that give you the right to protest. You are just to lazy to go through with it.

Ever seen what happens when a cop(s) show up at a lawful protest? Pepper spray, tazers, and general beatings are common.

Just one of dozens of examples freely available on youtube.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOImv8e14RE



Plus I am sick of having to have a god damn permit for every damn thing I want to do. This is supposed to be a free country. Screw their damn permits.

</end of rant>


amen.