The same one exporting Belt Fed Machine Guns. Half of the stuff covered in the article can’t be bought in the United States so I’d really REALLY like to know where in the hell its coming from.
That’s certainly possible but I’d bet that the regular ol’ Arms Dealers, think Lord of War, are the ones behind it.
To be fair 9mm Pistols and AR pattern rifles could absolutely be sourced in the US and shipped to Haiti so I’m perfectly willing to believe that part of it, but this other stuff? No way.
I love the accidental admission that you only want to know where it’s coming from because it can’t be bought in America, implying you wouldn’t like to know otherwise.
Accross the continent, a huge number of guns recovered in crimes can be traced back to a gun store in America. It’s an incredibly low risk way to source firearms, especially compared to things like “robbing the military”.
But just because a domestic abuser with a room temperature IQ can’t buy one at his local Walmart doesn’t mean they’re not American guns. The “profits first, people never” mentality of arms manufacturers and their pet politicians has resulted in billions of dollars of weapons in the hands of militant groups.
Of course if you genuinely wanted to know, there’s multiple reports on exactly that topic. Be sure to tell us what you learn from them, so we know you’re not just defending Americas gun laws by muddying the waters.
I think they “really wanted to know where they’re coming from” because the explanation from the article didn’t seem plausible.
That’s exactly it. The only fully automatic firearms available for purchase in the United States are going to be used, very expensive, closely tracked by the Federal Government, with very limited quantities available. The idea that these kinds of firearms are being sourced in the US is unbelievable.
Semi-Auto firearms I can believe, although its still wildly illegal, but not the full auto stuff. There’s just no way.
Accross the continent, a huge number of guns recovered in crimes can be traced back to a gun store in America.
Not fully automatic firearms. The very few for sale in the United States are old, expensive, Federally tracked, and not available in any real quantity.
I love the accidental admission that you only want to know where it’s coming from because it can’t be bought in America…
Yes, because the explanation being given by the article doesn’t match with the reality of firearms in the U.S.
For instance that firearm in the first picture of the original article simply isn’t for sale at any shop in the United States. The only way you are buying it is with a special permit from the US Federal Government itself, the permit is only given to specific military and possibly some police organizations. The permit will only allow the purchase of a pre specified number of an exact model of firearm, and that purchase will be tracked (by serial number) from the time of manufacture through the sale process and delivery to the permitted organization.
Once all that’s done the permitted organization cannot legally sell them, let alone export them, without a whole 'nother pile of paperwork that requires Federal approval.
Be sure to tell us what you learn from them, so we know you’re not just defending Americas gun laws by muddying the waters.
I read the article you posted at the beginning of March. In fact I’ve probably read the majority of the articles, and the studies underpinning them, on this subject for at least twenty years. I even read the U.N. Report linked in the original article. Did you?
The truth is that simple semi-auto weapons like AR pattern rifles and Glocks can be bought here, sure, but a dozen different Federal Laws are being broken in order to get them to the gangs in Haiti. I’m sure it’s happening anyway and I’m not arguing about that.
What I’m saying is that is that the claims of full auto weapons coming from the US are extraordinary and need far more proof than just an AP News article.
I guess it’s the magic gun fairy then, manifesting American-made guns out of thin air and leaving them under the pillows of gang members the world over.
There actually was a Kalashnikov factory in the US producing Real Authentic Kalashnikov AK-47s. Was one of the very early victims of sanctions over Ukraine.
According to the above Pew Pew Tactical article, it looks like those Crimea-invasion sanctions were what started the US-based factory – they set up domestic production in the US to provide their US sales, since they couldn’t import from Russia any more.
The American company, Kalashnikov USA, was initially an importer of Russian-made firearms until the US government banned importation.
Using their familiarity and know-how, the importers became manufacturers, creating their own firearms based on Russian specifications.
I guess that strictly-speaking, the term should still be “AK-pattern”, Kalashnikov or not. Says that it’s based on the AK-103, which is really a descendant of the AK-47.
The UN Security Council on Monday passed a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan, the immediate and unconditional release of hostages and “the urgent need to expand the flow” of aid into Gaza. There were 14 votes in favour with the United States abstaining.
The Council then adopted the resolution 2728 (2024) (to be issued as document S/RES/2728(2024)) by a vote of 14 in favour to none against, with one abstention (United States). By its terms, it demanded an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties, leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire. It also demanded the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, as well as ensuring humanitarian access to address their medical and other humanitarian needs.
By other terms, the Council emphasized the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance and reinforce the protection of civilians in Gaza. It also demanded the lifting of all barriers to humanitarian assistance at scale, in line with international humanitarian law as well as Council resolutions 2712 (2023) and 2720 (2023)…
Now that this Council has finally called for a ceasefire, all forces should ensure it is enforced, he asserted, adding: “This must be a turning point, this must lead to saving lives on the ground, this must signal an end of these atrocities against the Palestinians — a nation is being murdered, […] disposed [and] displaced for decades now — but never at this scale since the Nakba, never this openly”. However, he said that even if the ceasefire happened now and the siege was lifted, “it would take generations to deal with the trauma and devastation”.
I was using it earlier and it seems to struggle with downloading anything higher than 720p. Although I’m not really fussed about the resolution of Live at the Apollo episodes.
See mate, the mint make a profit on money, do you think it costs £50 to run off one of them little plastic things.
Edit: just realised you were one of our dear Canadian brethren. See hoser, the Canadian mint make a profit on money, you think it costs a loonie to strike of them little metal things?
As discussed in the article, of was never really about religion. It was about rhetoric. The bar for Democrats to keep states like Iowa blue was so incredibly low, requiring only action. But none could be taken, and it will now be incredibly difficult to overcome this loss.
The bar for Democrats to keep states like Iowa blue was so incredibly low, requiring only action.
What would Democrats have had to do? Is there any chance that any sort of Evangelical appeal from a Democratic candidate wouldn’t be appealing to the rest of the democratic voters?
It goes back, I don't know, 30 years? With both agricultural US and union areas (sometimes the same places) the Democratic party consistently expected those votes without actually delivering anything. Bill Clinton and the party get blamed for things like NAFTA and jobs moving to other countries, etc. So eventually these folks drift to the Republican party. Many of these people were broadly conservative anyways. Later, the religious aspects and toxicity of what started with Newt manifested to what we see now.
I don't know if an evangelical Democrat would fly now. It's a really bad situation with very entrenched beliefs.
Gotta show off that fictional rape baby. OR ELSE! It’s just a highly religiously influenced state fighting against the people not giving a shit about bad religious fiction.
“Don’t you take that rape baby display down! My fictional god raped that child to make that fictional baby, and you’re going to look at it every single year of your life!”
As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), apart from religious texts and later references to the religion, his existence is only recorded by one historian (josephus), but it is under dispute whether that text is authentic.
A google of "historicity of Jesus" will turn up some results. The wiki link is one of at least three very similar wiki articles on the topic.
tl/dr - it's generally accepted that Jesus was a historical person but all that can be confirmed from written accounts is 1) he was baptized and 2) he was crucified.
Of course people can and do question the independent contemporary Jewish (Josephus) or Roman (Tacitus and Pliny) sources, but they seem to be in the minority. Even the less shady version of Josephus's passage suggests that he was talking about a person who existed.
I don't have anything to add since I'm not Christian - merely surrounded by Christians. I've done a fair bit of reading trying to figure out what's going on with all that.
The story changes depending on which book of the new testament you read, but it essentially boils down to
Mary becomes pregnant out of nowhere and is somehow aware of it and that it was god who did it (but never agreed to it)
Mary is visited by an angel who tells her god will impregnate her very soon
Mary is visited by an angel who tells her god will impregnate her very soon, Mary is afraid but says yes
I’m going to be extremely charitable here and go with that last option, that’s still kinda messed up.
We already know that a power imbalance can make it seem like you have to accept their advances “or else” (think Harvey Weinstein or someone groomed by their priest or a family member).
The power imbalance here is between a teenage girl and the person she knows, from the Old Testament/Torah, to be an all-powerful, vengeful, genocidal, and sadistic deity. She doesn’t really have a choice but to go ahead with it. Does that sound like real consent to you?
How are you mystified by this concept? Sex should involve both parties agreeing that they are okay with what is going on. This also includes fertilization without sex. I, and no other male who has ever lived or will ever live, doesn’t have the right to just make a woman have my child without her agreeing. Mary did not consent to any of this in the story. It is rape.
Good thing not a single aspect of the story occurred. Every nativity scene you have seen in your life depicts the fictional story of a woman raped. Maybe I shouldn’t have used the word woman given her age and should have said girl instead given her age.
Because it’s a very weird distinction to be taught in a religion? “Yes, Mary agreed to having sex but she did not agree to getting pregnant.” This just doesn’t make sense at a time when women were treated worse than a man’s property.
Mary did not consent to any of this in the story.
So like, did she say no? Were guards sent to capture her? I’m genuinely curious about the story being told, but all you’ve people done was tell me “she didn’t consent.” Is that it? Is that what the Bible says?
The fact that you people are so averse to sharing this simple information with me makes me dubious of its existence.
I also did an internet search because you seem pretty useless, “was Mary raped in the Bible” and the only explanations I am seeing for that is that she was underage. This is what I asked about in the beginning of this comment chain.
I feel like if it was so clear and obvious Mary was raped in the Bible, it would be easier to find information on it!
But that’s okay. It’s already clear you’re lying and that’s why you keep trying to send me on a wild goose chase. I’ve seen it many times, and it happens pretty much without fail when pressing people like you for evidence to support their claims.
Looks like everyone who says she was raped say it’s only because she was underage. You’re afraid to admit that’s the only reason why because you are arguing in bad-faith (heh.)
Seems like a bit of a power dynamic problem… one could argue Job consented to all his bad treatment by trusting in the lord. Abraham was gonna kill his son. But I’d wager if I asked them, as a stranger, there’s no way any of them would consent. It’s the threat of etarnal fire that inspires such devotion and sacrifice. Bit of an unhealthy relationship if you ask me… my Christian parents are happy to ruin their lives for a better afterlife - including eroding their relationships with their kids. Bit sad. If I did believe in a god, I wouldn’t believe that he sent us here to make us suffer and make sacrifices.
But you are correct, the gospel I was looking at didn’t mention Mary giving consent. Just one of the problems of having 4 conflicting accounts…
Funny how "quit bombing refugee camps and 'safe' passage ways" or "end the apartheid state that encourages Hamas violence" or "stop the Palestinian genocide" or "stop stealing land and homes" are missing from your list, as is "Israel should stop funding Hamas".
Curuous that you don't seem to want to stop the causes, just the reactions to the decades of Israeli barbarity 🤔
gen·o·cide /ˈjenəˌsīd/ noun the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
From what I understand, the actions of Hamas are clearly fell under this definition. Their goal is to kill all Jews. I don’t see how actions of IDF could be classified as genocide, since their declared goal is to kill the Hamas leaders, and not some nation or ethnic group.
I don’t really care what you want to call it, it’s mass murder. If they cared about keeping civilian casualties to a minimum, the death toll wouldn’t be this horrendous.
I agree with you on that. From the personal perspective it doesn’t matter how you call it. However most of the officials do care about the definitions, and when you write to your representative you might want to have it in mind.
It’s not only about textual definition, think of the moral side of this conflict and try to justify killing 50 innocents for one alleged military target and how many more civilians need to die?
Was the Hamas attack genocide? They definitely intended as such; and killed over a thousand people indiscriminately with the aim of causing as much damage as possible.
But you cannot look at Israel’s actions and say what they’re doing isn’t genocide. That “this is war” is no excuse for the sheer scale of war crimes being committed.
bbc.co.uk
Top